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 filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Spickermann does not teach TOF data generated for each of the multiple returns of the broad beam and are generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses. Instead, Spickermann only teaches a single TOF data for each reduced FOV.
Examiner disagrees. Although it is true Spickermann does not teach the limitation applicant is arguing about, this is not what is claimed. Instead, amended claim 1 recites multiple scanning pulses, and "multiple returns […] generated responsive to the multiple scanning pulses […] for each scanning pulse of the laser beam." Applicant seems to imply this means each scanning pulse generates multiple returns. However, examiner disagrees on this interpretation. Instead, examiner interprets this to mean multiple scanning pulses create multiple return pulses.
Applicant argues Spickermann does not teach creating LiDAR data that includes TOF data.
Examiner disagrees. LiDAR, by definition, measures TOF. Thus, it is unclear how LiDAR data can not include TOF data as applicant seems to suggest.
Applicant argues Justice does not teach creating LiDAR data that has GPS data.
Examiner disagrees.
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).
Justice's GPS data is paired with Justice's sensor. Although this sensor is not LiDAR, the 103 rejection combines it with Spickermann, who does teach a LiDAR sensor. Thus, the combination of Spickermann and Justice teaches a LiDAR system with GPS data.
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, 2, 5-9, 10, 11, 14-20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spickermann (US 20190041518 A1) in view of Justice (US 20110285981 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Spickermann teaches a method of generating LIDAR data comprising:
directing a broad beam from a broad beam laser emitter ([0035] - up to 45 degree spread) (Fig 2, light source 201) through a first beam steering mechanism including a first Risley prism pair (Fig. 1, illumination prisms 123, 114 and Fig 2, first Risley prisms 205, [0017] - two prisms);
scanning a scene with the broad beam from the broad beam laser emitter by providing multiple scanning pulses of a laser beam from the broad beam laser emitter ([0035]);
directing returns of the broad beam from the scene generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses of the laser beam with a second beam steering mechanism to a LiDAR detector array ([0038] and [0051] – directing beams to image sensor 209),
the second beam steering mechanism including a second Risley prism pair having at least one Risley prism co-aligned with the first Risley prism pair (Fig. 1, prisms 111, 109, Fig. 2, prisms 212. [0038]. [0020] – synchronizing positions);
detecting prism positions for one or more prisms of the first Risley prism pair and one or more prisms of the second Risley prism pair (([0017] lines 1-4 - setting prism angles implies being able to detect positions and [0019] – moving prisms to desired positions implies position detection);
[…]
generating time of flight data for each of the multiple returns of the broad beam generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses of the laser beam for a plurality of detector points in the LIDAR detector array for each scanning pulse of the broad beam ([0051 lines 16-18),
wherein time of flight varies for each pulse determined at a first detector point in in the LiDAR detector array and at a second detector point in the LiDAR detector array responsive to each scanning pulse of the broad beam to form three-dimensional (3D) data representing the scene for each scanning pulse ([0014] – 3D point cloud implies different time of flight for each pulse and [0008] – 3D image created from 2D array);
and generating LiDAR data that combine each of the prism positions, […] detected positional data with the time of flight data ([0019]).
Spickermann does not teach generating geo-location data using an inertial navigation system (INS), and using the geo-location data […] to generate LiDAR data.
Justice teaches a sensor system which registers sensor data over a map of the area being scanned using GPS/INS ([0069] – GPS/INS and [0071] - registering sensor data over map).
It would have been obvious to use the GPS/INS system and registration of points over a map as taught by Justice in the method as taught by Spickermann because Justice’s method allows for real time location tracking of each image – allowing for issues with the map to be mitigated by the real time sensor data (See justice [0070}-{0071]).
Regarding Claim 2, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein directing the returns of the broad beam includes steering the broad beam with the beam steering mechanism over a conical field of regard (Spickermann [0037] - solid angle implies conical).
Regarding Claim 5, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising controlling the first and second beam steering mechanisms to maintain alignment of the LIDAR detector array and the broad beam laser emitter (Spickermann [0020]).
Regarding Claim 6, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising controlling LIDAR actuation with a LIDAR controller operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array and to the broad beam laser emitter (Spickermann Fig 2, light source modulator 214 would be understood to be able to actuate the light source).
Regarding Claim 7, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising generating a raw 3-d point cloud with all metadata required for geo-registration of detected LIDAR points (Justice [0071]).
Regarding Claim 8, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 7, wherein the INS is operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array (Justice [0069]).
Regarding Claim 9, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 7, further comprising aligning metadata with the LIDAR data using a real-time computer operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array (Justice [0071]).
Regarding Claim 10, Spickermann teaches a method of generating LIDAR data comprising:
directing a broad beam from a broad beam laser emitter ([0035] - up to 45 degree spread) (Fig 2, light source 201) through a first Risley prism pair (Fig 2, first Risley prisms 205 and [0017] - two prisms);
scanning a scene with the broad beam from the broad beam laser emitter by providing multiple scanning pulses of a laser beam from the broad beam laser emitter (Fig 2, showing fields of view 207 created by laser beams and [0051]);
directing multiple returns of the broad beam from the scene generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses of the laser beam with a second Risley prism pair to a LIDAR detector array (Fig 2, pixel-array image sensor 209);
the second Risley prism pair having at least one Risley prism co-aligned with the first Risley prism pair ([0020] – synchronizing positions);
detecting prism positions for one or more prisms of the first Risley prism pair and the second Risley prism pair (([0017] lines 1-4 - setting prism angles implies being able to detect positions and [0019] – moving prisms to desired positions implies position detection);
generating time of flight data for each of the multiple returns of the broad beam generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses of the laser beam for a plurality of detector points in the LIDAR detector array for each scanning pulse of the broad beam ([0051] lines 16-18),
wherein time of flight varies for each pulse determined at a first detector point in the LiDAR detector array and at a second detector point in the LiDAR detector array responsive to each scanning pulse of the broad beam to form three-dimensional (3D) data representing the scene for each scanning pulse ([0014] – 3D point cloud implies different time of flight for each pulse);
maintaining alignment of the LIDAR detector array and the broad beam laser emitter using at least one controller ([0020]);
and generating LiDAR data that combine each of the prism positions, […] and the time of flight data ([0019]).
Spickermann does not teach generating geo-location data using an inertial navigation system (INS) including a global positioning system (GPS) and inertial measurement unit (IMU), and using the geo-location data […] to generate LiDAR data.
Justice teaches a sensor system which registers sensor data over a map of the area being scanned using GPS/INS and associates this data with each laser pulse ([0069] – GPS/INS and [0071] - registering sensor data over map – obvious that INS includes IMU).
It would have been obvious to use the GPS/INS system and registration of points over a map as taught by Justice in the method as taught by Spickermann because Justice’s method allows for real time location tracking of each image – allowing for issues with the map to be mitigated by the real time sensor data (See justice [0070}-{0071]).
Regarding Claim 11, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10, wherein directing the returns of the broad beam includes steering the broad beam with the first Risley prism pair over a conical field of regard (Spickermann [0037] - solid angle implies conical).
Regarding Claim 14, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10, further comprising controlling the first and second Risley prism pairs to maintain alignment of the LIDAR detector array and the broad beam laser emitter (Spickermann [0020]).
Regarding Claim 15, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10, further comprising controlling LIDAR actuation with a LIDAR controller operatively coupled to the LIDAR detector array and to the broad beam laser emitter (Spickermann Fig 2, light source modulator 214 would be understood to be able to actuate the light source).
Regarding Claim 16, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10, generating a raw 3D point cloud with all metadata required for geo-registration of detected LIDAR points (Justice [0071] - registering sensor data over map).
Regarding Claim 17, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 16, wherein the INS is operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array (Justice [0069]).
Regarding Claim 18, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 16, further comprising aligning metadata with the LIDAR data using a real-time computer operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array (Justice [0071]).
Regarding Claim 19, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10, but not further comprising generating metadata associated with the returns of the broad beam detected by the LiDAR detector array using at least one sensor subsystem ([0069] – GPS/INS and [0071] - registering sensor data over map).
Regarding Claim 20, Spickermann teaches method of generating LIDAR data comprising:
directing a broad beam from a broad beam laser emitter ([0035] - up to 45 degree spread) (Fig 2, light source 201) through a first Risley prism pair (Fig 2, first Risley prisms 205 and [0017] - two prisms);
scanning a scene with the broad beam from the broad beam laser emitter by providing multiple scanning pulses of a laser beam from the broad beam laser emitter (Fig 2, showing fields of view 207 created by laser beams and [0051]);
directing multiple returns of the broad beam from the scene generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses of the laser beam with a second Risley prism pair to a LIDAR detector array (Fig 2, pixel-array image sensor 209);
the second Risley prism pair having at least one Risley prism co-aligned with the first Risley prism pair ([0020] – synchronizing positions);
[…]
generating time of flight data for each of the multiple returns of the broad beam generated responsive to each of the multiple scanning pulses of the laser beam for a plurality of detector points in the LIDAR detector array for each scanning pulse of the broad beam ([0051] lines 16-18),
wherein time of flight varies for each pulse determined at a first detector point in the LiDAR detector array and at a second detector point in the LiDAR detector array responsive to each scanning pulse of the broad beam to form three-dimensional (3D) data representing the scene for each scanning pulse ([0014] – 3D point cloud implies different time of flight for each pulse);
detecting prism positions for one or more prisms of the first Risley prism pair and one or more prisms of the second Risley prism pair (([0017] lines 1-4 - setting prism angles implies being able to detect positions and [0019] – moving prisms to desired positions implies position detection);
generating LiDAR data that combine each of the prism positions, […] detected positional data with the time of flight data ([0019]),
controlling the first and second Risley prism pairs to maintain alignment of the flash based LIDAR detector array and the broad beam laser emitter ([0020]).
Spickermann does not teach generating geo-location data using an inertial navigation system (INS) including a global position system (GPS) and a inertial measurement unit (IMU).
Justice teaches a sensor system which registers sensor data over a map of the area being scanned using GPS/INS and associates this data with each laser pulse ([0069] – GPS/INS and [0071] - registering sensor data over map – obvious that INS includes IMU).
It would have been obvious to use the GPS/INS system and registration of points over a map as taught by Justice in the method as taught by Spickermann because Justice’s method allows for real time location tracking of each image – allowing for issues with the map to be mitigated by the real time sensor data (See Justice [0070]-{0071]).
Regarding Claim 23, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: merging metadata with the LIDAR data using a real-time computer operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array (Justice [0071] – building map).
Regarding Claim 24, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10, further comprising: merging metadata with the LIDAR data using a real-time computer operatively connected to the LIDAR detector array (Justice [0071] – building map).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20190041518 A1), in view of Justice, further in view of Kusevic (US 20100157280 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 1 but not further comprising: detecting context data associated with the scene using a context imaging module; and merging the context data with the LIDAR data.
Kusevic teaches a LiDAR device which is aligned with a scanning camera (Fig 1, camera scan 112 and laser scan 102 and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to use the camera integration, as taught by Kusevic, with the method as taught by Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, because, as Kusevic teaches, image data enhances the value of LiDAR data by adding elements such as color or greyscale (Kusevic [0004]), which allows for more information to be gained by a user.
Regarding Claim 22, Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, teaches the method as recited in claim 10 but not further comprising: detecting context data associated with the scene using a context imaging module; and merging the context data with the LIDAR data.
Kusevic teaches a LiDAR device which is aligned with a scanning camera (Fig 1, camera scan 112 and laser scan 102 and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to use the camera integration, as taught by Kusevic, with the method as taught by Spickermann, as modified in view of Justice, because, as Kusevic teaches, image data enhances the value of LiDAR data by adding elements such as color or greyscale (Kusevic [0004]), which allows for more information to be gained by a user.
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights