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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/27/2025 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0368099) in view of Xia et al (CN 114428255 A).
With respect to claim 1, Kane et al disclose: A LIDAR system [ the abstract teaches an FMCW laser ranging system ] comprising: a laser device configured to emit a transmit signal towards an object [ taught by the laser system (200) in figure 7A ], a frequency of the transmit signal being variable by varying a current injected in the laser device [ taught by figure 6C, paragraphs [0060] and [0072] ]; a laser driving system for driving the laser device [ taught by controller (272) and signal (152) in figure 7A ]; and a receiver configured to receive an input signal, the input signal being based on a superposition of the transmit signal and a reflected signal reflected by the object [ taught by the mixing detector (15) in figure 3; paragraph [0041] ], wherein the laser driving system is configured to supply the current having an intensity varying in accordance with a combination at different timings of a changing frequency of the transmit signal with time [ inferred from the waveform of figure 6C in that the triangular wave is proportional to the current driving the tuning element ] and a constant frequency with time, wherein a speed and a distance between the object and the receiver are configured to be determined from the input signal [ taught by figure 12 ].
Kane et al does not explicitly disclose a drive current producing a constant frequency with time.
Paragraph [0060} of Kane et al states, “…Also, other types of waveforms may be used. For example, the triangle waveform may be clipped at the inflection points so that it remains at a nominally constant value for a period of time greater than the total transient time to a target and back. This may help make the signal processing less calculation intensive…”.
Figure 3 of Xia et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a triangular frequency modulation waveform including a section with a constant frequency wherein the abstract states, “…Because the invention can measure the constant frequency interval beat frequency signal, on the basis of combining the rising interval beat frequency signal and falling interval beat frequency signal, namely can accurately calculate the target object relative to the speed and distance of the laser radar…”.
Therefore, based on the suggestion of Kane et al and the teaching of Xia et al, it would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan to have used a constant frequency period in the triangular waveform when seeking to improve measurement of distance and velocity.
Claim 11 is met by the combination of Kane et al and Xia et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 7 are taught by figure 12 of Kane et al.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Kane et al and Xia et al teaches:
wherein the laser device comprises an array of laser elements [ taught by paragraph [0115] of Kane et al ], and the receiver comprises an array of detector elements, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine a linear velocity between the receiver and the object [ paragraph [0043] of Kane et al states, “…Alternatively, the output beam 30 may flood illuminate a large area and spatial resolution is obtained by having multiple detectors that measure the reflected light over different portions of the illuminated area. In other embodiment, the output beam 30 may be arranged as a line source which is scanned in a direction perpendicular to the line of illumination…”].
Claim 4 is taught by paragraph [0060] of Kane et al.
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0368099) in view of Xia et al (CN 114428255 A), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gatt (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0227316).
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 would have been met by modifying the combination of Kane et al and Xia et al to have used triangular waveforms with variable chirp rates and periods.
Figure 9 of Gatt teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used triangular waveforms with variable chirp rates and period wherein paragraph [0066] states, “…This is useful, for example, in scanning a wide range of target locations with variable range resolutions or to produce received signals that eliminate range-Doppler ambiguities as discussed above…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Kane et al and Xia et a to use the waveforms disclosed by Gatt, when seeking to eliminate range-Doppler ambiguities.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0368099) in view of Xia et al (CN 114428255 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bravo-Orellana (United States Patent No. 10,907,960.
Column 9, lines 39-67 of Bravo-Orellana teach it was known to use FMCW lidar data in SLAM systems.
Therefore, claim 8 would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan because it recites a known use of FMCW lidar devices.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kane et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0368099) in view of Xia et al (CN 114428255 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0249351) or Tavallaee et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094140).
Paragraph [0019] of Chen et al teaches it was known to use FMCW lidar systems in combination with robots.
Paragraphs [0027] and [0028} of Tavallaee et al teach it was known to use FMCW lidar systems with AR/VR devices.
Therefore, claims 9 and 10 would have been an obvious reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan because they recite known use of FMCW lidar.
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
Prosecution Insights