DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-11, 14, 17 and 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 6-7 and 9, these claims contains the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the “preferably” claimed limitations are definitively required and therefore the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim 9, 15 and 18, these claims require the term “especially”. It is unclear if the “especially” claimed limitations are definitively required and therefore the claim is indefinite.
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(s) 1-6, 12-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess et al. US 11,867,899 hereinafter referred to as Suess in view of Banks et al. US 10,104,365 hereinafter referred to as Banks.
In regards to claim 1, Suess teaches:
“A [LIDAR system], comprising: receive optics, a polarization element, an optical modulator, an imaging element, and a controller”
Suess teaches in Figure 1 and column 3 lines 15-16 a LIDAR system 100. Suess Figure 1 column 3 lines 18-19 teaches the LIDAR system 100 includes a controller 102. Suess Figure 1 and column 4 lines 22-23 teaches The shutter 124 includes a linear polarizer 150, a polarization modulator 160. Suess Figure 5 and column 7 lines 31-33 teaches . FIG. 5 illustrates an example optical receiver 120 that includes an optical system 500 arranged at an input side of the shutter 124.
“wherein the receive optics is configured to receive an impact location of the directed light as received light and to provide said received light for the polarization element”
Suess Figure 5 and column 7 lines 34-35 teaches the optical system 500 receives reflected light from the scene 130 having a first set of angles (e.g., θ.sub.input). The Examiner interprets from Figure 5, inter alia, the lens 500 provides the transmitted light to polarizer 150.
“wherein said polarization element is configured to make the received light polarized in the same direction and to provide the correspondingly polarized light for the optical modulator”
Suess Figure 1 column 4 lines 21-29 teaches The shutter 124 includes a linear polarizer 150, a polarization modulator 160, and an analyzing polarizer 170. In some embodiments, the linear polarizer 150 filters out any received light that does not have a predefined polarization (e.g., a linear polarization in a particular direction). In one particular example, the linear polarizer 150 may permit light with only a vertical polarization (e.g., a polarization in the page) to pass through. The Examiner interprets from Figure 1, inter alia, that polarizer 150 provides the polarized light to polarization modulator 160.
“wherein said optical modulator is configured to change the polarization of said polarized light over a controlled period and to provide the correspondingly polarization-changed light for the imaging element”
Suess Figure 1 and column 4 lines 43-47 teach the linearly polarized light can pass through the polarization modulator 160 in the shutter 124, and the polarization modulator 160 can selectively change the polarization of the reflections received from the objects 110. The Examiner interprets from Figure 1, inter alia, the polarization modulator provides the light to the optical sensor (camera) 122.
Suess does not explicitly teach:
“[A system for a] tracker for tracking timing and impact location with respect to directed light whose location varies over time”
Banks column 6 lines 1-9 teach pulse portions 127, 128, and 129, which are delayed in time relative to one another because they traveled different distances to and from objects in scene 190, experience different degrees of transmission than one another. Specifically, pulse portion 129 reflected from a closer portion of object 191 than did pulse portion 128, and so experiences less transmission than pulse portion 128. Pulse portion 127 reflected from further object 192, and so experiences more transmission than pulse portion 128. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess in view of Banks to have included the features of “[A system for a] tracker for tracking timing and impact location with respect to directed light whose location varies over time” to provide a system and method of three-dimensional imaging achieve high resolution distance measurement using illumination light pulses of longer length than are currently used in some 3D imaging systems (Banks column 2 lines 37-40).
Suess does not explicitly teach:
“wherein said imaging element is configured to spatially resolve the corresponding polarization intensities of the respective polarization directions of said polarization-changed light and to provide said polarization intensities for the controller, and wherein said controller is configured to map the corresponding locations and polarization intensities to the respective modulation time associated with that corresponding polarization”
Banks column 5 line 63 through column 6 line 4 and Figure 2 teaches as illustrated in FIG. 2, sensor subsystem 120 may vary the transmission 200 through the analyzer of light collected by receiving lens 121 from zero to one between times of 50 to 100 nanoseconds (where zero nanoseconds corresponds to the time the light pulse was generated). As such, pulse portions 127, 128, and 129, which are delayed in time relative to one another because they traveled different distances to and from objects in scene 190, experience different degrees of transmission than one another. Banks column 6 lines 40-43 teaches Processor subsystem 140, illustrated in FIG. 1, may store the polarized images and perform further processing to obtain distance and shape information for objects 191, 192 in scene 190. Banks column 6 lines 45-49 teaches Processor subsystem 140 may then calculate the positions and shapes of different objects in scene 190 based on the normalized images, forming a three-dimensional image, which includes distance information about objects 191, 192. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess in view of Banks to have included the features of “wherein said imaging element is configured to spatially resolve the corresponding polarization intensities of the respective polarization directions of said polarization-changed light and to provide said polarization intensities for the controller, and wherein said controller is configured to map the corresponding locations and polarization intensities to the respective modulation time associated with that corresponding polarization” to provide a system and method of three-dimensional imaging achieve high resolution distance measurement using illumination light pulses of longer length than are currently used in some 3D imaging systems (Banks column 2 lines 37-40).
In regards to claim 2, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the controller is configured to create a pattern map for the corresponding locations over time”
Processor subsystem 140 may then calculate the positions and shapes of different objects in scene 190 based on the normalized images, forming a three-dimensional image, which includes distance information about objects 191, 192. The Examiner interprets that an image is a map of the light pattern which was received over time. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess in view of Banks to have included the features of “wherein the controller is configured to create a pattern map for the corresponding locations over time” to provide a system and method of three-dimensional imaging achieve high resolution distance measurement using illumination light pulses of longer length than are currently used in some 3D imaging systems (Banks column 2 lines 37-40).
In regards to claim 3, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the receive optics comprises or is at least one of a screen, one or more diffusors, one or more structured diffusors, a focusing element, a lens, an imaging lens, or any combination thereof”
Suess column 7 lines 41-42 teaches The optical system 500 may include a lens system with multiple lenses.
In regards to claim 4, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the polarization element comprises or is a polarization filter and/or a polarization grid”
Suess column 4 lines 24-27 teaches In some embodiments, the linear polarizer 150 filters out any received light that does not have a predefined polarization (e.g., a linear polarization in a particular direction).
In regards to claim 5, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the optical modulator comprises or is a polarization modulator and/or a Pockels cell”
Suess Figure 1 and column 4 lines 22-23 teaches The shutter 124 includes a linear polarizer 150, a polarization modulator 160.
In regards to claim 6, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the imaging element comprises or is a polarization beam splitter and/or at least two optical sensors, preferably at least two camera sensors, more preferably two optical sensors, most preferably two camera sensors, and/or at least two focal-plane arrays”
Suess Figure 6 column 8 lines 32-35 teaches another embodiment of the optical receiver 120, which includes a polarizing beam splitter 650 (also referred to as a beam splitter, beam cube, etc.)
In regards to claim 12, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the optical modulator is configured to apply the corresponding polarization modulation to the polarized light depending on a respective time delay”
Suess column 4 lines 54-58 teaches when the reflected light pulses reach the polarization modulator 160 of the shutter 124, the reflected light pulses experience a time-of-incidence-dependent phase retardation and a corresponding change in their polarizations
In regards to claim 13, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 3 and further teach:
“wherein the screen comprises or is a partially reflective screen, a reflective screen, a partially transmissive screen, a transmissive screen, or any combination thereof”
This limitation is not required by the claims. For clarification, claim 3 is written in an alternative form in which a screen is not required and therefore, further limitations narrowing the type of screen are not required.
In regards to claim 18, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 18 recites similar limitations of claim 1 except in method format. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 19, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 18 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as in claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess view of Banks in view of Kadambi et al. US 2021/0356572 hereinafter referred to as Kadambi.
In regards to claim 7, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the imaging element comprises or is a polarization determining optical sensor, preferably a polarization determining camera sensor”
Kadambi paragraph [0210] teaches a polarization camera system 1010 configured to capturer polarization raw frames 1018. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess/Banks in view of Kadambi to have included the features of “wherein the imaging element comprises or is a polarization determining optical sensor, preferably a polarization determining camera sensor” for using polarization imaging to provide additional information for augmenting sensor systems to detect transparent objects and other optically challenging objects and features in scenes (Kadambi [0049]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess view of Banks in view of DaSilva et al. US 2021/0357552 hereinafter referred to as daSilva.
In regards to claim 9, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the optical modulator is configured to sweep, preferably linearly sweep, through a corresponding modulation ramp, especially over the whole controlled period”
DaSilva paragraph [0117] teaches the emulator system may be customized to operate specifically with FMCW LiDAR UUTs. In these embodiments, the optical processing chains may include IQ frequency modulators and optical amplitude modulators, but they may exclude the optical time delays. For these embodiments, the IQ frequency translators may be utilized to emulate both Doppler shift and time delay, such that a separate time delay apparatus is not necessary. For example, for FMCW LiDAR, the plurality of laser pulses each include a linear frequency up-sweep followed by a linear frequency down-sweep. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess/Banks in view of daSilva to have included the features of “wherein the optical modulator is configured to sweep, preferably linearly sweep, through a corresponding modulation ramp, especially over the whole controlled period” because developers and manufacturers resort to either: 1) testing in outdoor environments or 2) building a physical model of a real-world environment in a large area. While this can provide a well-defined test environment, it is large, expensive, difficult to automate and not scalable (daSilva [0012]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suess view of Banks in view of Werneth et al. US 2026/0050067 hereinafter referred to as Werneth.
In regards to claim 15, Suess/Banks teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“… comprising: a tracker according to claim 1”
See claim 1.
Suess/Banks do not explicitly teach:
“A tester for testing a directed light emitting device, especially a lidar sensor … ”
Werneth paragraph [0040] and Figure 3 teaches in the “self-test mode” 52 shown in FIG. 3 the polygon mirror 30, which is arranged between the two deflecting mirrors 46, 48, is swiveled into a rotational position in which a direct light path 44 between the first deflecting mirror 46 and the second deflecting mirror 48 is released inside the housing 12. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess/Banks in view of Werneth to have included the features of “A tester for testing a directed light emitting device, especially a lidar sensor … ” to ensure compliance, various monitoring mechanisms must be provided to recognize or prevent malfunctions at an early stage (Werneth [0002]).
In regards to claim 16, Suess/Banks/Werneth teach all the limitations of claim 15 and further teach:
“further comprising: a light signal transmitter, wherein the light signal transmitter is configured to transmit a light signal towards the directed light emitting device as a response to the directed light emitted by the directed light emitting device”
Werneth paragraph [0040] and Figure 3 teaches in the “self-test mode” 52 shown in FIG. 3 the polygon mirror 30, which is arranged between the two deflecting mirrors 46, 48, is swiveled into a rotational position in which a direct light path 44 between the first deflecting mirror 46 and the second deflecting mirror 48 is released inside the housing 12. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Suess/Banks in view of Werneth to have included the features of “further comprising: a light signal transmitter, wherein the light signal transmitter is configured to transmit a light signal towards the directed light emitting device as a response to the directed light emitted by the directed light emitting device” to ensure compliance, various monitoring mechanisms must be provided to recognize or prevent malfunctions at an early stage (Werneth [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights