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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/22/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pacala (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0120906).
With respect to claim 1, Pacala discloses: A light emitting apparatus [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a light emitting unit that has a plurality of regions configured to individually emit light [ taught by emitter array (114) ]; a drive unit that drives a predetermined region among the plurality of regions of the light emitting unit to perform pulse light emission [ taught by emitter controller (115); paragraph [ 0015 ] states, “…The emitter controller can be coupled to the emitter array and operable to activate the plurality of VCSELs in each emission cycle by activating a subset of the plurality of light emitters at a time…”; figure 3 shows illumination of different regions (315(1), 315(n)) ]; and an acquisition unit that acquires a light reception result obtained by receiving reflected light of the light emitted from the light emitting unit toward a target object [ taught by TOF sensor array (126) ], wherein in one acquisition acquired by the acquisition unit, the drive unit drives the predetermined region such that the pulse light emission of the predetermined region is performed a plurality of times with time intervals [ paragraph [ 0036 ] states, “…In some embodiments, a pulse coding technique can be used, e.g., Barker codes and the like. In such cases, memory 120 can store pulse-codes that indicate when light should be transmitted. In some embodiments, the pulse-codes are stored as a sequence of integers stored in memory…”].
With respect to claim 16, Pacala discloses: A drive device [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a drive unit that drives a predetermined region among a plurality of regions configured to individually emit light to perform pulse light emission [ taught by emitter controller (115); paragraph [ 0015 ] states, “…The emitter controller can be coupled to the emitter array and operable to activate the plurality of VCSELs in each emission cycle by activating a subset of the plurality of light emitters at a time…”; figure 3 shows illumination of different regions (315(1), 315(n)) ]; and an acquisition unit that acquires a light reception result obtained by receiving reflected light of the light emitted from the plurality of regions toward a target object [ taught by TOF sensor array (126) ], wherein in one acquisition acquired by the acquisition unit, the drive unit drives the predetermined region such that the pulse light emission of the predetermined region is performed a plurality of times with time intervals [ paragraph [ 0036 ] states, “…In some embodiments, a pulse coding technique can be used, e.g., Barker codes and the like. In such cases, memory 120 can store pulse-codes that indicate when light should be transmitted. In some embodiments, the pulse-codes are stored as a sequence of integers stored in memory…”].
With respect to claim 17, Pacala discloses: A distance measurement apparatus [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a light emitting unit that has a plurality of regions configured to individually emit light [ taught by emitter array (114) ]; a drive unit that drives a predetermined region among the plurality of regions of the light emitting unit to perform pulse light emission [ taught by emitter controller (115); paragraph [ 0015 ] states, “…The emitter controller can be coupled to the emitter array and operable to activate the plurality of VCSELs in each emission cycle by activating a subset of the plurality of light emitters at a time…”; figure 3 shows illumination of different regions (315(1), 315(n)) ]; an acquisition unit that acquires a light reception result obtained by receiving reflected light of the light emitted from the light emitting unit toward a target object [ taught by TOF sensor array (126) ]; and a calculation unit that calculates a distance to the target object based on the light reception result acquired by the acquisition unit [ taught by ranging system controller (104) ], wherein in one acquisition acquired by the acquisition unit, the drive unit drives the predetermined region such that the pulse light emission of the predetermined region is performed a plurality of times with time intervals [ paragraph [ 0036 ] states, “…In some embodiments, a pulse coding technique can be used, e.g., Barker codes and the like. In such cases, memory 120 can store pulse-codes that indicate when light should be transmitted. In some embodiments, the pulse-codes are stored as a sequence of integers stored in memory…”].
Paragraph [ 0060 ] states, “…For example, bank of emitters 312(1) emits illuminating beams 314(1) (each formed from one or more light pulses) into region 315(1) of the field of view and thus reflect off of a tree 330 in the field. Likewise, bank of emitters 312(n) emits illuminating beams 314(n) into region 315(n) of the field of view. It is to be appreciated that in the embodiment shown in FIG. 3A, emitter array 310 scans through its banks in sequential order from left to right…”.
Sequential scanning of different regions anticipates claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, the sequence defines a time interval.
Figure 3 shows the regions (315(1)) and (315(n)) not being adjacent; thus, anticipating claim 10.
The sequential scanning from left to right takes longer than the TOF measurements for each region (315); thus, anticipating claim 11.
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 4-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0120906) in view of Ko et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0020209).
The modification of Pacala that would have produced claims 4-9 required scanning the individual regions of interest in rows and columns.
Figure 1f of Ko et al taught that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used scanning array subsets (106) to illuminate subregions (103) wherein, in the case of large targets of interest, scanning regions in rows and columns (T1, T2, T3 and T4).
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 Pacala to have scanned regions in accordance with the teaching of Ko et al, when seeking to make measurements on large objects.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0120906).
Claim 12 would have been obvious because it would have been reasonably expected of a skilled artisan to have set Barker code to a length (emission time being a function of length) required for desired range resolution.
Claims 13 and 14 would have been obvious because a skilled artisan would have been reasonably expected to base the code on the range of the regions being interrogated.
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