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 .
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 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(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 10-17, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lachapelle discloses a depth sensor, “In particular embodiments, a distance D from lidar system 100 to a target 130 may be referred to as a distance, depth, or range of target 130” (Paragraph 0060). Lachapelle discloses one or more light sources configured to provide a plurality of light beams and Lachapelle discloses one or more optical structures coupled to the one or more light sources, the one or more optical structures being configured to receive the plurality of light beams, “FIG. 2 illustrates an example scan pattern 200 produced by a lidar system 100. A scanner 120 of the lidar system 100 may scan the output beam 125 (which may include multiple emitted optical signals) along a scan pattern 200 that is contained within a FOR of the lidar system” (Paragraph 94). Lachapelle discloses at least one of the one or more light sources or the one or more optical structures are configured to unevenly distribute the plurality of light beams in a vertical field-of- view (FOV) such that the vertical FOV comprises a dense area and a sparse area, and the dense area of the vertical FOV has a higher beam density than the sparse area of the vertical FOV, “controller 150 which may control the scanning mirror(s) so as to guide the output beam 125 in a desired direction downrange or along a desired scan pattern. In particular embodiments, a scan pattern may refer to a pattern or path along which the output beam 125 is directed. As an example, scanner 120 may include two scanning mirrors configured to scan the output beam 125 across a 60° horizontal FOR and a 20° vertical FOR. The two scanner mirrors may be controlled to follow a scan path that substantially covers the 60°×20° FOR. As an example, the scan path may result in a point cloud with pixels that substantially cover the 60°×20° FOR. The pixels may be approximately evenly distributed across the 60°×20° FOR. Alternatively, the pixels may have a particular nonuniform distribution (e.g., the pixels may be distributed across all or a portion of the 60°×20° FOR, and the pixels may have a higher density in one or more particular regions of the 60°×20° FOR)” (Paragraph 73). Lachapelle discloses the dense area of the vertical FOV has a higher beam density than the sparse area of the vertical FOV, “scan pattern 200 may include multiple scan lines 230, where each scan line represents one scan across at least part of a field of regard, and each scan line 230 may include multiple pixels 210.” (Paragraph 96). Lachapelle discloses that the depth sensor comprises no mechanically movable parts configured to scan light, “a lidar system 100 may include a scanner 120 with a solid-state scanning device. A solid-state scanning device may refer to a scanner 120 that scans an output beam 125 without the use of moving parts (e.g., without the use of a mechanical scanner, such as a mirror that rotates or pivots). For example, a solid-state scanner 120 may include one or more of the following: an optical phased array scanning device; a liquid-crystal scanning device; or a liquid lens scanning device. A solid-state scanner 120 may be an electrically addressable device that scans an output beam 125 along one axis (e.g., horizontally) or along two axes (e.g., horizontally and vertically)” (Paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 2, Lachapelle discloses that the depth sensor comprises a solid-state light ranging and detection (LiDAR) device configured to perform electronic scanning, “a lidar system 100 may include a scanner 120 with a solid-state scanning device” (Paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 3, Lachapelle discloses that the depth sensor comprises at least one of a flash LiDAR device or indirect time of flight (iToF) sensor, “In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include one or more processors (e.g., a controller 150) configured to determine a distance D from the lidar system 100 to a target 130 based at least in part on a round-trip time of flight for an emitted pulse of light to travel from the lidar system 100 to the target 130 and back to the lidar system 100” (Paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 4, Lachapelle discloses that the one or more light sources comprise one or more of a semiconductor-based laser source, a fiber-based laser source, a liquid-based laser source, a solid-state based laser source, and a gas-based laser source, “In particular embodiments, a lidar system 100 may include a scanner 120 with a solid-state scanning device” (Paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 8, Lachapelle discloses the one or more light sources comprise a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) array having an array of VCSEL elements, “In particular embodiments, light source 110 may include a laser diode, such as for example, a Fabry-Perot laser diode, a quantum well laser, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)” (Paragraph 60) and “For example, a solid-state scanner 120 may include one or more of the following: an optical phased array scanning device” (Paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 9, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Lachapelle discloses that the one or more optical structures comprise one or more optical diffusers configured to unevenly distribute the plurality of light beams in the vertical FOV, (FIG. 9 Ref 463, “FIG. 9 illustrates an example light source 110 that includes a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) 460 with a tapered optical waveguide 463.” (Paragraph 148).
Regarding claim 10, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 9, see claim 9 rejection. Lachapelle discloses that the plurality of light beams comprises evenly distributed light beams before the one or more optical diffusers, “In particular embodiments, a SOA 460 may include an input end 461, an output end 462, and an optical waveguide 463 extending from the input end 461 to the output end 462. The input end 461 may receive the seed light 440 from the seed laser diode 450” (Paragraph 148). Lachapelle discloses that the one or more optical diffusers comprise surfaces having micro-optical structures configured to receive the evenly distributed light beams and form an uneven distribution of the light beams, “The amplified temporal portion may be emitted from the output end 462 as an emitted pulse of light 400. The emitted pulse of light 400 may be part of the output beam 125, and the light source 110 may include a lens 490 configured to collect and collimate emitted pulses of light 400 from the output end 462 to produce a collimated output beam 125” (Paragraph 148).
Regarding claim 11, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Lachapelle discloses that the one or more optical structures comprise a semiconductor wafer having a micro-lens array configured to unevenly distribute the plurality of light beams in the vertical FOV, “FIG. 9 illustrates an example light source 110 that includes a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) 460 with a tapered optical waveguide 463” (Paragraph 148).
Regarding claim 12, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 11, see claim 11 rejection. Lachapelle discloses that the semiconductor is a silicon based wafer, “For example, an optical waveguide may be formed on a glass or silicon substrate” (Paragraph 160).
Regarding claim 13, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 11, see claim 11 rejection. Lachapelle discloses a subset of micro-lenses of the micro-lens array is configured to distribute one of the plurality of light beams, “A light source 110 may include one or more lenses (not illustrated in FIG. 10) that collimate the seed-laser output light 472 or focus the seed light 440 into the waveguide 463 of the SOA 460.” (Paragraph 157).
Regarding claim 14, Lachapelle discloses the depth of claim 11, see claim 11 rejection. Lachapelle discloses a surface of the semiconductor wafer is processed to form the micro-lens array by removing materials from the surface to form the micro-lenses, “As another example, the seed laser diode 450 and the SOA 460 may be fabricated together on the same substrate (e.g., using semiconductor-fabrication processes, such as for example, lithography, deposition, and etching).” (Paragraph 151).
Regarding claim 15, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 11, see claim 11 rejection. Lachapelle discloses a surface of the semiconductor wafer is processed to form the micro-lens array by depositing materials to the surface to form the micro-lenses, “As another example, the seed laser diode 450 and the SOA 460 may be fabricated together on the same substrate (e.g., using semiconductor-fabrication processes, such as for example, lithography, deposition, and etching).” (Paragraph 151).
Regarding claim 16, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 15, see claim 15 rejection. Lachapelle discloses the materials deposited to the surface comprise a polymer material, “A PIC 455 may include or may be fabricated from a substrate that includes silicon, InP, glass (e.g., silica), a polymer, an electro-optic material (e.g., lithium niobate (LiNbO.sub.3) or lithium tantalate (LiTaO.sub.3)), or any suitable combination thereof.” (Paragraph 160).
Regarding claim 17, following mutatis mutandis; claim 17 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, following mutatis mutandis, claim 21 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, following mutatis mutandis, claim 22 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2) in further view of Keilaf (WO 2018055449 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Chapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Chapelle does not disclose light beams in the dense area of the vertical FOV are directed to detect objects located in a first detection range, light beams in the sparse area of the vertical FOV are directed to detect objects located in a second detection range, the first detection range being greater than the second detection range.
Keilaf discloses directing light beams in the dense area of the vertical FOV are directed to detect objects located in a first detection range, light beams in the sparse area of the vertical FOV are directed to detect objects located in a second detection range, the first detection range being greater than the second detection range, “a processor (e.g., processor 118) may control the at least one light source (e.g., light source 112) such that the light flux supplied to a first sector is substantially the same as the light flux supplied to a third sector, and a light flux level supplied to a second sector is greater than the flux supplied to the first and third regions” (Paragraph 0617).
Lachapelle discloses a depth sensor which the claimed invention can be seen as a improvement upon. Keilaf discloses having different ranges based upon the light flux or amount of light and having one of those ranges be greater than another range. On with ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date could have applied what is disclosed by Keilaf to the depth sensor disclosed by Lachapelle and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2) and Keilaf (WO 2018055449 A2) in further view of Steinberg (US 20190318177 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lachapelle and Keilaf disclose the depth sensor of claim 5, the combination doesn’t disclose that the first detection range comprises a distance of 50 meters or more from the depth sensor, and wherein the second detection range comprises a distance of 0-20 meters from the depth sensor.
Steinberg discloses first detection range comprises a distance of 50 meters or more from the depth sensor, and wherein the second detection range comprises a distance of 0-20 meters from the depth sensor, “For example, the LIDAR system may be used for detecting a plurality of objects in an environment of a vehicle on which the LIDAR system is installed, up to a horizontal distance of 100 m (or 200 m, 300 m, etc.), and up to a vertical distance of 10 m (or 25 m, 50 m, etc.).” (Paragraph 0076).
The combination of Lachapelle and Keilaf disclose the depth sensor of claim 5. Steinberg discloses a LIDAR system that has a detection range of 0-20 and 0-50 meters. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have recognized that combining the detection ranges of Steinberg with the depth sensor disclosed by Lachapelle and Keilaf would have yielded the predictable result of a depth sensor with two different detection ranges of 0-20 and 0-50 meters.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2) in further view of Steinberg (US 20190318177 A1) .
Regarding claim 7, Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Lachapelle does not disclose that the dense area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of -5 degrees to 0 degrees, or -5 degrees to +5 degrees; and the sparse area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of at least one of -90 degrees to -5 degrees, or +5 degrees to +90 degrees.
Steinberg discloses the dense area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of -5 degrees to 0 degrees, or -5 degrees to +5 degrees; and the sparse area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of at least one of -90 degrees to -5 degrees, or +5 degrees to +90 degrees, “the LIDAR system may be used for detecting a plurality of objects in an environment of a vehicle or within a predefined horizontal range (e.g., 25°, 50°, 100°, 180°, etc.), and up to a predefined vertical elevation (e.g., ±10°, ±20°, +40°-20°, ±90° or 0°-90°).” (Paragraph 0076).
Lachapelle discloses the depth sensor of claim 5. Steinberg discloses a LIDAR system that has a vertical FOV that is the same to the one claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have recognized that combining the vertical FOV of Steinberg with the depth sensor disclosed by Lachapelle would have yielded the predictable result of a depth sensor with a vertical FOV that is the same to the one claimed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2) in further view of Kalief (WO 2018055449 A2).
Regarding claim 18, Lachapelle discloses the method of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. Lachapelle does not disclose that the unevenly distributing the plurality of light beams comprises: directing light beams in the dense area of the vertical FOV to detect objects located in a first detection range; and directing light beams in the sparse area of the vertical FOV to detect objects located in a second detection range, the first detection range being greater than the second detection range.
Keilaf discloses directing light beams in the dense area of the vertical FOV are directed to detect objects located in a first detection range, light beams in the sparse area of the vertical FOV are directed to detect objects located in a second detection range, the first detection range being greater than the second detection range, “a processor (e.g., processor 118) may control the at least one light source (e.g., light source 112) such that the light flux supplied to a first sector is substantially the same as the light flux supplied to a third sector, and a light flux level supplied to a second sector is greater than the flux supplied to the first and third regions” (Paragraph 0617).
Lachapelle discloses a method which the claimed invention can be seen as a improvement upon. Keilaf discloses having different ranges based upon the light flux or amount of light and having one of those ranges be greater than another range. On with ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date could have applied what is disclosed by Keilaf to the method disclosed by Lachapelle and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2) and Keilaf (WO 2018055449 A2) in further view of Steinberg (US 20190318177 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lachapelle and Keilaf disclose the method of claim 18, the combination doesn’t disclose that the first detection range comprises a distance of 50 meters or more from the depth sensor, and wherein the second detection range comprises a distance of 0-20 meters from the depth sensor.
Steinberg discloses first detection range comprises a distance of 50 meters or more from the depth sensor, and wherein the second detection range comprises a distance of 0-20 meters from the depth sensor, “For example, the LIDAR system may be used for detecting a plurality of objects in an environment of a vehicle on which the LIDAR system is installed, up to a horizontal distance of 100 m (or 200 m, 300 m, etc.), and up to a vertical distance of 10 m (or 25 m, 50 m, etc.).” (Paragraph 0076).
The combination of Lachapelle and Keilaf disclose the method of claim 18. Steinberg discloses a LIDAR system that has a detection range of 0-20 and 0-50 meters. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have recognized that combining the detection ranges of Steinberg with the method sensor disclosed by Lachapelle and Keilaf would have yielded the predictable result of a method with two different detection ranges of 0-20 and 0-50 meters.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachapelle (US 12481034 B2) in further view of Steinberg (US 20190318177 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lachapelle discloses the method of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. Lachapelle does not disclose that the dense area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of -5 degrees to 0 degrees, or -5 degrees to +5 degrees; and the sparse area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of at least one of -90 degrees to -5 degrees, or +5 degrees to +90 degrees.
Steinberg discloses the dense area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of -5 degrees to 0 degrees, or -5 degrees to +5 degrees; and the sparse area of the vertical FOV corresponds to a vertical angle range of at least one of -90 degrees to -5 degrees, or +5 degrees to +90 degrees, “the LIDAR system may be used for detecting a plurality of objects in an environment of a vehicle or within a predefined horizontal range (e.g., 25°, 50°, 100°, 180°, etc.), and up to a predefined vertical elevation (e.g., ±10°, ±20°, +40°-20°, ±90° or 0°-90°).” (Paragraph 0076).
Lachapelle discloses the method of claim 17. Steinberg discloses a LIDAR system that has a vertical FOV that is the same to the one claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have recognized that combining the vertical FOV of Steinberg with the method disclosed by Lachapelle would have yielded the predictable result of a depth sensor with a vertical FOV that is the same to the one claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSH CHARLES GARDINER whose telephone number is (571)270-0634. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/JOSH CHARLES GARDINER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights