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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donovan (20200386868).
Referring to claims 1 and 13, Donovan shows a solid-state LiDAR (see figure 1A), and corresponding method comprising:
an emitter module (see fig 1A Ref 102) and a receiver module (see figure 1A Ref 114),
wherein the emitter module is configured to emit a detection signal and comprises a plurality of light-emitter units (see figure 4A note the separate VCSELs in the array); and the receiver module is configured to receive an echo signal of the detection signal reflected by an obstacle (see figure 1A) and comprises a plurality of groups of detectors (see figure 2A note the individual detector elements that are grouped also see figure 2C note the groups shown by 272, 274, 276, 278, 280, 282, and 284) and
wherein an emitting sub-field of view corresponding to each light-emitter unit is coincident with a receiving sub-field of view corresponding to at least one group of detectors (see figure 2C note the emitting sub field is shown by Ref 286 and a single group of detectors is shown by Ref 272), and an angular range of the emitting sub-field of view corresponding to each light-emitter unit is greater than an angular range of the receiving sub-field of view corresponding to a coincident group of detectors (see figure 2C note the comparison of Ref 286 and 272).
Referring to claim 2, Donovan shows an angle of each emitting sub-field of view in a first direction is greater than an angle of a coincident receiving sub-field of view in the first direction; and wherein the first direction is an arrangement direction of the plurality of the groups of detectors (see figure 2C note the emitter FOV includes a correspondence with detector groups 1-7 and the angle of coincidence is clearly smaller because one FOV of an emitter subfield includes 7 detector sub-groups).
Referring to claim 3, Donovan shows an angular difference between each emitting sub-field of view and the coincident receiving sub-field of view in the first direction is at least an angle of a single receiving sub-field of view in the first direction (see the multiple emitter FOVs Ref 202 and the difference between each emitter FOV, note the difference between each emitting sub-field of view is at least greater than the receiver sub-field of view of group 3 Ref 276).
Referring to claim 4, Donovan shows emitting sub-field of view is coincident with receiving sub-fields of view of at least three groups of detectors (see the sub-fields shown in figure 2C note groups 1-7).
Referring to claim 5, Donovan shows a controller module (see paragraph 39-40) configured to synchronously activate the light-emitter unit and the coincident group of detectors (note figure 7 Ref 706 and 708 also see the correspondence of transmission and activation of a group of detectors shown in paragraph 67).
Referring to claim 6, Donovan shows the controller module is configured to determine an address of the coincident group of detectors to be synchronously activated with each light-emitter unit based on a calibrated coincidence relationship for the field of view between the emitting sub-field of view and the receiving sub-field of view (see the corresponding groups of pixels and emitter elements shown in figure 9 also see the configuration of the receiver/detectors that correspond to the selected group of lasers shown in figure 7 Ref 708).
Referring to claim 9, Donovan shows the emitter module further comprises: a beam changing unit corresponding to the plurality of light-emitter units and configured to shape laser beams emitted by the light-emitter unit to form the emitting sub-field of view (see figure 1A and paragraph 27 also note the sub-FOV of the emitters shown in figures 2A-2C).
Referring to claim 10, Donovan shows beam changing unit is configured to shape the laser beams in a second direction that is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of light-emitter units (see the general circular FOV of the emitter units shown in figures 2A-2C note this clearly expands the beams in both a vertical and horizontal direction simultaneously to generate the circular FOV).
Referring to claim 11, Donovan shows the beam changing unit comprises a beam expander or a diffuser (see figure 1A note the expanding shown by Ref 104).
Referring to claim 12, Donovan shows the light-emitter unit comprises a plurality of lasers arranged in a two-dimensional array (see figure 4A and 4B).
Referring to claim 13, Donovan shows calibrating the coincidence relationship for the field of view between the emitting sub-field of view and the receiving sub-field of view to determine an address of the group of detectors to synchronously activated with each light-emitter unit (note the calibration is inherent to include the correspondence as taught in paragraph 65-66).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (20200386868) in view of Beuschel (11686822).
Referring to claim 7, Donovan fails to specifically show but Beuschel shows the plurality of light-emitter units are arranged in a one-dimensional array (see figure 2 Ref 14). It would have been obvious to include the one-dimensional array as shown by Beuschel because this is a common configuration to allow for a specific scanning configuration, this is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (20200386868) in view of Donovan (20200379088).
Referring to claim 8, Donovan fails to specifically show but Donovan ‘088 shows the plurality of light-emitter units are arranged in a staggered manner (see figure 6C note the staggered one dimensional arrays as shown). It would have been obvious to include the staggered manner as shown by Donovan ‘088 to increase the fill factor of the detector array.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan (20200386868) in view of Weinberg (20180074196).
Referring to claim 15, Donovan fails to show but Weinberg shows (activating the light-emitter unit based on an existing coincidence relationship for the field of view to emit the detection signal, and activating a plurality of groups of detectors to receive the echo signal, wherein the plurality of the groups of detectors at least comprise a group of detectors determined based on the existing coincidence relationship for the field of view;
determining a strength of the echo signal respectively received by the plurality of groups of detectors; and
determining a current coincidence relationship for the field of view based on the strength of the echo signal received by the plurality of groups of detectors, and determining whether the existing coincidence relationship for the field of view deviates from the current coincidence relationship for the field of view (see the calibration procedure shown in paragraph 61). It would have been obvious to include the calibration procedure shown by Weinberg to calibrate the correspondence because this allows for calibration based on expected light intensity levels of the transmitters and a calibration target as shown by Weinberg (see paragraph 61-62).
Referring to claim 20, Donovan fails to show but Weinberg shows controlling a synchronous activation of the light-emitter unit and the group of detectors with coincident fields of view based on a calibrated coincidence relationship for the field of view (see paragraph 61-62). Note Donovan shows a calibrated transmitter and receiver however fails to specifically show the calibration and the operation with an updated calibration, Weinberg shows updated and operating the transmitter and detector with the updated calibration for the coincidence relationships (see specifically paragraph 61). It would have been obvious to include the operation with an updated mapping as shown by Donovan because this allows for mechanical errors with the transmitter or detector array to be corrected and calibrated for as taught by Weinberg.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 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
