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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/22/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/22/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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 1-6, 13-15 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reppich et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0215801) in view of Yeun (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0405163) and Kare et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0241165).
With respect to claim 1, Reppich et al disclose: A system [ taught by figure 1 ], comprising: a first light emitter configured to illuminate a first field of view (FOV) using light emitted at a first wavelength [ paragraph [0035] states, “…A first radiation source 12 is used for acting upon a first section P1 of scanning range A, using beams 7…” ]; a second light emitter configured to illuminate a second FOV using light emitted at a second wavelength [ paragraph [0035] states, “…A second radiation source 14 is used for acting upon a second section P2 of scanning range A, using beams 8…” ], wherein the second FOV is wider than the first FOV [ figure 1 shows the FOV of beams 8 wider than the FOV for beams 7 ], and wherein the first FOV extends to a further distance from the system than the second FOV [ paragraph [0038] states, “…The power emitted by radiation sources 12, 14 is such, that beams 7 in first section P1 have a higher power than beams 8 in second section P2…” and paragraph [0024] states, “…For example, a road may be situated in a lower region or section. In this context, a section above the road may be defined or formed, which is acted upon by beams of a higher power for providing a large range. The lower section, which detects the road, may be operated, using a lower power, since the road is detected in a few meters and, therefore, a lot of power is scattered back…” ]; a sensor configured to detect reflections off of targets within the second FOV [ taught by receiver unit (4) ]; and at least one processor [ suggested by control unit (10) ] configured to execute one or more machine-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: cause the second light emitter to illuminate the second FOV using light emitted at the second wavelength [ taught by radiation source (14) emitting light in response to control unit (10) ], determine whether the sensor detected an object within the second FOV, and in response to determining that the sensor detected the object within the second FOV, prevent the first light emitter from illuminating the first FOV [ paragraph [0042] states, “…The central field, that is, first section P1, is surrounded by a frame made up of second section P2. As soon as an object 16, which could be a person, moves into frame P2, first section P1 is reduced to the level of second section P2…”].
Reppich et al does not explicitly teach that the first and second radiation sources (12 and 14) operate at first and second wavelengths.
Yeun teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used first and second wavelengths to respectively measure short and long distances in a LIDAR system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using first and second wavelength in the device of Reppich et al, as taught by Yeun, when seeking to distinguish near and far range objects.
Although Reppich et al teaches reducing the power in the P1 field of view upon detection of an object in the P2 field of view, there is no explicit teaching of preventing emission in the P1 field of view.
Kare et al teaches that it was known [ see figures 3A to 3C and paragraph [0072] ] before the effective filing date of the present application to have shut down a main beam in response to an object entering a region peripheral to the main beam in order to prevent harm to the object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Reppich et al to have shut down emission in the P1 field of view, when seeking to avoid harming objects.
Claim 24 is rejected by the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 25 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claims 1 and 24, because, although Yeun teaches the narrow angle beam having a wavelength (905nm) longer than the wide angle beam (800nm), it would have been a reasonable expectation of s killed artisan that the concept presented would have worked wherein the narrow angle beam used a wavelength less than the wide angle beam.
Claim 3 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claim 1, because Yeun taught using wavelengths in the 800nm or 900nm band.
Claims 13 and 26 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claims 1 and 24, because paragraph [0022] of Reppich et al taught the use of 1550nm.
Claims 5 and 27 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claims 1 and 24, because their subject matter is shown by figure 1 of Reppich et al.
Paragraph [0072] Kare et al teaches shutting down the center main beam, thus rendering claim 6 met by the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claim 1.
Paragraph [0038] of Reppich et al teaches using laser sources, thus rendering claim 14 met by the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claim 1.
Paragraph [0026] teaches the use of photodetection (APD) in a light receiver, thus rendering claim 15 met by the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 7-12 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reppich et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0215801) in view of Yeun (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0405163) and Kare et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0241165), as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Finkelstein et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0393245).
Figure 1 of Reppich et al shows the second radiation source (14) creating a LIDAR range finding field of view P2 auxiliary to the main LIDAR range finding field of view P1, thus rendering claims 7-9 and 28-30 met by the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claims 1 and 24, with the exception of the first light emitter being one of a plurality of emitters.
Paragraph [0016] of Reppich et al teaches using a class 1 laser, thus rendering claims 10 and 31 met by the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al, as applied to claims 1 and 24, with the exception of the first light emitter being one of a plurality of emitters.
Figure 1 of Finkelstein et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a plurality of light emitters as an emission source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting the combination of Reppich et al, Yeun and Kare et al to use a plurality of emitters in that Finkelstein et al taught that using a plurality of emitters was capable of producing the desired function of creating wide or narrow fields of view.
With regard to claims 11, 12 and 32, shutting down all or a subset of the emitters would have been obvious in that a skilled artisan would have shut down a subset to reduce power, as suggested by paragraph [0042] of Reppich et al, or all of the emitters, to meet a shutdown, as taught by paragraph [0072] of Kare et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-23 and 33-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 36, 37 and 39-43 are allowed.
The cited prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest having the first emitter generate one or more probe shots in a reduced power mode, as this concept is present by claims 36, 37 and 39-43.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights