DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohani et al. (US 2019/0025431), hereinafter Rohani, in view of Pulikkaseril et al. (US 2023/0341526), hereinafter Pulikkaseril.
In re. claim 1, Rohani teaches a system, comprising: a LIDAR system (LIDAR scanning system (100)) (para [0041]) configured to scan a system output signal in a field of view of the LIDAR system (figs. 2B-2D); the LIDAR system including a signal director (optical switch (130)) (fig. 1) configured to direct an outgoing LIDAR signal to any one of multiple different waveguides (fiber optic cables not shown) (para [0078]) (via layer by layer, port by port scanning) (para [0102]), the system output signal including light (from laser (120)) from the outgoing LIDAR signal, and the system output signal traveling away from the LIDAR system in different directions in response to the outgoing LIDAR signal being directed to different waveguides (fig. 3A); electronics (110) configured to operate the signal director such that during a first scan of a region of the field of view by the system output signal the outgoing LIDAR signal is directed to a first selection of the waveguides (when scanning a 360 degree field of view) (fig. 3A).
Rohani fails to disclose the electronics also being configured to operate the signal director such that during a second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal the outgoing LIDAR signal is directed to a second selection of the waveguides, the second selection of the waveguides having fewer of the waveguides than the first selection of the waveguides.
Pulikkaseril teaches the electronics also being configured to operate the signal director such that during a second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal the outgoing LIDAR signal is directed to a second selection of the waveguides, the second selection of the waveguides having fewer of the waveguides than the first selection of the waveguides (a lesser field of view scan compared to the full field of view scan) (para [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Rohani to incorporate the teachings of Pulikkaseril to have the electronics configured to operate the signal director such that during a second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal the outgoing LIDAR signal is directed to a second selection of the waveguides, the second selection of the waveguides having fewer of the waveguides than the first selection of the waveguides, as scanning through a lower number of wavelength channels allows for completion of a scan in lesser amount of time. A lesser field of view resulting from selection of a lower number of wavelength channels for the light source to scan through can be scanned more often within a given period of time. Scanning more often within a given period of time may be useful in certain circumstances, for example if one or more fast moving objects are detected that need to be tracked (Pulikkaseril, para [0124]).
In re. claims 2 and 12, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Rohani) teach the electronics generate LIDAR data for multiple sample regions that are illuminated by the system output signal, the LIDAR data for a sample region indicating a distance between the LIDAR system and an object in the sample region (a digital signal processor (DSP) which uses the output from the detector subsystem to create a determine a distance from the LIDAR scanning system to one or more objects in the environment of the LIDAR scanning system) (para [0045]).
In re. claims 3 and 13, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Rohani) teach the system of claim 2, wherein a portion of the sample regions illuminated by the system output signal are in the same location within the field of view during the first scan and during the second scan (when the lesser field of view is 180 degrees) (figs. 3A-3B).
In re. claims 4 and 14, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Rohani) teach the region of the field of view is the field of view (fig. 3A).
In re. claims 5 and 15, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Pulikkaseril) teach during the second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal the outgoing LIDAR signal is directed to only one of the waveguides (second set of one wavelength channel) (para [0127]).
In re. claims 6 and 16, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Rohani) teach the field of view can be defined by different axes (figs. 2C-2D).
Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Pulikkaseril) teach a spatial resolution on a first one of the axes is higher during the second scan of the field than during the first scan of the field of view (vertical axis increases to 128 points in scan 1900c) (para [0188]).
In re. claims 7 and 17, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Pulikkaseril) teach the spatial resolution on a second one of the axes is lower during the second scan of the field than during the first scan of the field of view (horizontal axis decreases to 8 points in scan 1900C) (para [0188]), the second axis being perpendicular to the first axis (fig. 19).
In re. claims 8 and 18, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Rohani) teach each of the waveguides in the second selection of waveguides are also included in the first selection of waveguides (when the lesser field of view is 180 degrees) (figs. 3A-3B).
In re. claims 9 and 19, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Pulikkaseril) teach the electronics are configured to operate the signal director such that during a third scan of a region of the field of view by the system output signal the outgoing LIDAR signal is directed to the first selection of the waveguides, the second scan occurring between the third scan and the first scan (third scan) (para [0164]).
In re. claims 10 and 20, Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Rohani) teach the system includes one or more beam steerers (136) (fig. 1).
Rohani as modified by Pulikkaseril (see Pulikkaseril) teach the electronics are configured to operate the one or more beam steerers (800A-C) (fig. 8A) such that the one or more beam steerers steer the system output signal within the field of view during the first scan and during the second scan (para [0133]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Rohani to incorporate the teachings of Pulikkaseril to have the electronics configured to operate the one or more beam steerers such that the one or more beam steerers steer the system output signal within the field of view during the first scan and during the second scan, for the purpose of providing customization of the transmitting optics based on the application requirements (Rohani, para [0051]).
In re. claim 11, Rohani teaches a method of operating a system, comprising: scanning a system output signal in a field of view (figs. 2B-2D) of a LIDAR system (LIDAR scanning system (100)) (para [0041]); directing an outgoing LIDAR signal to any one of multiple different waveguides (fiber optic cables not shown) (para [0078]) (via layer by layer, port by port scanning) (para [0102]), the system output signal including light from the outgoing LIDAR signal (from laser (120)), and the system output signal traveling away from the LIDAR system in different directions in response to the outgoing LIDAR signal being directed to different waveguides (fig. 3A); directing the outgoing LIDAR signal to a first selection of the waveguides during a first scan of a region of the field of view by the system output signal (when scanning a 360 degree field of view) (fig. 3A)
Rohani fails to disclose directing the outgoing LIDAR signal to a second selection of the waveguides during a second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal, the second selection of the waveguides having fewer of the waveguides than the first selection of the waveguides.
Pulikkaseril teaches directing the outgoing LIDAR signal to a second selection of the waveguides during a second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal, the second selection of the waveguides having fewer of the waveguides than the first selection of the waveguides (a lesser field of view scan compared to the full field of view scan) (para [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Rohani to incorporate the teachings of Pulikkaseril to direct the outgoing LIDAR signal to a second selection of the waveguides during a second scan of the region of the field of view by the system output signal, the second selection of the waveguides having fewer of the waveguides than the first selection of the waveguides, as scanning through a lower number of wavelength channels allows for completion of a scan in lesser amount of time. A lesser field of view resulting from selection of a lower number of wavelength channels for the light source to scan through can be scanned more often within a given period of time. Scanning more often within a given period of time may be useful in certain circumstances, for example if one or more fast moving objects are detected that need to be tracked (Pulikkaseril, para [0124]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
