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 .
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.
Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the common time count value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (20200341144) in view of Pacala (20190011567).
Referring to claim 1, Pacala shows a ranging device comprising:
a counting unit configured to output a time count value indicating an elapsed time from a start of time counting (see paragraph 113 and figure 10 note the clock Ref 1003);
a control unit (see figure 2 Ref 250) configured to control a light emission timing in a light emitting device divided into a plurality of emitting regions (see figure 2 Ref 240 also see figure 4 Ref 402) and a start timing of the time counting in the counting unit (see paragraph 55 also see paragraph 61);
a receiving unit (see figure 2 Ref 230) including a plurality of pixels divided into a plurality of receiving regions (see figure 4 Ref 404) so as to correspond one-to-one to the plurality of emitting regions (see paragraph 52), each of the plurality of pixels generating a light reception signal based on incident light in a measurement period from a light emission timing until a measurement ends in a corresponding emitting region and receiving region (see paragraph 55);
a latch unit (see figure 5 Ref 550) configured to generate a light reception time value indicating an elapsed time from the start of the time counting until the incident light is incident on any one of the plurality of receiving regions based on the time count value and a plurality of light reception signals respectively output from pixels in the plurality of receiving regions (see paragraph 75 note the binary signal is latched by the pixel counters during an avalanche event); and
a calculation unit configured to calculate a flight time of light emitted from the light emitting device based on the light reception time value (see paragraph 61-62),
wherein light emission timings of the plurality of emitting regions are individually controlled (see figure 4 note the control of each emitter and corresponding receiver region)
wherein the calculation unit calculates the flight time corresponding to each of the plurality of receiving regions based on the light reception time value (see paragraph 61-62)
While Pacala shows emitters that are individually controlled (see figure 4 note the control of each of the emitter and corresponding receiver region) Pacala fails to show that are different from each other, and a time difference between any two light emission timings of the plurality of emitting regions is shorter than a length of a measurement period in each of the plurality of receiving regions, and
wherein the calculation unit calculates the flight time corresponding to each of the plurality of receiving regions based on the light reception time value (see paragraph 61-62) and the time difference.
Pacala ‘567 shows a similar device that includes individually controlled and individually scanned emitters that correspond to individually controlled and individually scanned detectors (see paragraph 11) that includes wherein light emission timings of the plurality of emitting regions are individually controlled (see paragraph 11) are different from each other (see paragraph 62 note the different subset of emitters and detectors activated at a different time), and a time difference between any two light emission timings of the plurality of emitting regions is shorter than a length of a measurement period in each of the plurality of receiving regions (see paragraph 91 note the non sequential scanning done to prevent cross talk from light signals traveling together), and
wherein the calculation unit calculates the flight time corresponding to each of the plurality of receiving regions based on the light reception time value and the time difference (see the time of flight as shown by Pacala ‘567 in paragraph 98 also note the synchronous signal as shown by paragraph 11 where the delay between multiple emitters as they scan across the array is synchronized with the individual photosensors within the array).
It would have been obvious to include the individually controlled emitter elements and the calculation unit as shown by Pacala ‘567 because this allows for the LIDAR system to efficiently manage the available power available to the LIDAR system as shown by Pacala ‘567 (see paragraph 9).
Referring to claim 11, Pacala in view of Pacala ‘567 shows the plurality of emitting regions are arranged such that two emitting regions in which light emission timings are continuous are not adjacent to each other (see Pacala ‘567 paragraph 123 note the odd and even rows that are not adjacent to eachother that are fired together).
Referring to claim 13, Pacala shows at least two measurement periods in the plurality of receiving regions partially overlap each other (see paragraph 91 note the non sequential scanning done to prevent cross talk from light signals traveling together, if light signals are traveling together the measurement periods overlap).
Referring to claim 14, Pacala shows comprising a logic circuit configured to output, to the latch unit, a logical sum of the plurality of light reception signals respectively output from pixels of the plurality of receiving regions (see figure 10 note the integration register also see paragraph 112-113).
Referring to claim 15, Pacala shows comprising a selection circuit configured to distribute output signals of the calculation unit as a plurality of output signals respectively corresponding to the plurality of receiving regions based on the plurality of light reception signals respectively output from pixels of the plurality of receiving regions (see the integration data path that is then compiled into the histogram data path shown in figure 12 also see paragraph 119).
Referring to claim 16, Pacala in combination with Pacala ‘567 shows wherein the plurality of pixels is arranged to form a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, and
wherein one of the plurality of receiving regions includes a plurality of pixels arranged in one row (see paragraph 88 of Pacala ‘567). It would have been obvious to include a receiving region include a plurality of pixels arranged in one row because this would allow for vertical scanning of the LIDAR sensor as shown by Pacala ’567).
Referring to claim 18, the combination of Pacala and Pacala ‘567 shows wherein a plurality of the latch units are arranged respectively corresponding to
the plurality of columns, and
wherein the common time count value is input to a plurality of the latch units (see the latch circuit as shown by Pacala as cited above with the column scanning and synchronization as shown by Pacala ‘567 in paragraph 88). It would have been obvious to include the common time count value as shown for a column of Pacala ‘567 because this allows the timing of a scanned column to be read out with the same delay time appropriate for the transmission time of the corresponding emitter column.
Referring to claim 19, Pacala shows a processing device configured to process distance information acquired by the ranging device (see paragraph 49).
Referring to claim 20, Pacala shows the ranging device according to claim 1; and
a movable body control unit configured to control the movable body based on
distance information acquired by the ranging device (see figure 1A and 1B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (20200341144) in view of Pacala (20190011567) and Zhu (20210181316).
Referring to claim 12, Pacala teaches that the pulses of light emission regions can be coded however never shows that the sequence of light emission timing in the plurality of emitting regions is random.
Zhu shows a similar device that includes a random time coded for a VCSEL emitter (see paragraph 93). It would have been obvious to include a light emission region that is randomly coded as shown by Zhu because this is an extremely well known coding scheme to allow for the mitigation of cross talk between multiple devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights