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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments of Claims 2 and 4, and withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and the claim objection, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 7 of the remarks that Van Den Heuvel does not teach the “master-slave (dependency) relationship between the drive waveform and the field of view” claimed in the instant application. It is the examiner’s position that no such relationship is claimed in Claim 1 or the dependent claims. The phrase “which is used to move an irradiation position of the spot, according to a size of an overall field of view of the light detecting unit” does not claim that “the operational sequence is such that after the field of view changes, the spot irradiation position is adjusted to match that field of view” as is suggested in the remarks. Rather, the claim language merely suggests a relationship between the spot position and the field of view of the detecting unit, but not necessarily that irradiation position is adjusted to match a changed field of view.
Applicant argues on Page 8 of the remarks that Van Den Heuvel does not disclose varying a drive waveform of a scanning angle. Van Den Heuvel discloses in at least [0017] that the angle actuators may be electric motors, in which case the applied voltage used to drive them (start and stop them) necessarily constitutes a variable drive waveform.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Den Heuvel (EP 2,539,735 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel discloses a sensor device comprising ([0015]: “Figure 2 shows a laser radar device comprising…”):
a scanning unit ([0015]: “Adjustable platform 20 comprises a platform azimuth adjustment motor 200 and a platform elevation adjustment motor 202 to rotate adjustable platform 20 around the vertical axis and an axis perpendicular to the vertical (perpendicular to the plane of figure 1), to provide for different azimuth and elevation angles respectively.”; [0016]: “Beam forming optics 24 comprises a splitter 240, a rotatable reflector 242 and an angle actuator 249 arranged to adjust the orientation of reflector 242 relative to the beam from splitter 240.”; [0017]; [0034]: “ it should be appreciated that instead one or both of these angles may be changed on the platform, for example by means of a rotatable mirror or by means of relative movement of laser 22 and a lens.”);
a light detecting unit configured to detect reflected light of a spot generated by the scanning unit (Figure 2, element 28; [0018]; [0037]) ; and
a control unit configured to vary a drive waveform of a scanning angle of the scanning unit, which is used to move an irradiation position of the spot, according to a size of an overall field of view of the light detecting unit (Figure 2, element 29; [0017]: “Reflector 242 redirects the second beam axis 246 along a third beam axis 248 at an adjustable angle to first beam axis 244. Angle actuator 249 is used to vary this angle. Angle actuator 249 may comprise an electric motor for example, any driver mechanism with a coil, a piezo-electric actuator etc.”; [0020]: “Control computer 29 is configured to control angle actuator 249 to make the angle between first and third beam axes 244, 248 smaller when control computer 29 controls platform elevation adjustment motor 202 to make the elevation angle closer to the horizontal.”).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to increase the number of segments in a predetermined direction followed by the irradiation position in a case where a length of the overall field of view in the predetermined direction is a predetermined first length ([0025]), as compared with the number of segments in the predetermined direction followed by the irradiation position in a case where the length of the overall field of view in the predetermined direction is a second length shorter than the first length ([0025]: “ In an embodiment the detector used with the objective 260b with the smallest focal length is tilted and/or this objective 260b is configured to provide for image size expansion on the detector in the direction perpendicular to the elevation direction relative to the image size in the elevation direction. The expansion may be set in correspondence with the anisotropy of the beam profile. This improves signal to noise ratio.”).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to expand a range followed by the irradiation position in a case where the size of the overall field of view is a predetermined first size, as compared with a range followed by the irradiation position in a case where the size of the overall field of view is a second size smaller than the first size ([0025]: “ In an embodiment the detector used with the objective 260b with the smallest focal length is tilted and/or this objective 260b is configured to provide for image size expansion on the detector in the direction perpendicular to the elevation direction relative to the image size in the elevation direction. The expansion may be set in correspondence with the anisotropy of the beam profile. This improves signal to noise ratio.”).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to emit a plurality of portions arranged in a predetermined direction within the spot to the irradiation position in a predetermined time section, and to emit at least one portion of the plurality of portions to a position located between positions irradiated with the plurality of portions in the predetermined time section, in the other time section different from the predetermined time section (Figure 3; [0021]: “The width of the beam profile transverse to the elevation direction is substantially kept constant, but the height of the beam profile in the elevation direction is increased with increased deviation between the elevation angle of the beam axis and the horizontal. A variation a height to width ratio of the beam profile from one to two may be used for example.” Illumination of different elevation angles necessarily occurs at different times.).
Regarding Claim 5, Van Den Heuvel discloses a control device comprising (Figure 2, Element 29, “control computer”):
a control unit configured to vary a drive waveform of a scanning angle of a scanning unit, which is used to move an irradiation position of a spot generated by the scanning unit (Figure 2, element 29; [0017]: “Reflector 242 redirects the second beam axis 246 along a third beam axis 248 at an adjustable angle to first beam axis 244. Angle actuator 249 is used to vary this angle. Angle actuator 249 may comprise an electric motor for example, any driver mechanism with a coil, a piezo-electric actuator etc.”; [0020]: “Control computer 29 is configured to control angle actuator 249 to make the angle between first and third beam axes 244, 248 smaller when control computer 29 controls platform elevation adjustment motor 202 to make the elevation angle closer to the horizontal.”), according to a size of an overall field of view of a light detecting unit configured to detect reflected light of the spot ([0024]: “In an embodiment control computer 29 is configured to switch between using the outputs of different detectors of detection arrangement 28 in correspondence with control of elevation adjustment motor 202. This is used to adjust the size of the field of view captured by detection arrangement 28. This is used to adjust the field of view captured by detection arrangement 28.”; [0025]: “Preferably, the size of the range of elevation angles that is imaged onto the sensitive area is made to correspond to size of the range of elevation angles toward points on surface 12 that are illuminated by the beam profile.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Van Den Heuvel discloses a control method comprising (Figure 2, Element 29, “control computer”; [0019]: “Control computer 29 has a memory with a control program to control operation.”):
causing a computer to vary a drive waveform of a scanning angle of a scanning unit, which is used to move an irradiation position of a spot generated by the scanning unit (Figure 2, element 29; [0017]: “Reflector 242 redirects the second beam axis 246 along a third beam axis 248 at an adjustable angle to first beam axis 244. Angle actuator 249 is used to vary this angle. Angle actuator 249 may comprise an electric motor for example, any driver mechanism with a coil, a piezo-electric actuator etc.”; [0020]: “Control computer 29 is configured to control angle actuator 249 to make the angle between first and third beam axes 244, 248 smaller when control computer 29 controls platform elevation adjustment motor 202 to make the elevation angle closer to the horizontal.”), according to a size of an overall field of view of a light detecting unit configured to detect reflected light of the spot ([0024]: “In an embodiment control computer 29 is configured to switch between using the outputs of different detectors of detection arrangement 28 in correspondence with control of elevation adjustment motor 202. This is used to adjust the size of the field of view captured by detection arrangement 28. This is used to adjust the field of view captured by detection arrangement 28.”; [0025]: “Preferably, the size of the range of elevation angles that is imaged onto the sensitive area is made to correspond to size of the range of elevation angles toward points on surface 12 that are illuminated by the beam profile.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Van Den Heuvel discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to have (Figure 2, Element 29, “control computer”; [0019]: “Control computer 29 has a memory with a control program to control operation.”):
a function of varying a drive waveform of a scanning angle of a scanning unit, which is used to move an irradiation position of a spot generated by the scanning unit (Figure 2, element 29; [0017]: “Reflector 242 redirects the second beam axis 246 along a third beam axis 248 at an adjustable angle to first beam axis 244. Angle actuator 249 is used to vary this angle. Angle actuator 249 may comprise an electric motor for example, any driver mechanism with a coil, a piezo-electric actuator etc.”; [0020]: “Control computer 29 is configured to control angle actuator 249 to make the angle between first and third beam axes 244, 248 smaller when control computer 29 controls platform elevation adjustment motor 202 to make the elevation angle closer to the horizontal.”), according to a size of an overall field of view of a light detecting unit configured to detect reflected light of the spot ([0024]: “In an embodiment control computer 29 is configured to switch between using the outputs of different detectors of detection arrangement 28 in correspondence with control of elevation adjustment motor 202. This is used to adjust the size of the field of view captured by detection arrangement 28. This is used to adjust the field of view captured by detection arrangement 28.”; [0025]: “Preferably, the size of the range of elevation angles that is imaged onto the sensitive area is made to correspond to size of the range of elevation angles toward points on surface 12 that are illuminated by the beam profile.”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel further discloses further comprising a light source unit that emits a linear beam that is longer in a second direction than in a first direction ([0021]; Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel further discloses wherein the sensor device is a biaxial LiDAR in which an optical axis of light transmitted from a transmitting system toward the overall field of view and an optical axis of light reflected from the overall field of view and received by the light detecting unit are shifted to each other ([0015]: “Figure 2 shows a laser radar device comprising an adjustable platform 20, a laser 22, beam forming optics 24, receiver optics 26” Optics 262a, 262b, and 62 are clearly on different axes).
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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of McWhirter (US 2018/0284268 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and McWhirter does teach wherein the scanning unit is a MEMS mirror ([0079]: “A MEMS-based scanning device may include a mirror with a diameter between approximately 1 and 10 mm, where the mirror is rotated using electromagnetic or electrostatic actuation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of McWhirter to use a MEMS mirror for the scanning unit of the device of Van Den Heuvel. MEMS mirrors are well known in the art to produce rapid, repeatable direction changes with low inertia mirrors. These characteristics are useful for LiDAR devices which must rapidly scan over large areas in a known pattern.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and McWhirter does teach wherein the control unit is configured to repeatedly alternate between movement of the irradiation position from a positive direction to a negative direction of a first direction and movement of the irradiation position from the negative direction to the positive direction of the first direction ([0095], Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of McWhirter to scan the beam back and forth in a given direction into the device of Van Den Heuvel. This scan pattern provides rapid coverage over the whole field of view, which is very beneficial to LiDAR systems which must scan over a large solid angle.
Claims 10-11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Niclass (US 2018/0284268 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Niclass does teach wherein the light detecting unit is a two-dimensional array sensor having a plurality of pixels arranged in a matrix along two directions (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Niclass to use a two-dimensional sensor array into the device of Van Den Heuvel. A two-dimensional sensor array can provide higher resolution in the field of view, allowing for the discernment and potential classification of objects in the field of view.
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Niclass does teach wherein the control unit is configured to substantially match a range followed by the irradiation position with the overall field of view ([0058]: the sensor array, which defines the field of view, is matched to the field of view via the spot pattern projected on to it. There is a one-to-one correspondence between spot positions on the array and the origin of reflected light in the scene.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Niclass to match the spot pattern range with the field of view. This arrangement can result in power savings since the majority of light projected onto the scene will then be detected by the detectors in the detector array.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Niclass does teach wherein the control unit is configured to control an emission timing of light from a light source unit to substantially match an irradiation pitch of the spot with an array pitch of a plurality of fields of view corresponding to a plurality of pixels of the light detecting unit ([0058]: “At each point in time, sensing elements 44 in a region of array 28 that best matches the position of the image of illumination spot 26 at that point of time are actuated. These actuated sensing elements can be regarded as a sort of “super pixel.””).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Niclass to control an emission timing of light so that it matches a field of view corresponding to a plurality of pixels. Niclass notes in [0030] that the super-pixel approach “reduces the background signal, which would lower the signal-to-background ratio, and lowers the electrical power needs of the detector array.”
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Niclass does teach wherein a length of the spot in a first direction is substantially equal to a length of a field of view corresponding to each pixel of the light detecting unit in the first direction ([0058], the super pixels are actuated to match the size of the illumination spot.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Niclass to control an emission timing of light so that it matches a field of view corresponding to a plurality of pixels. Niclass notes in [0030] that the super-pixel approach “reduces the background signal, which would lower the signal-to-background ratio, and lowers the electrical power needs of the detector array.”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Greiner (WO 2018/219706 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Greiner does teach further comprising a light source unit that emits a multi-beam having a plurality of portions arranged in a predetermined direction within the spot ([0021], [0022]: “Light source 105, which is set up to emit several coherent light beams 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Greiner to use a multi-beam into the device of Van Den Heuvel. Using multiple beams to illuminate a spot can yield increased power in the target scene, which results in better signal-to-noise ratios.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Barber (US 11,016,197 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Barber does teach wherein the drive waveform of the scanning angle is a step function (Column 2, Lines 53-67: “ the scanning devices can be selected and controlled to generate a transmitted beam that can be backscanned, such as by having an angle as a function of time that approximates a step function”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Barber to drive the scanning devices with a step function into the device of Van Den Heuvel. Barber notes that “this can improve the ability of the LIDAR system to accurately determine parameters regarding the object using the transmitted beam and the return beam and thus improve characteristics of the LIDAR system such as signal to noise ratio, maximum range, and effective duty cycle.”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Zhang (WO 2018/068363 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Van Den Heuvel does not teach and Zhang does teach wherein the control unit is configured to switch between a mode for detecting an object with a wide-angle lens and a mode for detecting the object with a telephoto lens by controlling the size of the overall field of view (Abstract; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhang to switch between field of view modes into the device of Van Den Heuvel. As Zhang notes in [0050] that this feature allows for more versatile usage of the device, as it can switch between fields of view as the situation requires. This results in a device which can be used in a variety of different situations, and therefore has more utility for the end user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Keefe (US 2018/0156896 A1) discloses dynamically steering a laser in a FOV to generate dense scan regions with increased density of laser pulses relative to the average pulse density in the remainder of the FOV.
Magee (US 2017/0328990 A1) discloses a system with a scalable field of view which performs a coarse scan over a large region followed by a fine scan over a restricted field of view corresponding to target objects.
Steinberg (US 10,191,156 B2) discloses a LiDAR system with variable flux allocation within a field of view.
Eichenholz (US 2020/0025923 A1) disclose a scan that includes scan lines separated by a certain angular offset, and scan lines separated by a second, smaller angular offset.
Honkanen (US 2019/0250273 A1) discloses subsequent frames of a scanning device which have a smaller angular extent but an increased density of reflection points.
Danziger (US 2019/0107607 A1) discloses adjustable scan patterns with non-uniform spot distributions.
Van Lierop (US 2020/0400788 A1) discloses a LiDAR system which can be controlled to change the field of view of the 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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights