Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 Mar 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant presents Claims 1-49 for examination. The Office rejects Claims 1-49 as detailed below.
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 1-12, 21, 25-32, 41-43, and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinderling et al. - U.S. Pub. 20160084651 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Hinderling teaches a split-detector photoreceiver (¶23|1: “According to the invention, the detector or the reception component has at least two mutually independent reception segments [i.e., split-detector] (APD segments or PIN diode segments), which are assigned to predefined or predefinable, in particular different, distance ranges to be measured.”) configured to receive a lidar return from a target within an instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV) (28|1: “This facilitates a differentiation of the signals in a manner dependent on the distance to be determined with respect to a target object [within the IFOV].”), the lidar return having a spot image on the photoreceiver (¶30|1: “Such a configuration of the geometry of a detector according to the invention corresponds to the size distribution and/or spatial distribution of the impingement point or impingement spot (received light beam) of the reception light beams returning from the object to be measured.”), the photoreceiver comprising: a primary detector configured to detect the lidar return and produce a corresponding output signal, wherein for a target beyond a close-range threshold distance from the photo receiver, the spot image is within an optically-sensitive area of the primary detector (¶44|1: “…reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of >30 m are detected only by the inner, second segment.”); primary-detector supporting circuitry configured to receive the output signal from the primary detector and provide amplification for the output signal, wherein the primary-detector supporting circuitry has a first recovery time for recovering from saturation (¶37|1: “In particular, the gain of the signals from different reception segments in the assigned signal paths is chosen to be different, specifically regulatable separately from one another. This makes it possible e.g. that an amplifier having a comparatively high gain factor [and longer saturation recovery time] can be provided for a first reception segment, which is assigned to an upper distance range of comparatively far distances …(with the result that overdriving [i.e., supersaturation] can be avoided here even in the case of high-amplitude reception signals coming from short distances).” That is, the circuits have a set saturation recovery time, and are arranged to avoid supersaturation (where saturation overflows and affects other detectors).); a secondary detector configured to detect a portion of the lidar return from a target within the close-range threshold distance and produce a corresponding output signal (¶46|1: “reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of <3 m [i.e., close range] are detected only by the outer, first segment.”); and secondary-detector supporting circuitry configured to receive the output signal from the secondary detector and provide amplification for the output signal, wherein the secondary detector supporting circuitry has a second recovery time for recovering from saturation, wherein the second recovery time is less than the first recovery time (¶37|7: “…and an amplifier having a comparatively low gain factor [and corresponding lower saturation recovery time] can be provided for a second reception segment, which is assigned to a lower distance range of comparatively near distances (with the result that overdriving [i.e., supersaturation] can be avoided here even in the case of high-amplitude reception signals coming from short distances).”)
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the second recovery time of the secondary-detector supporting circuitry is less than a lidar signal round-trip time of flight (TOF) between the photoreceiver and a target at the close-range threshold distance (¶23|1: “According to the invention, the detector or the reception component has at least two mutually independent reception segments (APD segments or PIN diode segments), which are assigned to predefined or predefinable, in particular different, distance ranges to be measured.” Further, (¶46|1) “reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of < 3m are detected only by the outer, first segment.” That is, APDs in linear mode [i.e., low gain factor] have a < 1ns recovery time, translating to mere fractions of a meter in LiDAR TOF terms, which includes a target within the specified 3m range.)
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary-detector supporting circuitry comprises a first transimpedance amplifier (TIA) having a first gain; wherein the secondary-detector supporting circuitry comprises a second transimpedance amplifier (TIA) having a second gain; and wherein the first gain is greater than the second gain (¶165|5: “As a switching criterion regarding which reception signal, in each case after amplification by a transimpedance amplifier 61 and passage through a filter 62, is conducted as far as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 63, the signal strength can be used, for example.”)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 3, Hinderling teaches wherein the first TIA has a first bandwidth; wherein the second TIA has a second bandwidth; and wherein the first bandwidth is less than the second bandwidth (¶37|1: “In particular, the gain of the signals from different reception segments in the assigned signal paths is chosen to be different, specifically regulatable separately from one another. This makes it possible e.g. that an amplifier having a comparatively high gain factor can be provided for a first reception segment, which is assigned to an upper distance range of comparatively far distances, and an amplifier having a comparatively low gain factor can be provided for a second reception segment, which is assigned to a lower distance range of comparatively near distances (with the result that overdriving can be avoided here even in the case of high amplitude reception signals coming from short distances).” Further, (¶165|5) “[a]s a switching criterion regarding which reception signal, in each case after amplification by a transimpedance amplifier 61 and passage through a filter 62, is conducted as far as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 63, the signal strength can be used, for example.”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary-detector supporting circuitry comprises a first clamping structure; wherein the secondary-detector supporting circuitry comprises a second clamping structure; and wherein the first clamping structure is smaller than the second clamping structure (¶37|1: “In particular, the gain of the signals from different reception segments in the assigned signal paths is chosen to be different, specifically regulatable separately from one another. This makes it possible e.g. that an amplifier having a comparatively high gain factor can be provided for a first reception segment, which is assigned to an upper distance range of comparatively far distances, and an amplifier having a comparatively low gain factor can be provided for a second reception segment, which is assigned to a lower distance range of comparatively near distances (with the result that overdriving [i.e., supersaturation] can be avoided here even in the case of high amplitude reception signals coming from short distances).” Further, (¶165|5) “[a]s a switching criterion regarding which reception signal, in each case after amplification by a transimpedance amplifier 61 and passage through a filter 62, is conducted as far as an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 63, the signal strength can be used, for example.”)
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector is enclosed by the secondary detector (Fig. 8 showing primary detector S1 enclosed by secondary detector S2.)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector is partially enclosed by the secondary detector (Fig. 8 showing primary detector S1 enclosed by secondary detector S2, the enclosure has two openings.)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the secondary detector is adjacent to the primary detector and positioned to reduce reception of light originating outside the IFOV corresponding to the photoreceiver (Fig. 8 showing primary detector S1 enclosed by secondary detector S2, the detectors are adjacent.)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector comprises a circular shape and the secondary detector comprises an annulus centered on the primary detector (Fig. 8 showing primary detector S1 enclosed by secondary detector S2, with S2 being a ring shape [i.e., annulus].)
As for Claim 10, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector comprises a circular shape and the secondary detector comprises an annulus sector centered on the primary detector (Fig. 8 showing primary detector S1 enclosed by secondary detector S2, with S2 being a ring shaped sector [i.e., annulus].)
As for Claim 11, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector comprises an avalanche photodiode (APD) (¶23|1: “According to the invention, the detector or the reception component has at least two mutually independent reception segments [i.e., split-detector] (APD segments or PIN diode segments), which are assigned to predefined or predefinable, in particular different, distance ranges to be measured.”)
As for Claim 12, which depends on Claim 11, Hinderling teaches wherein the APD comprises indium gallium arsenide (lnGaAs) (Examiner takes Official notice that InGaAs APDs are well-known, further noting that at least half (i.e., over seventy) of the references in Applicant’s extensive IDS teach InGaAs APDs.)
As for Claim 21, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling teaches wherein the close-range threshold distance is about 5 meters (¶46|1: “reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of <3 m [i.e., close range] are detected only by the outer, first segment.”)
As for Claim 31, which depends on Claim 25, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector comprises a circular shape (Fig. 8, primary detector S1 is circular.)
As for Claim 41, which depends on Claim 25, Hinderling teaches wherein an optical path of the one or more optics comprises a monostatic configuration with a transmit optical path of an outgoing lidar signal in common with a receive optical path of an incoming lidar return (¶31|1: “In accordance with one specific embodiment, first segments are arranged centrally and further segments are arranged peripherally and axially symmetrically with respect to one another. Such a symmetrical, geometrical positioning of the segments is advantageous in the case of constructions where transmission and reception channels are constructed coaxially [monostatic].”)
As for Claim 42, which depends on Claim 25, Hinderling teaches wherein an optical path of the one or more optics comprises a bistatic configuration with a transmit optical path of an outgoing lidar signal that is separate from a receive optical path of an incoming lidar return (¶31|7: “In the case of biaxial arrangements of transmission and reception light beams [bistatic] in distance measuring instruments, an offset between optical axes of the transmission and reception light beams upon impingement on the detector should be expected. In the case of such arrangements, depending on the requirement made of the distance measuring instrument, both radially symmetrical and asymmetrical segment arrangements of the reception component are a solution.”)
As for Claim 43, which depends on Claim 25, Hinderling teaches wherein the primary detector and secondary detector are configured to detect lidar returns from one or more targets over a range from a minimum desired effective range that is close to the one or more optics, to a maximum desired effective range at or greater than the focal distance of the one or more optics (¶43-46: “In the above example the situation would be as follows: reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of >30 m are detected only by the inner, second segment, reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of <30 m and >3 mare detected by both segments, and reflected light signals from objects in the distance range of <3 m are detected only by the outer, first segment.”)
As for Claim 46, which depends on Claim 45, Hinderling teaches further comprising providing one or more optics configured to receive a lidar return, wherein the one or more optics have a focal distance and are configured to focus the lidar return from a target at the focal distance onto an image plane, wherein the primary detector is disposed at the image plane (¶103|1: “FIG. 4a shows the signal variation as a function of distance with a simple, non-segmented APD according to the prior art for two different positions of the APD in the reception beam path, namely, corresponding to the dashed curve, in the focal plane with associated curve profile 30 and, corresponding to the side curve, between the converging optical unit (objective) and the focal plane of the objective with associated curve profile 30'.”)
Claims 25-30 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1-5 and 2, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claims 32 and 47 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 11 and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claim 45 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and stands rejected on the same basis accordingly.
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 13-20, 22-24, 33-40, 44 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling in view of Hassibi et al. - U.S. Pub. 20240393438 +_+_+
As for Claim 13, Hinderling teaches the split-detector photoreceiver of claim 1 (<< this limitation is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach an array of photoreceivers.
But Hassibi teaches a photoreceiver array …configured to receive a plurality of lidar returns from a plurality of instantaneous fields-of-view (IFOV) (¶106|1: “The detector array 140 shown in FIG. 8 can be implemented in many ways. For example, it may be implemented using a dedicated physical component having the desired number of optical detectors 142 ( e.g., 100 detectors for the example shown in FIG. 8). Alternatively, the detector array 140 can be a distinct, non-overlapping region within a larger array of optical detectors (e.g., one physical array of optical detectors 142 can be logically partitioned into multiple, non-overlapping subsets, each of which operates as a separate detector array 140). It is to be appreciated that a physical array of optical detectors 142 can be used to implement the detector array 140A of the long-range LiDAR subsystem l00A and the detector array 140B of the shortrange LiDAR subsystem 100B (e.g., individual optical detectors 142 can be assigned to one or the other of the long-range LiDAR subsystem 100A and the short-range LiDAR subsystem 100B).”)
It 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 to combine Hinderling with Hassibi because different implementations require different numbers of detectors. A theodolite, detailed in Hinderling, might need only one or a few photodetectors, whereas a Lidar, detailed in Hassibi, would need a large array.
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 13, Hassibi teaches wherein the photoreceiver array comprises a one-dimensional (1D) array (Fig. 12A shows detectors in 1D.)
As for Claim 18, which depends on Claim 13, Hassibi teaches wherein the photoreceiver array comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array (Fig. 11, array 140, shows a 2D array)
As for Claim 22, which depends on Claim 1, Hinderling does not explicitly detail the type of circuitry used to support the detectors.
But Hassibi teaches wherein the primary-detector supporting circuitry and/or secondary-detector supporting circuitry comprises a readout integrated circuit (ROIC) (¶85|1: “The hybrid LiDAR system 200 example illustrated in FIG. 4 also includes at least one processor 150, which is coupled to the illuminator array 112A and the illuminator array 112B. The at least one processor 150 may be or comprise, for example, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, a controller, an application-specific integrated circuit, or any other suitable hardware component (which may be suitable to provide and/or process analog and/or digital signals).”)
It 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 to combine Hinderling with Hassibi because different applications and configurations require different circuitry and it would be obvious to use the most suitable support circuitry for the given application.
As for Claim 23, which depends on Claim 1, Hassibi teaches wherein the primary-detector supporting circuitry and/or secondary-detector supporting circuitry comprises an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (¶85|1: “The hybrid LiDAR system 200 example illustrated in FIG. 4 also includes at least one processor 150, which is coupled to the illuminator array 112A and the illuminator array 112B. The at least one processor 150 may be or comprise, for example, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, a controller, an application-specific integrated circuit, or any other suitable hardware component (which may be suitable to provide and/or process analog and/or digital signals).”)
As for Claim 24, which depends on Claim 1, Hassibi teaches further comprising a multiplexer configured to combine a first output from the primary-detector supporting circuitry with a second output of the secondary-detector supporting circuitry (¶85|1: “The hybrid LiDAR system 200 example illustrated in FIG. 4 also includes at least one processor 150, which is coupled to the illuminator array 112A and the illuminator array 112B. The at least one processor 150 may be or comprise, for example, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, a controller, an application-specific integrated circuit, or any other suitable hardware component (which may be suitable to provide and/or process analog and/or digital signals).”)
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 6-8 and 11-12, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claims 33-40 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 13, 6-8, 17-18, and 11-12, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Claims 44 and 48-49 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 24, 13, and 23, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT THATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner to set up a time or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) system 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 at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights