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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
The drive controller 278 and the MEMS phased-array 273 in Paragraph [0052] are not shown in any of FIGs. 6A-6B
The other sensors 281, the drive controller 278, and the MEMS phased-array 273 in Paragraph [0054] are not shown in any of FIGs. 7A-B
The scanning system 250 mentioned in Paragraphs [0056] and [0058] and the light source 271 in Paragraph [0058] are not shown in any of FIGs. 8A-D
The MEMS phased-array 273 mentioned in Paragraph [0059] is not shown in any of FIGs. 9A-B
The MEMS phased-array 273 mentioned in Paragraph [0073] is not shown in FIG. 15C
The 2-D detector array 204 mentioned in Paragraph [0079] is not shown in FIG. 17.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
The vehicle 251 in FIG. 11C
The light source 271 in FIGs. 15A and 15B
The steered return light 452 and return light 453 in FIG. 15C.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
"Projected Light" is misspelled in FIG. 14A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph [0040], "(40o, +/- 20o)" should read "(40o +/- 20o)"
In Paragraph [0043], "MEMS phased-array273" should read "MEMS phased-array 273"
In Paragraph [0054], "the increased unpredictably" should read "the increased unpredictability"
In Paragraph [0058], "35cm at 200m but only 3.5 mm at 20m" should read "350mm at 200m but only 3.5mm at 20m"
In Paragraph [0081], "as much pixel sensors as a normal 2-D detector arrays" should read "as many pixel sensors as a normal 2-D detector array".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
"a resonant scanner that is that is configured" should read "a resonant scanner that is configured".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashima et al. (US 20210231781 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Takashima teaches:
A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Paragraph [0061]) comprising:
a light source that is configured to generate a light beam ([0023]: “a light source that produces an input beam”);
a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) phased-array that is configured to steer the light beam in a vertical direction onto a far field scene ([0066]: “The light is then spatially and/or angularly modulated using the MEMS-based scanning mirror 14. The light is then angularly modulated by the DMD 16 and spread across different diffraction orders”);
a resonant scanner that is that is configured to scan the light beam in a horizontal direction at a resonant frequency onto the far field scene ([0077]: “a MEMS resonant mirror as the Fine Steering Element”);
and a detector that is configured to receive return light from the far field scene ([0109]: “a wide field-of-view receiver in which optics collect light from the entire field-of-view onto a detector”).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima further teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detector comprises a two-dimensional (2-D) array of photodetectors ([0056]: “the cascaded beam steering system incorporated into a receiver with a detector or detector array”).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima further teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the resonant scanner comprises a resonant mirror scanner ([0094]: “A Fine Steering Element 110 could be, but is not limited to, a MEMS mirror (resonant or non-resonant)”).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima in view of Payne et al. (US 20180299664 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Payne teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the MEMS phased-array comprises a ribbon-type spatial light modulator (SLM), the ribbon-type SLM comprising a plurality of electrostatically actuated ribbons as modulation element ([0026]: “Referring to FIGS. 1A and 1B in the embodiment shown the SLM 100 includes a linear array 102 composed of thousands of free-standing, addressable electrostatically actuated ribbons 104”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the MEMS phased-array in the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima into a linear plurality of individually activated ribbons as taught by Payne with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a more robust LIDAR system with a faster operating speed and better angular resolution.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima in view of Keilaf et al. (US 20220050203 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Keilaf teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detector is disposed adjacent to the light source in monostatic configuration ([0133]: “FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a monostatic configuration of LIDAR system 100 including a plurality [of] projecting units 102. The term “monostatic configuration” broadly refers to LIDAR systems configurations in which the projected light exiting from the LIDAR system and the reflected light entering the LIDAR system pass through at least a partially shared optical path. In one example, the outbound light beam and the inbound light beam may share at least one optical assembly through which both light beams”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to specifically arrange the light source adjacent to the detector in a monostatic configuration as taught by Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a LIDAR system with a compact, simplified, and spatially-efficient design.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Keilaf further teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detector is not disposed adjacent to the light source in bistatic configuration ([0127]: “FIG. 2A illustrates an example of a bi-static configuration of LIDAR system 100 in which projecting unit 102 includes a single light source 112. The term “bi-static configuration” broadly refers to LIDAR systems configurations in which the projected light exiting the LIDAR system and the reflected light entering the LIDAR system pass through different optical channels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to specifically arrange the light source separate from the detector in a bistatic configuration as taught by Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a LIDAR system with more overall flexibility in design possibilities including variable placements and aperture sizes.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Takashima further teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Takashima further teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 6, further comprising a 4f system disposed in a light path between the MEMS phased-array and the resonant scanner ([0077]: “if either the Fine Steering Element 110 or the Coarse Steering Element 102 has unwanted additional outputs (e.g., ghost reflections, higher-order diffraction orders, too many or too wide of sample points, etc) then placing that steering element at P1 would allow a spatial filter to be implemented, for example at a Fourier plane of 4F-relay system, within the relay to filter out the unwanted beam directions (rather than using additional optics after P2)”).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Takashima further teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Takashima further teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 6, wherein the MEMS phased-array is configured to steer the return light onto the detector ([0102]: “the cascaded beam steering system sequentially directs light from each direction onto a detector”).
Claims 9, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima in view of Ozbilgin et al. (US 20190281260 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Ozbilgin teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is in a vehicle ([0012]: “The system 10 includes a perception-sensor 20 configured to detect one or more instances of an object 22 (e.g. other-vehicle, stationary-object, ground-surface) proximate to (e.g. within 100 m) the host-vehicle 12. The perception-sensor 20 may include or consist of one or more instances of a camera (visible and/or infrared light), radar-unit, a lidar-unit, or any combination thereof”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to utilize it in the LIDAR-equipped vehicle as taught by Ozbilgin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of being able to use the LIDAR system for various vehicle applications for assisted or autonomous driving such as road hazard detection.
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 11, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 11 but does not teach, whereas Ozbilgin teaches:
The method of claim 11, further comprising: adjusting a field of view (FOV) of the MEMS phased-array ([0016]: “The controller-circuit 26 determines the field-of-view 24 of the perception-sensor 20 in accordance with the contour 28 of the roadway indicated by the digital-map 30, and then outputs a control-signal 36 to the perception-sensor 20 that adjusts the field-of-view 24 of the perception-sensor 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to utilize it in the LIDAR-equipped vehicle to adjust its field-of-view as taught by Ozbilgin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a LIDAR-equipped vehicle that can determine and adjust its own field-of-view as appropriate given changing road conditions.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 12 but does not teach, whereas Ozbilgin teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the FOV of the MEMS phased-array is adjusted ([0016]: “outputs a control-signal 36 to the perception-sensor 20 that adjusts the field-of-view 24 of the perception-sensor 20”) in response to detecting a change in the far field scene ([0012]: “The system 10 includes a perception-sensor 20 configured to detect one or more instances of an object 22 (e.g. other-vehicle, stationary-object, ground-surface) proximate to (e.g. within 100 m) the host-vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to utilize it in the LIDAR-equipped vehicle to detect changes in the far field scene of the road ahead and to adjust its field-of-view as taught by Ozbilgin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of enabling a LIDAR-equipped vehicle to autonomously detect changes in road conditions and automatically self-adjust its field-of-view for safer driving.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 13 but does not teach, whereas Ozbilgin teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the FOV of the MEMS phased-array is adjusted upwards in response to detecting that a vehicle that incorporates the LIDAR system is approaching a hill ([0017]: “As the host-vehicle 12 begins to travel up the upward-slope-portion 42, the angle of the perception-sensor 20 is pointed upward (relative to earth level), so the controller 26 may reset the perception-sensor 20 to the maximum-field-of-view so any instances of the objects 22 can be detected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to utilize it in the LIDAR-equipped vehicle as taught by Ozbilgin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of enabling the LIDAR-equipped vehicle to detect a variety of changing road conditions, including approaching a hill, and adjusting its FOV vertically for more optimal detection of hazards along the upward slope.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 20200256960 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas LaChapelle teaches:
The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is in an aircraft vehicle ([0054]: “In particular embodiments, one or more lidar systems 100 may be integrated into a vehicle…For example, a vehicle may include, may take the form of, or may be referred to as a car, automobile, …aircraft (e.g., a fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter, or dirigible), unmanned aerial vehicle (e.g., drone), or spacecraft.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima to utilize it in the LIDAR-equipped aircraft as taught by LaChapelle with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of being able to use the LIDAR system for various applications for assisted or autonomous flight.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima in view of Weimer et al. (US 20120038903 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Takashima teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Weimer teaches:
The method of claim of claim 11, wherein steering, by the MEMS phased-array, the coherent light in the vertical direction onto the far field scene comprises:
projecting the coherent light onto the far field scene as projected light; and
steering the coherent light in the vertical direction to point the projected light from a first spot on the far field scene directly to a second spot on the far field scene without pointing the projected light on one or more spots on the far field scene that are between the first and second spots. ([0048]: “In addition, it should be appreciated that embodiments of the present invention allow for beams 208 within an illumination pattern 206 to be controlled in a random or pseudo-random access fashion. Moreover, beams 208 can be produced or controlled to produce an illumination pattern 206 comprising discrete spots. Alternatively or in addition, beams 208 can be produced or controlled to produce an illumination pattern 206 that comprises one or more contiguous areas of light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Takashima with that of Weimar to enable random access scanning of the projected light beam onto a far field scene. This would have the predictable result of using the LIDAR system more efficiently by scanning multiple spots of a far field scene without the need to scan all areas in between.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C NATHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0331. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, 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.
/KEVIN CHRISTOPHER NATHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights