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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112 and claim object(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previously noted claim rejections under 35 USC 112 as well as claim objection(s) has been withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments filed, see pages 6-8, filed 7/20/2026 with respect to claim rejection(s) 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that English et al. does not disclose or teach “sets of sensing elements spaced apart by one or more light inactive regions, where each set is configured to sense a single reflected light spot,” as newly amended and now recited by independent claims 1 and 31. The claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole, i.e., among various embodiments of English et al. either collectively and/or individually does teach of these newly amended claim limitations and would have been render obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Specifically, English et al. teaches in Figures 11-12 that [0112 “… In FIG. 11A two pixels side by side… These two pixels are read by an image sensor with no gaps in between the pixels and represent a first FOV of scene. In FIG. 11B, the FOV is shifted slightly to the right by a sub-pixel’s pitch to a second FOV and now the two pixels… there are effectively half size pixels with their own unique values, thus improving resolution of the image sensor”]. Also, [0113 “… In FIG. 12A, two pixels side by side representative of a first FOV… However, in contrast to FIG. 11A, there is a gap in between the two pixels. This could represent dead space between the pixels or missing pixels… respectively, and it can be seen that the second FOV is shifted across by an entire pixel’s… the first FOV and the second FOV are combined by interleaving”]. Furthermore, English et al. clearly teaches and suggests that wherein each sets of sensing elements (e.g., “two pixels side by side” and first FOV being a “set” and second FOV being the second “set”) comprises a plurality of sensing elements (e.g., 48/78 or 52/83) configured to sense a single reflected light spot (e.g., Figs. 11D, 12A, 12B and/or first FOV vs. second FOV), wherein a different sets of sensing elements are spaced apart (e.g., “a gap,” “dead space,” “missing pixel,” or 1st FOV vs. 2nd FOV) by one or more light inactive region.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, including terms like “each set,” “configured to sense,” “different sets,” “spaced apart,” therefore, there may be different ways to cover these newly amended claim limitations by teachings of English et al. For example, see Figures 7-10. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In addition, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the newly claimed limitation may be covered by other parts or embodiments of English et al. as well as the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Claim(s) 1, 20-23, 26-29, 31, and 118-121 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English et al. (US 2020/0271841) in view of Liao et al. (US 20210109205).
Regarding claims 1 and 31 English et al. (US 2020/0271841) teaches a LIDAR having dynamic alignment capabilities (e.g., [0030 “… a hybrid beam steering apparatus will be of use in many scanning applications, particular in LIDARs, and automotive sensors”], the LIDAR comprises: an optical unit (e.g., Figs., 1, 2, 7-10, 13-14, 16-21, 25, 26, 36, 37, 52, 58, 62), that comprises a sensing unit (e.g., detector array), a processor (e.g., controller) and a compensation; wherein the sensing unit comprises a sensing array (e.g., 250, 360, 6024, [0025 “… using an imaging array comprising an LCPG”]) that comprises sets of sensing elements that are configured to sense reflected light impinging on sensing regions of the sets of sensing elements of the sensing array (e.g., [0088 “… imaging devices such as depth sensing imagers, infrared sensors, time of flight sensors and other image capture devices can be comprised”], during one or more sensing periods (e.g., “capture cycle,” “frame time,” “time interval”); wherein each sets of sensing elements (e.g., “two pixels side by side” and first FOV being a “set” and second FOV being the second “set”) comprises a plurality of sensing elements (e.g., 48/78 or 52/83) configured to sense a single reflected light spot (e.g., Figs. 11D, 12A, 12B and/or first FOV vs. second FOV), wherein a different sets of sensing elements are spaced apart (e.g., “a gap,” “dead space,” “missing pixel,” or 1st FOV vs. 2nd FOV) by one or more light inactive region; wherein the sensing unit is configured to generate detection signals by the sensing elements of the sensing array; wherein the processor is configured to determine, based on at least some of the detection signals, one or more optical unit alignments related to the optical unit (e.g., Figs., 39-46, 63) of the LIDAR; and wherein the compensation unit is configured to compensate for the one or more optical unit alignment unit (e.g., [0006 “… counteract against the movement by the sensor, the LCPG is capable of steering adjustments to adjust the angel of the incoming light to ensure that the light received from each part of the object during each capture cycle hits the same sensing position on the sensor”], [0345 “… advantage of using wavelength turnability in addition to steering using one or more LCPGs’] [0268 “… such solution, an electromagnetic beam can be steered at large and small intervals depending upon what is required for a particular application. An advantage of using wavelength turnability in addition to steering using one or more LCPGs is that fewer LCPGs in the stack may be used to achieve the desired degree of control over steering of the electromagnetic beam”]).
English et al. does not explicitly teach or the use of the word “misalignment” where the process is configured to find a pitch error based on the two or more local misalignments, find a uniform defocus condition based on the two or more local misalignments, or search for the at least one local misalignment by comparing sensing elements.
However, English et al. provides solution to counteracting any movement of the image sensor, moving objects, as well as [0112, 0125 “… the FOV is shifted slightly to the right by the sub-pixel’s pitch to a second FOV and now the two pixels have values 56 and 90, respectively… its sensing area is uniform… thus improving resolution of the image sensor… Frame 80 represents a FOV that is shifted to the right relative to frame 70 and is used to obtain a second intermediate image the electromagnetic beam is steered to the required field to view by the correct amount relative to the position of the image sensor 10 during that capture cycle”]).
Related prior art, Liao et al., dynamic calibration of LIDAR sensors, further teaches that e.g., Figs., 6A-6B, [0049-0050, 0053 “… the vehicle 420 has a pitch error with respect to the target 440… amount of vertical shift can relate to the amount of pitch error… LiDAR sensor 410 can determine the amount of pitch error of the LiDAR sensor 410 based on the amount of vertical shift… deviation from the expected alignment can include yaw error, roll error, pitch error, and translational errors”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt teachings Liao et al. into teachings of English et al. by incorporating the compensation of potential pitch error correction to increase the accuracy of the LIDAR sensor calibration, adjustment, it’s tuneability, and more. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.
Also, regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to claim method for dynamic alignment of an optical unit of a LIDAR are similar to product/device of English et al. and Liao et al. as described above. The claims would have been obvious because the claimed technique/method of was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by English et al. in view of Liao et al. as explained above. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Liao et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 1, wherein centers of adjacent sets of sensing elements are spaced apart by an inter-set distance that equals a pitch of an array of reflected light spots obtained at an absence of misalignment (e.g., [0060 “… reference image can be either a simulated image or an image taken during factory calibration. A minimization technique (e.g., using a gradient descent algorithm) can be then used to determine the transform parameters… pitch error, roll error, and yaw error that minimizes the difference between the currently acquired image and the stored reference image”]). See above for the modification/combination and its rationale statement.
Regarding claim 21, Liao et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 20, wherein the processor is configured to search for a pitch misalignment. See above for the modification/combination and its rationale statement.
Regarding claim 22. English et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 1, wherein the compensation unit is configured to set a temperature of at least one element of the optical unit (e.g., [0195, 0268, “… adjusting the wavelength of the illumination source by controlling temperature and/or current”]).
Regarding claim 23, English et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 1, wherein the compensation unit is configured to change at least one of a position or an orientation of at least one optical element of the optical unit (e.g., Figs., 39-46, 63).
Regarding claim 26, English et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 1, that is configured to control a temperature of at least one component of the optical unit.
Regarding claim 27, English et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 1, wherein the one or more optical unit alignment comprises a temperature related optical unit alignment.
Regarding claim 28, English et al. and Liao et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 1, wherein the determining comprises generating generalized detection data that differs from scene specific data (e.g., English et al. [0038 “…raw data of a point cloud acquired by the LiDAR sensor” 0106 “… calibration data… GPS data, IMU data, Map data, and the like” Liao et al. [0060 “… stored reference image”])
Regarding claim 29, English et al. and Liao et al. further teaches the LIDAR according to claim 28 wherein the generating of the generalized detection data comprises averaging detection signals obtained during a sensing period of at least one second (e.g., English et al. [0271 “… order to then obtain an increased resolution image… averaging…”], alternatively, Liao et al. [0105 “… measurements can be repeated a number of time, and the results can be averaged to account for”]).
Regarding claims 118 and 119, English et al. further teaches the processor configured to find a displacement condition based on the one or more optical unit misalignments (e.g., see description for various embodiments to steer light beams with LCPGs, detect light received via LCPGs, and measure/control detected light as well as beam splitter, beam steering, mirrors, LCPG coarse, LCWG fine, Etc.).
Regarding claims 120 and 121, English et al. further teaches wherein the sensing elements in a set are adjacent to one another (e.g., Figs 7-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barrows et al. (US 2016/0357189 A1) – localization method and apparatus
Xu et al. (US 12,272,305 B2) – display substrate and display device
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB Y CHOI whose telephone number is (469)295-9060. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays from 5:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CT.
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.
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.
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights