DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[0050]: Scanner 150 in FIG. 4
[0057]: Transmit mirror 202 in FIG. 6.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"Laser Ranging and Detection" should be written as "Laser Detection and Ranging".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"tuned on and off" may be a typographical error and should read "turned on and off".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundquist (US20210255323A1) in view of Ferreira et al. (US20200284883A1) and Smits (US20160041266A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Lundquist teaches:
A Laser Ranging and Detection (Lidar) system ([0025]: “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary Lidar system 10”), comprising:
a laser operable to generate laser light ([0025]: “a laser that is operable to generate laser light 13”);
a transmitter operable to rotate at a first rate, and to transmit the laser light along a first path from the Lidar system to a target ([0003]: “a transmitter operable to rotate at a first rate, and to transmit the laser light along a first path from the Lidar system to a target”);
a receiver operable to rotate with the transmitter, and to receive at least a portion of the laser light along a second path from the target, wherein the first and second paths are different ([0003]: “a receiver operable to rotate at the first rate, and to receive at least a portion of the laser light along a second path from the target”);
an event-camera having a plurality of pixels ([0051]: “the imaging system 17 may include one or more detectors…Examples of detector elements employed by the detectors may include camera pixels”) each pixel being triggerable by photon flux changes; and
a processor operable to calculate a range and an angle to the target using an angular displacement between the second path and the receiver that arises from the first rate of rotation for the transmitter and the receiver ([0003]: “A processor may be configured to calculate a range and angle to the target using an angular displacement between the receiver and the second path that arises from the first rate of rotation”).
Lundquist does not teach, whereas Ferreira teaches:
an event-camera having a plurality of pixels each pixel being triggerable by photon flux changes ([0484]: “The SPAD 1202 is configured to detect the appearance of single photons at arrival time in the ps range. The intensity of a received light (photon flux=number of photons/time) may be encoded”).
Lundquist and Ferreira do not teach, whereas Smits teaches:
a processor operable to calculate a range and an angle to the target using an angular displacement between the second path and the receiver that arises from the first rate of rotation for the transmitter and the receiver and, in part, from event data of at least one of the pixels based on a direction of the first path at a time of a photon flux change and a pixel coordinate of the at least one pixel ([0191: “The ultra-fast scanning system 1400 employs the first receiver to correlate the spatial and temporal coordinates…(incoming azimuth and elevation angles and incoming timestamp) of each incoming detected pulse uniquely with the corresponding prior departure (outgoing timestamp) and outgoing azimuth and elevation angles”]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the previous LIDAR system as taught by Lundquist with a sensor array of pixels sensitive to photon flux as taught by Ferreira and to estimate a target’s range and angle based on the pixels’ coordinate position within the array and outgoing path direction as taught by Smits with a predictable level of success. These elements are known in the art for LIDAR systems and their incorporation would have the predictable result of accurately calculating the distance and angle of a faraway target.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Ferreira further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further operable to select the event data by excluding pixels of the event-camera that have not been triggered from the laser light along the second path from the target ([0717]: “depending on the angular position of the mirror (MEMS) or another suitable beam deflection or steering device, an FPGA, ASIC or other kind of electronic control unit is programmed to select which of the sensor pixels will be read out and/or what combination of is pixels of the pixel array is/are best suited regarding detection sensitivity and angular signal information”).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the receiver and the transmitter both rotate about axes aligned in a same direction ([0028: “the bistatic arrangement may have the transmitter and receiver components configured to rotate on separate axes aligned in the same direction”]).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the receiver and the transmitter are attached by a common rotating shaft ([0042]: “The [transmitter and receiver] monogons are affixed to opposite sides of a shared shaft”).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the receiver and the transmitter each comprise a monogon shaped mirror ([0031]: “The rotating bistatic optical arrangement 20, in this embodiment, comprises monogon reflective elements 12 and 16 (e.g., monogon mirrors)”).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 7, wherein: the mirrors of the receiver and the transmitter are configured at angles that are complementary to one another ([0035]: “For the case where a receiving monogon (e.g., the reflective element 16) and a transmitting monogon (e.g., the reflective element 12) have reflective surfaces that are at right angles to each other”).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the receiver and the transmitter comprises a transmissive scanner driven by a perimeter driven motor ([0076]: “the transmissive scanner 170 of the transmitter portion of the Lidar system may be rotatably driven by its own motor”).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 9, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 9, wherein: the transmissive scanner comprises a rotating diffractive scanner ([0079]: “the transmitter portion and/or the receiver portion of the Lidar system may be implemented with an optical element 182 which causes deflection of the laser light 13. For example, the optical element 182 may be implemented as a transmissive grating, a diffractive element”).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 9, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 9, wherein: the transmissive scanner comprises a rotating refractive scanner ([0077]: “the transmitter portion and/or the receiver portion of the Lidar system may be implemented with an optical element 182 which causes deflection of the laser light 13. For example, the optical element 182 may be implemented as a transmissive grating, a diffractive element”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the receiver and the transmitter are operable to conically scan ([0074]: “the transmitter portion of the Lidar system 100 propagates the laser light 13 in a conical pattern”; [0078]: “the refractive element 181 may receive reflected and/or backscattered laser light from targets 22 via a conical scan of the refractive element 181 in the opposite manner as the laser light was transmitted”).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, further comprising: an axle configured to rotate the receiver and the transmitter to conically scan via a precession rotational axis ([0056]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an embodiment where the axis of rotation 19 precesses about a precession axis 34…the light paths 13 and 15 sweep out conical surfaces”).
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the transmitted laser light is tuned on and off of an absorption line of a volumetric target ([0093]: “For example, using Differential Absorption Lidar (DiAL) techniques, the laser may be tuned on and off of an absorption line of a material or gas that is to be located”).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, further comprising: a detector configured to detect a wavelength of received laser light that differs from a wavelength of the transmitted laser light due to distributed scatterers ([0096]: “he Lidar system can be used for detection of received wavelengths that differ from the transmitted wavelengths via fluorescence Lidar techniques and Raman Lidar techniques”).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the laser light comprises continuous wave laser light ([0003]: “a Lidar system includes a laser operable to generate laser light (e.g., continuous wave, or “CW” laser light)”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundquist, Ferreira, and Smits as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nathan et al. (US20220365190A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Lundquist further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further operable to calculate the range and the angle to the target by derotating pixel event coordinates of a laser scan angle at a time of the event data ([0040]: “If a derotator (shown and described below) is used, the derotator may be configured to roughly align the target images to the y-axis and place the target images along the range direction in the sensor image”).
Lundquist, Ferreira, and Smits do not teach, whereas Nathan teaches:
the processor is further operable to calculate the range and the angle to the target by comparing the derotated pixel coordinates to a previously calculated pixel range map ([0044]: “the geometry reported by the lidar system under test may be compared against the known geometry of the geometric-calibration target. Any discrepancy between the reported geometry and the known geometry may be used to determine a correction to apply to the azimuth, elevation, or range values reported by the lidar system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the previous LIDAR system as taught by Lundquist, together with the photon flux-sensitive pixel array of Ferreira and the range and angle estimation method of Smits, with a calibration map having reference range and elevation values as taught by Nathan with a predictable level of success. These elements are known in the art for LIDAR systems and their incorporation would have the predictable result of obtaining more accurate distance and angle measurements by comparing measured values with previously calculated references.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nathan further teaches:
The Lidar system of claim 1, wherein: the processor is further operable to calculate the range and the angle to the target by derotating pixel event coordinates of a laser scan angle at a time of the event data, and by comparing the derotated pixel coordinates to a previously calculated pixel elevation correction map ([0044]: “the geometry reported by the lidar system under test may be compared against the known geometry of the geometric-calibration target. Any discrepancy between the reported geometry and the known geometry may be used to determine a correction to apply to the azimuth, elevation, or range values reported by the lidar system”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xiang et al. (US20180364334A1) also teaches many of the limitations of a bistatic LIDAR system that have been cited in the instant application.
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.
/K.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
