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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 09 July 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with respect to priority:
Applicant notes for the record that this priority claim was made in the ADS submitted at filing, which included an authorization to retrieve from the foreign participating office through PDX and properly included the DAS code A24B. Applicant respectfully request that the Patent Office retrieve the document as requested at filing.
While the office will attempt to automatically retrieve the required document under the priority document exchange program (PDX), successful retrieval of priority documents cannot be guaranteed. As stated in the ADS, MPEP 215 and USPTO priority document exchange website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx), under the PDX program, applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a copy of the foreign application is received by the Office. Since the office has already attempted to retrieve the priority document but was unsuccessful, it remains applicant’s responsibility to file the copy in order to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.55 and 35 USC 119(a)-(d). For assistance, applicants may contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-electronic-business-center) at 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free), 571-272-4100 (local) or ebc@uspto.gov.
On page 8, Applicant argues:
However, Ni does not teach or suggest distinguishing a laser spot from a bright static
ambient background in the same image. The purposes pursued by Ni and by claim 1 are fundamentally different: Ni aims at range discrimination, whereas claim 1 provides a method for
signal-to-background discrimination by exploiting the logarithmic compression of the static flux
and the linear response to the pulse. Ni therefore provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to use a logarithmic pixel for the purpose of detecting a laser spot in the presence of an intense static luminous flux.
While the claims recite “ A method for detecting a light spot formed by a laser pulse delivered by a laser source on a target surface” and “A system for detecting a light spot formed by a laser pulse from a laser source in a scene delivering a substantially static luminous flux” the claims do not recite any particular steps/structures which “distinguish a laser spot from a bright static ambient background in the same image” as argued by applicant. Furthermore, “detecting” as claimed does not necessarily require a step/structure for “distinguishing” as argued.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., distinguish a laser spot from a bright static ambient background in the same image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues on pages 8-10:
As a second point, Applicant submits that Nazemi's architecture is incompatible with a logarithmic pixel and provides no motivation for such a substitution. Nazemi deliberately uses a very small array of "at least a 32 by 32 array of photodetectors." Nazemi, paragraph [0024]. This
small matrix (1,024 pixels) is a design choice that enables the frame rate of "at least 20,000 fps
(20 kHz), for reading sequential image frames from the InGaAs FPA 102. This rate allows ROIC
104 to detect pulse codes in the laser spots imaged on the InGaAs FPA 102." Nazemi, paragraph
[0027]. Nazemi does not need to produce an image of the scene; it only needs to detect and
locate laser spots in 2D space for the purpose of decoding PRF codes. Furthermore, Nazemi
already solves the signal-to-noise problem through spectral filtering: "optical assembly 106 can
include [...] a narrowband filter in front of the InGaAs FPA 102 to improve the signal to noise
laser detection." Nazemi, paragraph [0025]. The narrowband filter eliminates the majority of the
ambient flux, rendering any logarithmic compression of the ambient light by the pixel unnecessary.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have no motivation to replace
Nazemi's standard photodiodes with logarithmic pixels operating in photovoltaic mode, since the ambient flux problem is already solved simply and effectively by the spectral filter.
Moreover, Applicant submits that the method as recited by claim 1 could not operate at Nazemi's 20 kHz frame rate with an imaging-grade sensor. The specification of the present application states that "[t]he image acquisition is triggered by a clock signal preferably having a frequency higher than 1kHz. Acquiring images at such a frequency allows for a response that is substantially linear to the pulse and logarithmic with respect to the substantially static luminous flux." As-Filed Specification, page 4. An imaging sensor of at least VGA resolution (640x480, i.e., 307,200 pixels) operating at 20 kHz would require a data throughput exceeding 6 Gpixels/s, which is unrealistic for current InGaAs sensor technology. The method as recited by claim 1 operates at a frequency compatible with an imaging-grade sensor (~1 kHz), reflecting fundamentally different design constraints from those of a pure detector such as Nazemi. Introducing a logarithmic pixel into Nazemi's 32x32 array would serve no purpose: there is no image to form, no ambient scene to compress, and the spectral filter already provides adequate signal isolation. Conversely, scaling Nazemi's system to imaging-grade resolution (needed to exploit the advantages of a logarithmic pixel for laser spot imaging) would make the 20 kHz frame rate unachievable.
As noted by applicant, Nazemi discloses a "at least a 32 by 32 array of photodetectors." Nazemi, paragraph [0024]. However, this disclosure merely sets a lower bound of the resolution, i.e. “at least” 32x32 or 1024 pixels. Nazemi is not limited solely to 32x32 pixels as assumed in the remainder of applicant’s arguments on this point. As stated by Nazemi, the resolution may be greater than 32x32.
Nazemi further discloses the use of spectral filtering to “improve the signal to noise”. However, improving signal to noise is not the same as eliminating the problem as assumed by applicant. While the signal to noise may be improved through the use of a spectral filter, it may further be improved by applying the teachings of Ni.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on the use of a 20kHz frame rate, applicant contends that “an imaging sensor of at least VGA resolution (640x480, i.e., 307,200 pixels) operating at 20 kHz would require a data throughput exceeding 6 Gpixels/s, which is unrealistic for current InGaAs sensor technology”.
However, applicant has provided no evidence for this contention. Furthermore, nothing in Nazemi would require a 640x480 sensor since lower resolutions (“at least 32 by 32”) could be used. The claims additionally do not require “an imaging sensor of at least VGA resolution”. While Ni disclose a VGA sensor, Ni also discloses a QVGA (i.e. 160x120 pixels) sensor which would have significantly reduced bandwidth requirements.
Applicant argues on page 10:
As a third point, Applicant submits that Ni provides no teaching toward modifying Nazemi to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 1. Ni is entirely silent regarding: detecting a laser spot in the presence of a static luminous flux (daylight); using the logarithmic compression property of the pixel to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a spot relative to ambient light; acquiring images at a high frequency chosen to obtain a response that is substantially linear to the pulse and logarithmic with regard to the static flux; and operating without spectral filtering, relying instead on the intrinsic temporal behavior of the pixel to discriminate the laser signal from the ambient background. Even in Ni's own teaching, the logarithmic response is used to handle high dynamic range scenes in gated imaging contexts, not to discriminate a laser spot from a bright static background.
One of ordinary skill in the art starting from Nazemi would have no reason to look to Ni for guidance on improving Nazemi's PRF decoder. Combining these two references would require re-engineering Nazemi into an imaging system, abandoning the spectral filter, adopting a completely different pixel architecture, reducing the frame rate by more than an order of magnitude, and pursuing an entirely different purpose (spot imaging rather than PRF decoding)-which is precisely what is recited by claim 1, and cannot be derived from the combined teachings of Nazemi and Ni without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
While Ni does not disclose detecting a laser spot as argued by applicant, the rejection is not based on Ni alone. Nazemi discloses detecting a laser spot. Ni discloses a sensor design for active imaging of a laser source which detects light in a logarithmic manner at high frame rates. As stated in the rejection, it would have been obvious to use the sensor of Ni int eh system of Nazemi to capture images of active illumination in a linear manner which compressing ambient light in a logarithmic manner. Thus, while Ni alone does not disclose detecting a laser spot as argued, the combination of the references does describe this feature.
Applicant further argues that combining these references would require re-engineering Nazemi into an imaging system, abandoning the spectral filter, adopting a completely different pixel architecture, reducing the frame rate by more than an order of magnitude, and pursuing an entirely different purpose.
Applicant provides no evidence as to why using a different sensor type in Nazemi would require changing the purpose or re-engineering the system of Nazemi to perform a completely different function. Furthermore, Applicant provides no evidence as to why the combination would require reducing the frame rate or abandoning the spectral filter.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant additionally argues on pages 10 and 11:
As a fourth point, Applicant submits that Ni teaches effective exposure times down to
100 ns, and that traditional InGaAs sensors require exposure times greater than 10 µs. As
explained in the NIT gated imaging document, "[t]he patented pixel structure of NIT's sensors
enables to offer an effective exposure time down to 100 ns whereas a traditional InGaAs sensor
will be adequate for exposure times greater than 10 µs." Ni (NIT Gated Imaging), page 2. In
contrast, claim 1 recites "the exposure time in the absence of a laser pulse being higher than or
equal to 1 ms." This represents a difference of four orders of magnitude (10,000 times longer)
between the exposure times taught by Ni and those required by claim 1. This difference reflects
fundamentally incompatible operating regimes: Ni uses ultra-short integration times for distance-
slicing (30 cm covered in 1 ns by light), whereas claim 1 uses a long exposure time to enable
logarithmic compression of the static flux while preserving a linear response to the pulse. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these vastly different exposure time
requirements serve entirely different purposes and cannot be reconciled by any obvious
modification.
In view of the forgoing, Applicant requests that the rejection of claim 1 over Nazemi and
Ni be withdrawn. As claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, the rejection of these claims should be
withdrawn for at least the same reasons.
The limitation to which applicant refers is written in the alternative with the limitation of “acquiring images at a high frequency”. Since the rejection of Nazemi in view of Ni rejects the claim based on selecting the acquiring images at a high frequency option of the alternative, arguments with respect to the synchronizing… limitation are not persuasive.
However, it is noted that Ni merely discloses a lower bound for the exposure time of 100 ns and does not prevent high exposure times from being used.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12:
First, Applicant submits that Strand does not disclose synchronizing the end of the
exposure with the laser pulse. The Examiner has alleged, based on Figure 2 and paragraph
[0056] of Strand, that "synchronizing start times to encompass the pulse would necessarily cause
the end time to be synchronized based on the duration of the pulse, the duration of the exposure
and the difference between the start time of the exposure and the start time of the pulse."
Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization misrepresents the operation
disclosed by Strand. In Strand, "the imaging device 115 may start integrating before the next
light pulse is provided by the light source 105 to allow the imaging device 115 to capture an
image that includes the next light pulse (e.g., the next light pulse falls within an integration
period of the imaging device 115). In this regard, the imaging device 115 needs a finite time to
start integrating, such that foreknowledge of an arrival time of the next light pulse is generally
needed to capture an image including the light pulse." Strand, paragraph [0043]. The
synchronization mechanism in Strand operates by transmitting "data indicative of such timing
information to the imaging device 115 to cause the imaging device 115 to start an integration
period or set a starting time of an integration period to capture the next light pulse in an image."
Strand, paragraph [0044]. In some cases, this data "may be a trigger signal (e.g., an instruction)
that, upon receipt by the imaging device 115, causes the imaging device 115 to start an
integration period." Strand, paragraph [0044]. As shown in the timing diagram of Figure 2, "[i]n
response to the trigger signal 220, the imaging device 115 determines an integration period 250
(e.g., determines a starting time of the integration period 250) and captures, using the integration
period 250, an image that includes the light pulse 235." Strand, paragraph [0056]. Furthermore,
"an example of a frame time TF may be around 30 ms and an example of a duration of an
integration period tint may be around 10 µs." Strand, paragraph [0056].
Thus, in Strand, the synchronization determines the start of a fixed-duration integration
window (approximately 10 µs), which is positioned so that the predicted pulse falls within that
window. The end of exposure is simply the automatic consequence of: start time + fixed
duration. There is no synchronization of the end of exposure with the laser pulse. Moreover,
"[a]n integration time (e.g., also referred to as an integration period) is a fraction of the frame
time." Strand, paragraph [0048]. The integration time in Strand is a fixed parameter of the
system, not a variable quantity governed by when the pulse arrives.
While applicant is correct regarding the synchronization of the start time and light pulse, the result of such an operation would read on the claims as written. Specifically, the claims require “synchronizing the end of the exposure, to within a delay, with the laser pulse”.
The synchronization of the start of the exposure time with the laser pulse and use of a fixed duration exposure will naturally result in the end time to be synchronized with the laser pulse “to within a delay” equal to the exposure time.
Since the claims do not define the particular time period of the delay, a delay equal to or greater than the exposure time would result in the claimed system.
Applicant argues on pages 13-14:
As a second point, Applicant submits that the same arguments developed above regarding
Ni apply with equal force to the Strand combination. Ni teaches gated imaging for distance-
slicing and tomography through obscurants, not detection of a laser spot against a bright static
ambient background. Ni does not address the problem faced by Strand-namely, that a standard linear sensor requires a very short integration window in daylight and thus needs precise temporal synchronization to catch the pulse. Ni does not teach or suggest that a logarithmic pixel
could eliminate the need for precise synchronization of the start of integration, nor that it could
enable long exposure times (at least 1 ms) in daylight while preserving a linear response to a
short laser pulse.
With respect to the operations performed by Ni, it is noted that the rejection is based on Strand in view of Ni and the response to these arguments above equally applies. Additionally, while it is agreed that the Ni does not teach eliminating the need for precise synchronization, the claims do not require such a feature. Specifically, the claims require synchronization be present thus it is unclear why Ni should need to teach eliminating the need for synchronization as argued.
Applicant argues on page 14:
As a third point, Applicant submits that nothing in the combined teachings of Strand and
Ni suggests exploiting the specific temporal response properties of the logarithmic pixel for
pulse visualization. One insight of the claimed method is that the logarithmic pixel in
photovoltaic mode has a specific asymmetric temporal behavior: when exposed to a short pulse,
the pixel's signal rises almost instantaneously but decays slowly (on the order of 100 us). By
synchronizing the end of exposure with the pulse, the pixel is read while its response is still in
the linear regime, before it returns to its logarithmic equilibrium. This produces an image where
the static background is compressed logarithmically while the laser spot appears with a faithful,
linear representation of its intensity distribution. Neither Strand nor Ni teaches or suggests this
mechanism. Strand uses a fixed, short integration window positioned around the predicted pulse
arrival time. Ni uses time-gated exposure windows to select depth slices. Neither reference
contemplates exploiting the asymmetric temporal dynamics of a logarithmic pixel (fast rise, slow
decay) to discriminate a pulse signal from a static background within the same image.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., pulse visualization or exploiting the asymmetric temporal dynamics of a logarithmic pixel (fast rise, slow decay) to discriminate a pulse signal from a static background within the same image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on pages 14-15:
Additionally, Applicant formally traverses the Official Notice taken by the Examiner that
it is well known in the art to perform autoexposure to set exposure times greater than or equal to
1 ms. The exposure time of at least 1 ms as recited by claim 1 is not a matter of conventional
autoexposure: it is tied to the specific behavior of the logarithmic pixel in photovoltaic mode, in
which a long exposure time enables logarithmic compression of the static flux while preserving a
linear response to the pulse. Strand's own disclosure demonstrates that the state of the art, far
from using exposure times of 1 ms or more, constrains integration times to approximately 10 µs in daylight conditions. Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner provide documentary
evidence establishing that such an exposure time is well known in the specific context of laser
spot detection with pixels operating in photovoltaic mode.
The examiner disagrees with applicants characterization of the 1ms exposure time. Specifically, the claim does not require an exposure time of 1ms while imaging the laser pulse which , in
which a long exposure time enables logarithmic compression of the static flux while preserving a
linear response to the pulse. Instead, the claim explicitly recites that the exposure time is 1ms “in absence of a laser pulse”. As written, the claim appears to be specifying what the exposure time would be for the ambient scene when no laser pulse is present.
With respect to the exposure times of Strand, while an example is given in Paragraph 0056, nothing in Strand constrains the exposure time to this example time as argued by applicant. Furthermore, Strand is not limited to imaging only during daylight conditions of a specific brightness or imaging of laser sources of specific brightness.
Thus, conventional autoexposure with an appropriate integration time would read on the claim as written.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the use of a 1ms exposure time during imaging of a laser pulse) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant challenges the use of Official Notice . However, as required by MPEP 2144.03:
To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 ("[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention."). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate.
Applicant has not specifically pointed out any supposed errors or provided any arguments as to why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Specifically, applicant argues that the use of a 1ms exposure time tied to the specific behavior of the logarithmic pixel in photovoltaic mode, in which a long exposure time enables logarithmic compression of the static flux while preserving a linear response to the pulse is not claimed, nor was this the basis of the Official Notice statement used in the rejection. Therefore, since applicant has not argued why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, applicant has not adequately traversed the official notice statement of the rejections.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejections are maintained below.
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, 3, 4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazemi et al. (US 2016/0282179 A1) in view of Ni et al. (“Wide dynamic logarithmic InGaAs sensor suitable for eye-safe active imaging” – cited on IDS).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Nazemi discloses a method for detecting a light spot formed by a laser pulse delivered by a laser source on a target surface (Figure 1), the target surface being situated in an environment delivering a substantially static luminous flux (note that there is no disclosure of a rapidly changing ambient illumination, thus the ambient illumination may be considered “substantially static”, especially with respect to the high frame rate disclosed by Nazemi, see Paragraph 0027), this method comprising:
providing at least one sensor with pixels observing the surface (Figure 2, imager in 50 observing surface 10; see also Figures 3-5, imager 102/202), and either
synchronizing the end of the exposure, to within a delay, with the laser pulse, the exposure time in the absence of a laser pulse being higher than or equal to 1 ms, or
acquiring images at a high frequency, wherein the synchronization or high-frequency readout (Paragraph 0027, frame rate of at least 20 kHz).
However, Nazemi does not explicitly disclose that the pixels operate in a photovoltaic mode or a response of the sensor which is substantially linear to the pulse and logarithmic with regard to the substantially static luminous flux, said frequency being chosen to obtain said response.
Ni discloses a wide dynamic logarithmic InGaAs sensor suitable for active imaging, including a photo-detector operating in a solar cell mode (i.e. a photovoltaic mode; pp. 1-2) which for short light impulses the solarcell mode photodiode, even operating in logarithmic region, still conserves the capability to integrate this light impulse and gives constant signal amplitude despite the logarithmic compression of the ambient light which makes the pixel an excellent candidate for active imaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use an InGaAs sensor as taught by Ni in the system of Nazemi to capture images of active illumination from the laser source in a linear manner while compressing ambient light in a logarithmic manner (e.g. p. 2).
Additionally note that by using a high frame rate as discussed in paragraphs 4-5 of page 4 of the specification, a response that is substantially linear to a laser pulse and logarithmic to static luminous flux is achieved. See MPEP 2112.01(I): Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, see the rejection of claim 1 above.[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Nazemi discloses further comprising detecting the pulse using a photodetector receiving the light from the laser (Figure 1; note laser pulses are detected by the photodetector, see also Figures 3-5).[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Nazemi discloses wherein the pulse being repeated (Paragraph 0007, 0020; pulse repetition).[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Ni discloses an image sensor which uses an IWR mode for pixel readout (Section 4. Pixel Structure & Operation).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Strand et al. (US 2020/0296304 A1) in view of Ni et al. (“Wide dynamic logarithmic InGaAs sensor suitable for eye-safe active imaging” – cited on IDS) in view of Official Notice.[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Strand discloses a method for detecting a light spot formed by a laser pulse delivered by a laser source on a target surface (Figure 1), the target surface being situated in an environment delivering a substantially static luminous flux (note that there is no disclosure of a rapidly changing ambient illumination, thus the ambient illumination may be considered “substantially static”, especially with respect to the high frame rate disclosed by Strand, see Paragraph 0051-0052), this method comprising:
providing at least one sensor with pixels observing the surface (Figure 1, 110/115), and either
synchronizing the end of the exposure, to within a delay, with the laser pulse (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0056; note that the claimed delay is not specifically defined) or
acquiring images at a high frequency, wherein the synchronization or high-frequency readout.
However, Strand does not explicitly disclose that the pixels operate in a photovoltaic mode or a response of the sensor which is substantially linear to the pulse and logarithmic with regard to the substantially static luminous flux, said frequency being chosen to obtain said response.
Ni discloses a wide dynamic logarithmic InGaAs sensor suitable for active imaging, including a photo-detector operating in a solar cell mode (i.e. a photovoltaic mode; pp. 1-2) which for short light impulses the solar cell mode photodiode, even operating in logarithmic region, still conserves the capability to integrate this light impulse and gives constant signal amplitude despite the logarithmic compression of the ambient light which makes the pixel an excellent candidate for active imaging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use an InGaAs sensor as taught by Ni in the system of Strand to capture images of active illumination from the laser source in a linear manner while compressing ambient light in a logarithmic manner (e.g. p. 2).
However, Stand in view of Ni does not explicitly disclose that the exposure time in the absence of a laser pulse being higher than or equal to 1 ms.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to perform autoexposure to set appropriate exposure times, including exposure times greater than or equal to 1ms in cases where the amount of ambient illumination requires such an exposure time for a properly exposed image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform autoexposure for capture of images to set exposure times, including exposure times greater than 1ms so that the images may be properly exposed depending on ambient light conditions. [claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Strand in view of Ni in view of Official Notice discloses synchronizing the end of the exposure, with a delay, with the laser pulse, leading to a sensor response that is substantially linear to the pulse and logarithmic with respect to the substantially static light flux, the exposure duration being preferably between 1 and 30 ms (Strand, Figure 2; Paragraph 0056; note that synchronizing start times to encompass the pulse would necessarily cause the end time to be synchronized based on the duration of the pulse, the duration of the exposure and the difference between the start time of the exposure and the start time of the pulse).[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Strand discloses detecting the pulse using a photodetector receiving the light from the laser (Paragraphs 0046-0047).[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, Strand discloses transmitting a synchronization signal to the sensor (Figure 2, 215; Paragraph 0056).[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, Strand in view of Ni in view of Official Notice does not teach wherein the duration of the laser pulse being less than or equal to 30 ns.
However, Official Notice is further taken that it is well known in the art to use short laser pulse durations, including repetition rates less than or equal 30ns to increase instantaneous energy delivery of the laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a short laser pulse duration, including pulses being less than or equal to 30 ns to increase the instantaneous energy delivery of the laser.[claim 7]
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that in the case of a 1ms exposure with the exposure encompassing the laser pulse, the end of the exposure would take place with a delay of less than or equal to 2 milliseconds after the end of the pulse as claimed.[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Strand discloses wherein the pulse being repeated (Paragraph 0051).[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Strand discloses wherein images are acquired with the sensor at a frequency which is sufficient for acquiring at least one image between two laser pulses (Figure 2; Paragraph 0052; non-light-pulse images).[claim 11]
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Strand in view of Ni in view of Official Notice discloses a system including at least one sensor and a circuit as claimed (e.g. Strand, Figure 1).[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2 above and note that Strand and Ni discloses a photodetector as claimed (e.g. Strand, Paragraphs 0046-0047; Ni, Figure 6).[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, Strand discloses an input which makes it possible for the synchronization circuit to receive a synchronization signal giving notice of the emission of the pulse by the source (Figure 1, input of synchronization signal from 110 to 115; Figure 2, 215).[claim 14]
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7 above.[claim 15]
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.[claim 16]
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 11 above and note that Strand discloses both a detector and a laser present in the system (Figure 1). Further note that the claim as written does not define any particular manner by which the detector and the laser must be arranged relative to each other.[claim 17]
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 8 above.[claim 18]
Regarding claim 18, Strand discloses wherein the sensor being arranged to acquire images at a frequency which is more than that at which the pulses are emitted (Paragraph 0051).[claim 19]
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
