DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
2. Patent application submitted on July 03, 2024, has been received and recorded. There are 1-20 claims in the application of which claims 1, 12 and 18 are independent claims. Claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are dependent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(IDS) submitted on was filed along with the mailing date of the application on July 03, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. Figures 1&2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated(fig.1 shows a coaxial laser range finder LRF having an optical receiver without a spatial filter. The invention related to a spatial filter which is shown in fig.3. Therefore, figs.1&2 are related to “Prior art” in the instant application). See MPEP §608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBERSPACH et al.(US 2023/0213610 A1) (herein after EBERSPACH) in view of Keller et al.(US 2017/0214839 A) (herein after Keller) and further in view of Baribault et al.(US 2022/0026573 A)(herein after Baribault).
Regarding claim 1, EBERSPACH teaches an optical receiver (optical sensor, Para-22), comprising:
an optical detector(fig.31, Para-959, 960) including a detection surface having a linear dimension(Para-45, 49, 84, 87-88, 114)(figs.23, 31); and
a spatial filter(figs.35-36) comprising:
a detector lens(transfer device 128, figs.1-2, Para-810, 818; transfer device 2128, figs.35-36, Para-975) to focus a collimated optical signal(light beam 2116, figs.35-36) at a focal point (focal points 130, fig.1, Para-810) located at a focal length from the detector lens(128, 2128), wherein a field of view of the optical detector is a function of [the linear dimension of the detection surface and] the focal length of the detector lens(figs.1-2); and
an optical fiber(angle dependent optical element 2130, figs.35-36, Para-967, 968) having a first end(first side 2132, Para-967: a surface and/or entrance) mounted at [focal] the point of the detector lens(2128) to receive the optical signal(2116), and a second end(exit side near to optical sensors 2113, figs.35-36) coupled to the optical detector(figs.35-36), the optical fiber propagating only light received at incident angles no greater than an acceptance angle(Para-288, 971-972), wherein the acceptance angle is sized relative to the field of view to spatially filter incident light outside the field of view (Para-288, 971-972, 977)(examiner interprets in a way that light beam 2116 outside the range of optical sensors 2113 and acceptance angle will be cut-off before it reaching to the optical sensor 2113).
Nevertheless, EBERSPACH is not found to teach expressly the optical receiver, wherein the optical fiber is placed at the focal point of the detector lens.
However, Keller teaches an active imaging system, wherein the optical fiber(fused fiber bundle 206, fig.2, Para-33) having a first end mounted at the focal point(fig.2) of the detector lens(second lens 204, fig.2, Para-33), the optical fiber(206) propagating only light received at incident angles no greater than an acceptance angle(Para-39), wherein the acceptance angle is sized relative to the field of view to spatially filter incident light outside the field of view(fig.2).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified EBERSPACH with the teaching of Keller to include the feature in order to provide an optical system which includes solid-state active optical elements for improved weight reduction and reduced power consumption for long-range imaging and target tracking.
Neither EBERSPACH nor Keller teaches expressly the optical receiver, wherein a field of view of the optical detector is a function of the linear dimension of the detection surface.
However, Baribault teaches a system for wide-angle lidar, wherein a field of view of the optical detector is a function of the [linear] dimension of the detection surface(figs.30-31, Para 143-153).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified EBERSPACH further with the teaching of Baribault to include the feature in order to provide lidar system that improves manufacturability, performance and uses of LiDAR system in range, resolution, field-of-view, and physical and environmental robustness.
Regarding claim 2, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber comprises a core having a first index of refraction surrounded by a cladding having a second index of refraction, the acceptance angle being a function of the first and second indices of refraction(Para-289, EBERSPACH).
Regarding claim 3, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 2, wherein a cross-sectional shape and size of the core of the optical fiber correspond to a shape and size of the detection surface of the optical detector(fig.36, EBERSPACH).
Regarding claim 4, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber is a multimode fiber(Para-289, EBERSPACH).
Regarding claim 5, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber is a single-mode fiber(Para-289, EBERSPACH).
Regarding claim 6, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber is a polarization-maintaining optical fiber(Para-289, EBERSPACH).
Regarding claim 7, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the acceptance angle of the optical fiber matches the field of view of the optical detector(fig.2, Keller).
Regarding claim 8, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the detection surface of the optical detector is circular and the linear dimension is the diameter of the detection surface (fig.31, EBERSPACH).
Regarding claim 10, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches a coaxial laser range finder(fig.24, Para-98, Baribault), comprising:
the optical receiver of claim 1(see the rejection of claim 1);
a telescope(Para-438, EBERSPACH) to launch a laser signal and to collect a return signal of the laser signal reflected from an object(Para-25, 90, EBERSPACH); and
optical elements to direct the return signal to the detector lens(figs.1-2, 35-36, EBERSPACH; fig.2, Keller; fig.25, Baribault).
Regarding claim 11, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches an imaging system, comprising:
the optical receiver of claim 1(see the rejection of claim 1);
and optical elements to direct the optical signal to the detector lens(figs.1-2, 35-36, EBERSPACH; fig.2, Keller; fig.25, Baribault).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claims 1 & 10, since claims 1 and 10, in combination, recite identical claim limitations of claim 12 with minor change in wording.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 13 recites, in part, identical claim limitations of claim 1 with minor change in wording.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 2, since both claims 2 and 14 recite identical claim limitations with minor change in wording.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 3, since both claims 3 and 15 recite identical claim limitations with minor change in wording.
Regarding claim 16, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the laser range finder of claim 12, wherein the telescope is a collimating telescope that up-collimates the laser signal(Para-28, Keller: the waveguide 110 may be operated to transmit the optical radiation in the direction of the scene as a “fan” beam or a “spot” beam)(also Para-25, 27, 29-31) and down-collimates the return signal such that the return signal incident on the detector lens is collimated(Para-39, Keller).
Regarding claim 17, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the lase range finder of claim 12, wherein the acceptance angle of the optical fiber matches the receive field of view(fig.2, Keller).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 18 recites identical claim limitations of claim 1 with minor change in preamble.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 19 recites, in part, identical claim limitations of claim 1 with minor change in wording.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claims 2&3, since claim 20 recites identical claim limitations of claims 2-3 with minor change in wording.
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EBERSPACH et al.(US 2023/0213610 A1), Keller et al.(US 2017/02 14839 A), Baribault et al.(US 2022/0026573 A) and further in view of Gnecchi et al.(US 2018/0164414 A)(herein after Gnecchi).
Regarding claim 9, EBESPACH as modified by Keller and Baribault teaches the optical receiver of claim 1, wherein the detection surface of the optical detector is non-circular(fig.31, EBERSPACH), but fails to teach the linear dimension varies as a function of an angle of the linear dimension relative to a center point of the detection surface.
However, Gnecchi teaches a lidar apparatus, wherein the detection surface of the optical detector is non-circular(fig.1), and the linear dimension varies as a function of an angle of the linear dimension relative to a center point of the detection surface(Para-64, 72-80).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified EBERSPACH further with the teaching of Gnecchi to include the feature in order to improve signal to noise ratio when data from single-shot measurements are combined to produce ranging measurement from which timing of detected laser pulses could be extracted with high precision and accuracy.
Examiner Note
9. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicants fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights