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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 2/21/2025 and 3/14/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/15/2021 are approved by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,422,236 in view of Hall (United States Patent No. 7,969,558.
With respect to claim 2, the claims of USPN 11,422,236 teach or suggest: An optical system for collecting distance information [ taught by lines 1-2 of claim 1 ], the optical system comprising: a housing; a bulk transmitting optic coupled to the housing[ taught by lines 3-4 of claim 1 ]; an illumination source disposed within the housing and comprising a plurality of optical emitters arranged behind the bulk transmitting optic [ taught by lines 4-6 of claim 1 ], wherein each optical emitter in the plurality of optical emitters is configured to project a discrete beam of light at a nominal wavelength through the bulk transmitting optic and into a field ahead of the optical system [ taught by lines 6-9 of claim 1 ]; a plurality of pixels disposed within the housing, wherein each pixel in the plurality of pixels comprises a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) and wherein the plurality of pixels includes a first set of pixels arranged in a first column and a second set of pixels arranged in a second column horizontally and vertically offset from the first column [ taught by lines 10-18 of claim 1 ]; and an actuator operable to scan light generated by the plurality of optical emitters about a vertical axis over a plurality of scan cycles in which, during each scan cycle, the discrete beams of light projected by the plurality of optical emitters are scanned across a field of view of the optical system such that each optical emitter illuminates spots in the field of view that lie in a unique path parallel to and vertically offset from a unique path illuminated by every other optical emitter in the optical system [ taught by lines 19-26 of claim 1 ]; wherein the optical system generates, for each of a plurality of arcuate sampling positions within one scan cycle, data that represents distances from the optical system to external surfaces in the field of view of the optical system [ taught by lines 28-32 of claim 1 ].
Claim 2 of the present application differs from the claims of USPN 11,422,236 by disposing the recited optical components inside a housing.
Figure 13 of Hall teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have mounted transmissive and receptive optical elements within a housing (152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in mounting the elements set forth by the claims of USPN 11,422,236 in a housing, when seeking to protect them from the external environment.
Claim 3 is taught by claim 2 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 4 is taught by claim 9 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 5 is taught by lines 10-18 of claim 1 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 6 is inferred from claim 7 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are met by the combination of the claims of UPSN 11,422,236 and Hall, as applied to claims 2-6.
Claim 10 is taught by claim 4 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 12 is taught by claim 12 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 13 is inferred from claim 14 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 14 is taught by lines 22-24 of claim 1 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 15 is met by the combination of the claims of USPN 11,422,236 and Hall, as applied to claims 1, 3 and 13.
Claim 16 is taught by lines 10-18 of claim 1 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 17 is taught by claim 12 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 18 is taught by claim 26 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 19 is taught by claim 4 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 20 is taught by claim 9 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claim 21 is taught by lines 22-24 of claim 1 of USPN 11,422,236.
Claims 2-12 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,222,458 in view of Hall (United States Patent No. 7,969,558.
With respect to claim 2, the claims of USPN 10,222,458 teach of suggest: An optical system for collecting distance information [ taught by lines 1-2 of claim 22 ], the optical system comprising: a housing; a bulk transmitting optic [ taught by lines 3 of claim 22 ] coupled to the housing; an illumination source disposed within the housing and comprising a plurality of optical emitters arranged behind the bulk transmitting optic, wherein each optical emitter in the plurality of optical emitters is configured to project a discrete beam of light at a nominal wavelength through the bulk transmitting optic and into a field ahead of the optical system [ taught by lines 4-9 of claim ]; a plurality of pixels disposed within the housing, wherein each pixel in the plurality of pixels comprises a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) [ taught by lines 10-12 of claim 22 ] and wherein the plurality of pixels includes a first set of pixels arranged in a first column and a second set of pixels arranged in a second column horizontally and vertically offset from the first column [ taught by claim 7 ]; and an actuator operable to scan light generated by the plurality of optical emitters about a vertical axis over a plurality of scan cycles in which, during each scan cycle, the discrete beams of light projected by the plurality of optical emitters are scanned across a field of view of the optical system such that each optical emitter illuminates spots in the field of view that lie in a unique path parallel to and vertically offset from a unique path illuminated by every other optical emitter in the optical system [ taught by claim 8 ]; wherein the optical system generates, for each of a plurality of arcuate sampling positions within one scan cycle, data that represents distances from the optical system to external surfaces in the field of view of the optical system [ taught by claim 3 ].
Claim 2 of the present application differs from the claims of USPN 10,222,458 by disposing the recited optical components inside a housing.
Figure 13 of Hall teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have mounted transmissive and receptive optical elements within a housing (152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in mounting the elements set forth by the claims of USPN 10,222,458 in a housing, when seeking to protect them from the external environment.
Claim 3 is taught by claim 5 of USPN 10,222,458.
Column 5, lines 12-15 of Hall teach that time-of-flight processing was a conventional practice in LIDAR device, thus rendering claim 4 obvious.
Claim 5 is taught by claim 15 of USPN 10,222,458.
Claim 6 is inferred from claim 26 of USPN 10,222,458.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are met by the combination of the claims of UPSN 10,222,458 and Hall, as applied to claims 2-6.
Claim 10 is taught by claim 2 of USPN 10,222,458.
Claim 12 is taught by claim 3 of USPN 10,222,458.
Claim 14 is taught by lines 42-43 of claim 22 of USPN 10,222,458.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing of terminal disclaimers overcoming the rejections of claims 2-21 for non-statutory double patenting, their subject matter would be allowable under either 35 USC 102 or 103 with respect to the cited prior art.
Hall (2017/0269215) teaches scanning a plurality of beams over 360 degrees of rotation.
Figure 6a of Pennecot et al (2015/0055117) teaches a plurality of detectors (632a-c)
arranged in a block element (632) wherein there is an offset in both the vertical and horizontal
direction.
However, claims 1-27 of the present application require that each pixel traverse a unique
parallel to and vertically offset from a unique circular path by every other pixel wherein a plurality of arcuate sampling positions are created in one scan cycle.
As a result, claims 2-21 are not being rejected under either 35 USC 102 or 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
