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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 22 and 24 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkissian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0018140 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sarkissian discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Lidar system, See Abstract) comprising:
a first signal source (From light source 240 and output signal 246 and 247; FIG. 2 ¶ 36);
a second signal source (Received signal 262, FIG. 2 and second combined signal ¶ 13);
a combiner (Combiner 265, FIG. 2) to generate a hybrid transmission signal from signals generated by the first signal source and the second signal source (See combiner 265 receiving both signal 262 and 247; FIG. 2 and ¶ 13);
a first photodetector (270a, FIG. 2) to measure a first component of a reflection signal related to range of a target (Range to target 140, FIG. 2 and ¶ 36); and
a second photodetector (270b, FIG. 2) to measure a second component of the reflection signal related to velocity of the target (relative speed of the target ¶ 36), wherein the system is configured to derive the range and velocity of the target from the first component and the second component, respectively (The electrical currents 275 from each of the photodetectors 270ab are combined and processed to obtain 3D information like the range to target and relative speed to the lidar system as a function of two-dimensional spatial coordinates ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 22, Sarkissian discloses the LiDAR system, wherein the first signal source comprises a continuous wave (CW) laser source (Similarly, frequency modulated continuous wave signal as light source 240 ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 24, Sarkissian discloses the LiDAR system, wherein the combiner is configured to combine signals from the first signal source and the second signal source in a bidirectional optical path (combiner 265, FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Sarkissian discloses the LiDAR system, wherein the bidirectional optical path is configured to allow for at least a portion of the reflection signal to propagate therethrough in a direction opposite the hybrid transmission signal prior to capture by the first photodetector or the second photodetector (Signals 246, 262, 267ab, 270ab photodetectors; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Sarkissian discloses the LiDAR system, further comprising:
an optical amplifier circuit to amplify the reflection signal (¶¶ 31, 38).
Regarding claim 27, Sarkissian discloses the LiDAR system, wherein the first component corresponds to a pulsed component of the reflection signal, and wherein the second component corresponds to a continuous wave component of the reflection signal (¶ 13).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 28, 34, 35 and 37 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkissian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0018140 A1) in view of Avci et al. (Patent No.: US 11,320,522 B1).
Regarding claim 28, Sarkissian teaches a method comprising:
illuminating a target with a hybrid transmission signal comprising a first signal from a
first signal source (Beam steering devices 220a and 220b emitting and receiving signals 246 and 262 off of target 140, FIG. 2 and ¶ 36);
receiving a reflection signal produced by reflection of the hybrid transmission signal by
the target (signal 262 to combiner 265, FIG. 2); and
deriving range data of the target from a first component of the reflection signal related to range and velocity data of the target from a second component of the reflection signal related to velocity (The electrical currents 275 from each of the photodetectors 270ab are combined and processed to obtain 3D information like the range to target and relative speed to the lidar system as a function of two-dimensional spatial coordinates ¶ 36).
Sarkissian is silent to illuminating a target with a hybrid transmission signal comprising a first signal from a first signal source and a second signal from a second signal source. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Avci teaches a LIDAR system using optical sources to emit a continuous wave optical beam and a frequency modulated optical beam (See Abstract). In other words, two sources are utilized (201 CW Optical Source and 203 FMCW Optical Source, FIG. 2A) and fed into combiner 218 where the signal is used to scan objects 226 (FIG. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second signal taught by Sarkissian to be from a second source as taught by Avci to simplify the LIDAR system enhancing cost effectiveness (col. 1, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 34, Sarkissian discloses the method, wherein deriving range data of the target from a first component of the reflection signal related to range and velocity data of the target from a second component of the reflection signal related to velocity comprises:
deriving the range data from a first photodetector configured to detect a pulsed
component of the reflection signal; and deriving the velocity data from a second photodetector configured to detect a CW component of the reflection signal (The electrical currents 275 from each of the photodetectors 270ab are combined and processed to obtain 3D information like the range to target and relative speed to the lidar system as a function of two-dimensional spatial coordinates ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 35, Sarkissian teaches a sensing system comprising:
a computing device (230, FIG. 2) configured to:
generate a signal from at least a first signal source (Beam steering devices 220a and 220b emitting and receiving signals 246 and 262 off of target 140, FIG. 2 and ¶ 36);
transmit the combined signal (275ab, FIG. 2); and
derive range data and velocity data from a reflection signal received responsive to
transmission of the combined signal (The electrical currents 275 from each of the photodetectors 270ab are combined and processed to obtain 3D information like the range to target and relative speed to the lidar system as a function of two-dimensional spatial coordinates ¶ 36).
Sarkissian is silent to generate a combined signal from at least a first signal source and a second signal source. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Avci teaches a LIDAR system using optical sources to emit a continuous wave optical beam and a frequency modulated optical beam (See Abstract). In other words, two sources are utilized (201 CW Optical Source and 203 FMCW Optical Source, FIG. 2A) and fed into combiner 218 where the signal is used to scan objects 226 (FIG. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second signal taught by Sarkissian to be from a second source as taught by Avci to simplify the LIDAR system enhancing cost effectiveness (col. 1, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 37, Sarkissian discloses the sensing system, wherein the computing device is further configured to combine signals from the first signal source and the second signal source in a bidirectional optical path (at combiner 265, FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 38, Sarkissian discloses the sensing system, wherein the bidirectional optical path is configured to allow for at least a portion of the reflection signal to propagate therethrough in a direction opposite the combined signal prior to capture by a photodetector (Signal 246, 262; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 39, Sarkissian discloses the sensing system, further comprising:
an optical amplifier circuit to amplify the reflection signal (¶¶ 31, 38).
Regarding claim 40, Sarkissian discloses the sensing system, wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to a data processing system of a vehicle to provide the range data and the velocity data to the data processing system for controlling the vehicle (¶ 36).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkissian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0018140 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Dakin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0044309 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Sarkissian is silent to the LiDAR system, wherein the second signal source comprises a pulsed-laser source. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Dakin teaches a scanning LIDAR where a laser output is modulated to achieve a desired pulse width and pulse repetition frequency is amplified (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second signal taught by Sarkissian to comprise a pulsed-laser source as taught by Dakin to facilitate real time map of an underlying terrain (¶ 30).
Claims 29 - 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkissian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0018140 A1) in view of Avci et al. (Patent No.: US 11,320,522 B1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Dakin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0044309 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Sarkissian teaches the method, wherein the second signal comprises a continuous wave (CW) optical signal (Similarly, frequency modulated continuous wave signal as light source 240 ¶ 34). Sarkissian is silent to the first signal comprises a pulsed optical signal. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Dakin teaches a scanning LIDAR where a laser output is modulated to achieve a desired pulse width and pulse repetition frequency is amplified (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second signal taught by Sarkissian and Avci to comprise a pulsed optical signal as taught by Dakin to facilitate real time map of an underlying terrain (¶ 30).
Regarding claim 30, Dakin teaches the method, wherein the pulsed optical signal and the CW optical signal are combined in a bidirectional optical path (via beam combiner 116, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second signal taught by Sarkissian and Avci to wherein the pulsed optical signal and the CW optical signal are combined in a bidirectional optical path as taught by Dakin to facilitate real time map of an underlying terrain (¶ 30).
Regarding claim 31, Sarkissian discloses the method, further comprising:
amplifying at least the pulsed optical signal (optical frequency modulation ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 32, Sarkissian discloses the method, further comprising:
amplifying the hybrid transmission signal without first amplifying the CW optical signal (¶ 36).
Regarding claim 33, Sarkissian discloses the method, further comprising:
amplifying the pulsed optical signal without amplifying the CW optical signal and the
hybrid transmission signal (¶ 36).
Regarding claim 36, Sarkissian teaches the sensing system, wherein the first signal source comprises a continuous wave (CW) laser source (Similarly, frequency modulated continuous wave signal as light source 240 ¶ 34). Sarkissian is silent to, wherein the second signal source comprises a pulsed-laser source. Dakin teaches a scanning LIDAR where a laser output is modulated to achieve a desired pulse width and pulse repetition frequency is amplified (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second signal taught by Sarkissian and Avci to comprise the second signal source comprises a pulsed-laser source as taught by Dakin to facilitate real time map of an underlying terrain (¶ 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663