Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 01/24/2023. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keilaf et al. (US 20180143324 A1, “Keilaf”).
Regarding claim 3, Keilaf teaches a laser radiation device (Fig. 6A, para 200, Lidar system 100) comprising a first illumination laser beam path (Fig. 6A shows on the right a first illumination laser beam path with a field of view 120A) and a second illumination laser beam path (Fig. 6A shows on the left a second illumination laser beam path with a field of view 120B),
wherein laser radiation propagating in the first illumination laser beam path exits from a first aperture of the laser radiation device and laser radiation propagating in the second illumination laser beam path exits from a second aperture of the laser radiation device that is spatially separated from the first aperture (Fig. 6A shows the laser radiation propagating in the first beam path exits from a first aperture of the device and laser radiation propagating in the second beam path exits from a second aperture that is spatially separated from the first aperture. See also, fig. 6B), and
wherein the illumination laser beam paths overlap, characterized in that an overlap of the two illumination laser beam paths occurs only at a distance from the apertures that is greater than a predetermined minimum distance for each individual one of the two beam paths ( the first and second illumination laser beam paths are arranged such that the beam paths are separated in a near-field region adjacent to the apertures and overlap only at a distance from the apertures, as illustrated in Fig. 6A (See also, fig. 6B), thereby defining a predetermined minimum distance for each beam path before overlap occurs. Accordingly, Keilaf teaches that the overlap of the two illumination laser beam paths occurs only at a distance greater than a predetermined minimum distance from the apertures.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Mo et al. (US 20210405245 A1, “Mo”).
Regarding claim 5, Mo teaches a method for adjusting an illumination laser radiant flux (Fig. 3. See also, abstract, fig. 1 para 26, 48; IR transmitter 118 or IR transmitter 120 controls by processor 104 to emit IR light),
wherein a distance of a target to be illuminated by the illumination laser is measured with a distance measuring device different from the illumination laser (Fig. 1, para 27, ToF sensor 122 may comprise a ToF transmitter 124 and a ToF receiver 126…. ToF sensor 122 may be configured to determine how far the one or more objects are from hybrid sensor 100 using the roundtrip time from when the laser was transmitted by ToF transmitter 124 until the reflected laser was received by ToF receiver 126),
characterized in that an illumination laser radiant flux of the illumination laser is determined as a function of the measured distance (Mo (Fig. 3, para 34) discloses that the processor receives the measured ToF distance and uses it to control IR sensor operation and also teaches correlating distance measurements with IR sensor operation to improve accuracy and efficiency. So, Mo uses the measured distance to control IR illumination behavior. See also, para 37-38 and 52), and
in that the target is subsequently illuminated by the illumination laser, wherein the illumination laser is operated such that it emits the determined illumination laser radiant flux (Fig. 3, para 27, 29, 51-52; discloses that after ToF measurement and calibration, the IR transmitters continue emitting infrared illumination under processor control and the IR transmitters operate according to parameters informed by the measured distance (post-calibration)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf in view of Mo.
Regarding claim 4, Keilaf teaches the laser radiation device according to claim 3, wherein the laser radiation device is operated such that the laser radiation propagating in the illumination laser beam paths is fed into the illumination laser beam paths in the form of illumination laser radiation pulses (Fig. 6A in combination with the rejection of claim 3)
Keilaf fails to explicitly teach wherein the illumination laser radiation pulses are fed alternately into the first illumination laser beam path and the second illumination laser beam path from one illumination laser radiation pulse to the next illumination laser radiation pulse.
However, Mo teaches operating a sensing device having multiple infrared transmitters such that the transmitters emit pulsed infrared radiation under processor control, wherein the transmitters are selectively activated in a time-controlled manner, with one infrared transmitter being energized while another is inactive in order to associate detected reflections with the currently active transmitter and avoid cross-talk (Fig. 1, para 26-27. See also, fig. 3 step 340 and the rejection of claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the illumination laser beam paths of Keilaf using Mo’s pulsed and selectively activated infrared transmitter scheme, such that illumination laser radiation pulses are fed alternately into the first illumination laser beam path and the second illumination laser beam path from one pulse to the next, in order to improve signal discrimination and detection accuracy.
Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of Alameh et al. (US 8319170 B2, “Alameh”).
Regarding claim 1, Mo teaches a method for operating a laser radiation device that has an illumination laser (Fig. 1, para 26, First IR transmitter 118 or second IR transmitter 120 may be a low powered IR diode configured to emit (e.g., transmit, irradiate) IR light. See also, fig. 3) and an active laser (Fig. 1, para 27, ToF transmitter 124 may be a Vertical Cavity Surface-Emitting Laser (VCSEL) configured to transmit a laser. See also, fig. 3), and
wherein, in a first operating mode of the laser radiation device in which the active laser does not emit any active laser radiation, the illumination laser is operated (Para 26-27, the TOF sensor (transmitter) is inactive (dormant) while IR runs.) such that its illumination laser radiation has a first illumination laser radiant flux (Para 26, first IR transmitter 118 and/or second IR transmitter 120 may be a low powered IR diode configured to emit (e.g., transmit, irradiate) IR light at a steady (e.g., constant, continuous) rate),
wherein, in a second operating mode of the laser radiation device in which the active laser emits active laser radiation (Para 27-28, ToF sensor may be activated… ToF transmitter … emit… a laser beam. See also, Fig. 3, step 340),
Mo fails to explicitly teach the illumination laser is operated such that its illumination laser radiation has a second illumination laser radiant flux that is greater than the first illumination laser radiant flux.
However, Alameh teaches that a proximity/optical emitter (Col 5: line 56 to col 6: line 5) may be operated in different modes (including standby/active contextual modes) (col 3: lines 13-21) and that adjustments are made to pulse power and pulse repetition rate (Col 2: line 67 to col 3: line 3; col 7: lines 22-35.) to affect sensor range and power consumption (i.e., lowering pulse power/repetition in a lower-power mode and increasing them in a higher-performance/active mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mo’s IR illumination operation so that in the first mode (ToF dormant) the IR illumination uses a lower radiant flux and lower pulse repetition frequency, and in the second mode (ToF active) the IR illumination uses a higher radiant flux and higher pulse repetition frequency, as taught by Alameh, in order to conserve energy during monitoring/standby while improving detection robustness/measurement reliability during the active ranging/calibration operation, yielding predictable results (reduced power draw in the first mode; improved sensing performance in the second mode).
Regarding claim 2, Mo, in view of Alameh, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the illumination laser is operated in the first operating mode and in the second operating mode such that it emits the illumination laser radiation in the form of illumination laser radiation pulses, wherein a repetition frequency with which the illumination laser radiation pulses are emitted is less in the first operating mode than in the second operating mode. Mo teaches operating an illumination laser in the form of pulsed infrared illumination radiation during different operating states of a sensing system, including a lower-activity monitoring state and a higher-activity measurement state (Mo, e.g., Figs. 1 and 3, describing pulsed IR emission and state-dependent sensor operation).
Alameh teaches that a proximity sensor emitting pulsed illumination radiation is operated with different pulse repetition frequencies depending on an operating mode, wherein a lower repetition rate is used in a low-power or standby mode and a higher repetition rate is used in an active sensing mode to improve detection performance (Alameh, see rejection of claim 1, col 6: line 65 to col 7: line 12 and lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate Mo’s pulsed illumination laser with a lower pulse repetition frequency in a first operating mode in which no active laser emission occurs and with a higher pulse repetition frequency in a second operating mode in which active laser emission occurs, as taught by Smith, in order to balance power consumption and sensing performance.
Regarding claim 6, Mo fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 5, wherein the illumination laser radiant flux is determined such that it also decreases as the distance decreases.
However, Alameh discloses adaptively adjusting infrared proximity sensor output by modifying pulse power, pulse amplitude, pulse duration, and pulse repetition rate to affect sensing range and reduce emitted energy when an object is in close proximity, thereby reducing the effective optical output intensity of the infrared emitter (Col 2: line 67 and col 3: line 3 and col 7: lines 22-29, See also, claim 5). In optical sensing systems, modifying pulse power, duration, and repetition rate directly controls the average emitted optical intensity. Alameh therefore teaches reducing emitted infrared intensity when an object is closer to the sensor, as recited in claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Smith’s adaptive reduction of infrared emission intensity into Sloan’s distance-based illumination control in order to reduce power consumption and ensure eye-safety while maintaining reliable detection, which is a known design consideration in proximity and illumination systems. The combination merely applies a known intensity-control technique (Alameh) to a known distance-aware illumination system (Mo) and yields predictable results.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mo in view of Keilaf.
Regarding claim 7, Mo teaches a method for adjusting parameters of an illumination laser (Fig. 3. See also, abstract, fig. 1 para 26, 48; IR transmitter 118 or IR transmitter 120 controls by processor 104 to emit IR light), comprising the steps of:
measuring a distance of a target to be illuminated by the illumination laser (Fig. 1, para 27, ToF sensor 122 may comprise a ToF transmitter 124 and a ToF receiver 126…. ToF sensor 122 may be configured to determine how far the one or more objects are from hybrid sensor 100 using the roundtrip time from when the laser was transmitted by ToF transmitter 124 until the reflected laser was received by ToF receiver 126. See also, fig. 4, para 39-31, the bathroom is a target to be illuminated),
determining parameters of the illumination laser as a function of the measured distance (Mo (Fig. 3, para 34, 37-38. See also, para 52) discloses using distance information obtained from the ToF sensor to determine operating and calibration parameters of the infrared illumination system),
emitting at least one laser radiation pulse, directed to the target, of the illumination laser operated with the determined parameters (Fig. 3, para 35, 37. See also, fig. 4 para 39-42. Mo discloses emitting infrared or laser radiation pulses toward the detected object after determining distance-based operating parameters for the illumination source),
checking whether laser radiation of the emitted laser radiation pulse is reflected to an optical sensor (Mo (Fig. 1, para 26, 27. See also, para 35, 37) discloses detecting reflected laser radiation using an optical sensor, including an infrared receiver (Fig. 1, IR receiver 128) and a ToF receiver (Fig. 1, ToF receiver 126) configured to receive reflected radiation from the object) and,
if this is the case, determining the distance of an object that reflected the laser pulse as a function of the reflected and detected laser radiation (Mo (Para 27, 37) discloses calculating object distance using the ToF sensor based on the time delay between transmitted and reflected laser pulses. See also, fig. 4, para 39-42, the hybrid sensor may detect the presence of a person),
wherein the distance of the object is compared with the distance of the target and in that, if the distance of the object is less than the distance of the target (Mo discloses comparing measured object distances with predefined distances or calibration baselines, including comparisons across detection zones to determine relative object proximity (Fig. 4, para 39-43 disclose multiple detection zones (entering, standing, sitting) that are defined by distance ranges. Determining whether an object is within a nearer zone vs a farther zone is a distance comparison. Fig. 3 (calibration process) discloses measuring object distance using Tof, determining IR derived distance, comparing measured distance values to calibrations baselines. See also, fig. 8).),
Mo fails to explicitly teach parameters of the illumination laser are modified in such a way that an exposure limit value (EGW) at the location of the object is not exceeded by the laser radiation of the illumination laser impinging there.
However, Keilaf discloses a closed-loop laser control system that updates laser pulse parameters, including pulse power intensity, pulse width, pulse repetition rate, and duty cycle, based on detected scene signals (Para 559, 564), and that such parameters are constrained by an optical budget derived from eye-safety limitations (Para 565). Keilaf additionally teaches decreasing the amount of projected light to reduce instantaneous detection distance in response to situational assessment (Para 573).
It would have been obvious to apply Keilaf’s eye-safety-based laser emission control to Mo’s illumination system to limit emitted laser energy when an object is closer than the target and thereby prevent excessive exposure at the object location.
Regarding claim 8, Mo, in view of Keilaf teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the distance of the target is measured with a distance measuring device different from the illumination laser (Mo discloses measuring object distance using a time-of-flight sensor that is separate from the infrared illumination transmitter, wherein the ToF sensor includes a dedicated transmitter and receiver distinct from the illumination source (Fig. 1, para 26 (IR receiver 128 may be a photodetector or a photoreceptor configured to detect IR light transmitted by first IR transmitter 118 and/or second IR transmitter 120. In this regard, IR receiver 128 may detect an object proximately located to hybrid sensor 100 if a certain amount and/or intensity of IR light was detected) and para 27 (ToF sensor 122 may be configured to determine how far the one or more objects are from hybrid sensor 100 using the roundtrip time from when the laser was transmitted by ToF transmitter 124 until the reflected laser was received by ToF receiver 126.).).
Regarding claim 9, Mo, in view of Keilaf teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the laser radiation impinging on the location of the object is modified by reducing an average intensity of the laser radiation of the illumination laser (Keilaf discloses dynamically updating laser pulse parameters, including pulse power intensity, pulse duty cycle, and pulse repetition rate, via a closed-loop controller based on detected scene signals, thereby reducing the average emitted optical intensity (Keilaf para 559 and 564). Keilaf further discloses decreasing the amount of projected light in response to situational assessment and optical budget constraints, thereby reducing the average laser intensity impinging on closer scene elements (Keilaf para 573). Reducing average laser intensity when an object is closer is a predictable and well-known laser safety technique to limit exposure while maintaining system functionality.).
Regarding claim 10, Mo, in view of Keilaf teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the average intensity of the laser radiation is modified by reducing a repetition rate of the illumination laser (Keilaf explicitly discloses controlling and updating laser pulse repetition rate as a pulse parameter via a closed-loop controller based on detected scene signals (Keilaf para 559 and 564). It would have been obvious to reduce pulse repetition rate to lower average intensity as a predictable design choice for managing laser exposure and optical budget constraints.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Book et al. (US 7006203 B1), teaches Video Guidance Sensor System with Integrated Range finding
Peter M. Livingston (US 6343766 B1), teaches Shared Aperture Dichroic Active Tracker with Background Subtraction
Warm et al. (US 5600434 A), teaches Apparatus for Defending Against An Attacking Missile
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645