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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FR on 02 October 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2310507 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim(s) 1-19 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.[claims 1-10]
Claims 1-10 recite “A method for detecting a light spot formed by a laser pulse delivered by a laser source on a target surface… comprising: at least one sensor with pixels operating in photovoltaic mode observing the surface, and - either synchronizing… or acquiring images…”.
As written, claims 1-10 appear to recite both a product (i.e. “at least one sensor”) and a process (i.e. “either synchronizing… or acquiring images…”) in the same claim. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(p):
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For the purposes of applying prior art, claims 1-10 will be read as requiring “providing at least one sensor…” and it is suggested that the claims be so amended, or in some other way amended, so that the claim recites only method steps.
Clarification is required.[claim 2]
Claim 2 recites: “The method according to claim 1, further comprising 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.”
Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “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 leading to 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”.
It is unclear whether claim 2 requires an additional synchronization step (i.e. a first synchronization step as described in claim 1 and a separate and distinct synchronization step as described by claim 2), whether claim 2 is attempting to require that the synchronization step recited in claim 1 be used rather than the acquiring images at a high frequency step or some other meaning.
For the purposes of applying prior art, claim 2 will be read as requiring that the synchronization step of claim 1 be used rather than the acquiring images at a high frequency step.
Clarification is required.[claim 3]
Claim 3 recites: “The method according to claim 1, further comprising acquiring images at a high frequency leading to a sensor response that is substantially linear to the pulse and logarithmic with respect to the substantially static light flux.”
Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “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 leading to 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”.
It is unclear whether claim 3 requires an additional step of acquiring images at a high frequency which is and a separate and distinct from the acquiring images at a high frequency step of claim 1, whether claim 2 requires that the step of acquiring images at a high frequency of claim 1 be used rather than the synchronization step or some other meaning.
For the purposes of applying prior art, claim 3 will be read as requiring that the acquiring images at a high frequency step of claim 1 be used rather than the synchronization.
Clarification is required.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references show additional prior art systems/methods for detecting laser pulse light spots:
Nanikashvili et al. US 2025/0314744 A1
Burgess et al. US 2020/0064185 A1
Stobie et al. US 2019/0199945 A1
Lin et al. US 2018/0307335 A1
Grauer et al. US 2017/0115395 A1
Grauer et al. US 2016/0344965 A1
Maryfield et al. US 2016/0267679 A1
Ni, Yang, Y. Zhu, and Bogdan Arion. "A 768x576 logarithmic image sensor with photodiode in solar cell mode." International Image Sensor Workshop. Vol. 2011. 2011.
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
Prosecution Insights