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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-34 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 02 February 2026, overcomes the prior objection(s) and 112(b) rejection(s).
The amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection for claims 13-25 and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103.
Claims 1-12 and 26-31 are rejected based on the same prior art and analysis previously applied. See Response to Arguments, below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1; and, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claim 2, now incorporated into amended claim 1. Applicant raised three contentions in support:
(1) Applicant contents on pp. 15-16 that Hicks does not disclose “an estimated range at which the environmental condition is capable of causing a spurious return or other interference,” as recited in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hicks discloses in ¶ 99 that the camera detects a highly reflective object 808 located beyond the maximum range of the lidar system (“the camera may detect the highly reflective object 808 at a distance greater than the maximum range of the lidar system”) and that, based on the detection, determining whether a return should be discarded as a range-wrap return (“discard the early return based on (i) the detection of the reflective object 808 at a distance beyond the maximum range”). Accordingly, Hicks expressly discloses the identification of an environmental condition, i.e., the presence of a highly reflective object 808 at a distance greater than the lidar maximum range, that is capable of causing a spurious return. Hicks further discloses in ¶ 101 that the controller may “compute the interval of range-wrapped times and use it as a time gate G1 within which the lidar return may be rejected.” This computed interval G1 corresponds to an estimated range interval at which the identified environmental condition can produce the spurious wrapped return. Therefore, Hicks expressly discloses the claimed determination of an estimated range (G1) at which the environmental condition (reflective object 808 beyond the maximum range of the lidar system) is capable of causing a spurious return (range-wrap return), as detailed on pp. 5-6 of the prior action (mailed 11/13/2025, “NFOA”) and further communicated during the interview conducted on 27 January 2026.
(2) Applicant on p. 17 argues Hicks does not disclose the claimed “environmental condition” of claim 1 because Hicks does not “indicate that the null-space relates to an environmental condition (e.g., fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain).” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Firstly, applicant improperly narrows the scope of “environmental condition” by imposing limitations not supported in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, as previously presented, in no way requires the recited “environmental condition” to correspond to atmospheric obscurants or weather-related phenomena (e.g., fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain).
Secondly, applicant improperly suggests the null-space of Hicks was relied upon to teach the claimed “environmental condition.” Rather, the “environmental condition” was expressly mapped to the camera-determined scene condition described in Fig. 10B of Hicks in which the camera identifies a highly reflective object 808 beyond the lidar’s maximum range and determines the range interval G1 wherein no object is present, i.e., the null-space, but where a spurious return 812 may exist. See Hicks ¶ 99; NFOA, pp. 5-6. The prior rejection makes this unmistakable, citing the camera-detected scene condition associated with elements 808 and 812 in correspondence to the “environmental condition,” rather than reliance on null-space alone, as improperly suggested by applicant. See NFOA, pp. 5-6. Furthermore, the mapping of claim 1 was similarly communicated to applicant during the interview conducted on 01/27/2026.
(3) Applicant on p. 18 argues Hicks does not teach “wherein the environmental condition comprises fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain” of previous dependent claim 2, currently incorporated into amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that “Hicks merely identifies obscurants using the shape of return pulses” rather than providing for “an ‘estimated range at which’ these atmospheric obscurants are ‘capable of causing a spurious return or other interference.’” Remarks, p. 18. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim 2 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in recognition that the embodiment of Hicks relied upon for claim 1 did not, by itself, teach the additional limitation of claim 2. See NFOA, p. 10. Although the embodiment of Fig. 10B teaches identifying a “range of interest” G1 in the context of rejecting range-wrap returns, Hicks in a separate embodiment teaches camera-based detection of atmospheric obscurants, including “rain, snow, hale, sleet, dust, exhaust, haze, fog, smog, steam.” See Hicks ¶ 103; Fig. 11C. Hicks further teaches that the camera-derived scene data may indicate whether “an obscurant is present along an optical path corresponding to the camera pixel, within a certain distance of the camera,” and that returns may be discarded in view of the detected atmospheric obscurant. See Hicks, ¶¶ 13-14, 114, 119-120; Fig. 11C, identified early return 1 from range interval associated with the detected atmospheric obscurant is distinguished from object 805. Therefore, Hicks teaches beyond mere identification of atmospheric obscurants, rather expressly identifies its presence along the relevant optical path within a distance range and rejects their associated early returns as spurious. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the camera-derived range/time gating approach of Hicks, Fig. 10B for the atmospheric obscurant conditions as taught in Fig. 11C, such that returns from the range interval associated with the detected obscurant would be treated as spurious and rejected. Doing so would have predictably improved lidar measurement reliability and accuracy, as outlined in the prior rejection. See NFOA, p. 10.
Applicant’s reliance on ¶ 105 to support that “Hicks merely identifies obscurants using the shape of return pulses” is also unpersuasive. Paragraph 105 does not support identification of atmospheric obscurants based on pulse shape alone. Rather, Hicks expressly teaches employment of “data from the camera in order to more accurately identify obscurants.” See Hicks, ¶ 105. Accordingly, Hicks does not merely identify obscurants from pulse shapes in isolation, but rather expressly teaches reliance on camera-derived scene information to identify obscurants and process returns.
(Conclusion) In sum, applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejection of claims 1-2, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, respectively, are maintained. Applicant’s arguments towards independent claim 26 relies on the same arguments presented for claims 1-2 and is therefore not persuasive under the same analysis as previously applied to claims 1-2, above.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, “a subset of detectors” should read --the subset of detectors--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 13-14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hicks (US20200018854A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hicks discloses a computing device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a controller (Fig. 1, controller 150) having at least one processor and at least one memory (¶¶ 40 & 124, processor and memory), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations (¶ 124, computer program implementation), the operations comprising:
receiving information identifying an environmental condition surrounding the vehicle (Fig. 1, controller 150 receives information from camera 101; analogous to processor/camera of Fig. 11B; ¶¶ 98-99, provides information on environmental surroundings/objects 808, 805 and null-space 812; ¶ 101, “generate information regarding approximate distances of objects [surrounding] the lidar system”);
determining a range of interest within a field of view of the lidar system based on the received information (Fig. 11B, range interval G2; ¶ 101), wherein the range of interest represents a distance from the vehicle to a portion of an environment surrounding the vehicle (¶¶ 99 & 101, G2 represents TOF distance interval from lidar to object 805), and wherein determining the range of interest comprises
determining an estimated range at which the environmental condition is incapable of causing a spurious return or other interference (¶ 101, range interval G2 corresponding to range where a valid return is expected, i.e., the range at which no spurious return is expected. The examiner notes the limitation is interpreted in view of applicant’s disclosure in Spec. ¶ 79); and
adjusting at least one return light control parameter for at least a portion of the field of view based on the determined range of interest (¶ 101, return light measurement is time gated to allow interval G2 and reject interval G1).
Regarding claim 14, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, and further discloses: wherein the at least one return light control parameter comprises at least one of: a return light detection time period, a return light sampling rate, or a return light filtering threshold (¶ 101, lidar detection time-gated to time period G2).
Regarding claim 20, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, and further discloses: wherein the controller comprises a perception system of the vehicle (¶ 101, controller is a perception system, “information from the…controller may include segmented areas and… classified objects as well as corresponding approximate distances”).
Regarding claim 21, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, and further discloses: wherein the controller comprises a controller of the lidar system (Fig. 1, controller 150 part of lidar system 10).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12, 26, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks.
Regarding claim 1, Hicks discloses a method of operating a lidar system (Fig. 1, lidar system 10 as operatively employed in Fig. 11B) coupled to a vehicle (¶ 62, “integrated into a vehicle”), the method comprising:
receiving information identifying an environmental condition surrounding the vehicle (Fig. 1, controller 150 receives information from camera 101; analogous to processor/camera of Fig. 11B; ¶¶ 98-99, provides information on environmental surroundings/objects 808, 805 and null-space 812; ¶ 101, “generate information regarding approximate distances of objects [surrounding] the lidar system”), […];
determining a range of interest within a field of view of the lidar system based on the received information (Fig. 11B, range interval G1; ¶ 101), wherein the range of interest represents a distance from the vehicle to a portion of an environment surrounding the vehicle (¶¶ 99 & 101, G1 represents TOF distance from lidar to virtual object 812), and wherein determining the range of interest comprises
determining an estimated range at which the environmental condition is capable of causing a spurious return or other interference (¶¶ 99 & 101, range interval G1 estimated from environmental condition 808/812 causing range-wrap interference or spurious return); and
adjusting at least one return light control parameter for at least a portion of the field of view based on the determined range of interest (¶ 101, return light measurement is time gated to reject interval G1 and select interval G2).
The referenced embodiment of Hicks does not teach: “wherein the environmental condition comprises fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain.” However, Hicks in a separate embodiment teaches the limitation in Fig. 11C and ¶ 103, “detect the presence of one or more of rain, snow, hale, sleet, dust, exhaust, haze, fog, smog, steam, or another atmospheric obscurant.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reception of environmental information of Hicks to include weather conditions, as further taught by Hicks, with a reasonable expectation for success in order to identify and remedy spurious interreference readings caused by atmospheric conditions, thereby yielding a lidar operating method that has greater measurement reliability and accuracy. See Hicks, ¶¶ 103-105; See further, Response to Arguments, presented above.
Regarding claim 2, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the environmental condition comprises mist (¶ 103, “fog” naturally understood to correspond to mist as both refer to fine, airborne-suspended water droplets).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least one return light control parameter comprises at least one of: a return light detection time period, a return light sampling rate, or a return light filtering threshold (¶ 101, lidar detection time-gated to time period G2).
Regarding claim 6, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1. The referenced embodiment of Hicks does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: reducing a return light sampling rate. However, Hicks in a separate embodiment teaches the reduction in sampling rate in ¶ 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter adjustment of Hicks with reduced sampling as further taught by Hicks with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate interference/cross-talk and obscurant-induced spurious returns, thereby yielding a lidar operating method that has greater accuracy and more consistent ranging (see Hicks, ¶¶ 92 & 104).
Regarding claim 9, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein receiving the information comprises receiving the information from one or more sensors coupled to the vehicle (Figs. 1 & 11, reception from camera 101; ¶ 62, integrated in the vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the received information further identifies the range of interest (¶ 101, “generate information regarding approximate distances of objects [surrounding] the lidar system… compute the interval of range-wrapped times”), and wherein determining the range of interest comprises determining the range of interest to be the range of interest identified in the received information (¶ 101, “compute the interval of range-wrapped times” used as range interval G1 of Fig. 11B).
Regarding claim 26, Hicks discloses a vehicle (Fig. 6; ¶ 21, “vehicle in which the system of FIG. 1 can operate”) comprising: a lidar system (Fig. 1, lidar system 10 as operatively employed in Fig. 11B) comprising:
one or more light-emitter devices (Fig. 1, light source 110) configured to emit light into a field of view of the lidar system (Fig. 1, light 125 directed towards 130);
one or more detectors (Fig. 1, receiver 140) configured to detect returned light (Fig. 1, return light 135); and
a controller (Fig. 1, controller 150) having at least one processor and at least one memory (¶¶ 40 & 124, processor and memory), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations (¶ 124, computer program implementation), the operations comprising:
receiving information identifying an environmental condition surrounding the vehicle (Fig. 1, controller 150 receives information from camera 101; analogous to processor/camera of Fig. 11B; ¶¶ 98-99, provides information on environmental surroundings/objects 808, 805 and null-space 812; ¶ 101, “generate information regarding approximate distances of objects [surrounding] the lidar system”), […];
determining a range of interest within the field of view of the lidar system based on the received information (Fig. 11B, range interval G1; ¶ 101), wherein the range of interest represents a distance from the vehicle to a portion of an environment surrounding the vehicle (¶¶ 99 & 101, G1 represents TOF distance from lidar to virtual object 812), and wherein determining the range of interest comprises:
determining an estimated range at which the environmental condition is capable of causing a spurious return or other interference (¶¶ 99 & 101, range interval G1 estimated from environmental condition 808/812 causing range-wrap interference or spurious return); or determining an estimated range at which the environmental condition is incapable of causing a spurious return or other interference; or determining a value representing a range to the environmental condition plus or minus a buffer distance; and
adjusting at least one return light control parameter for at least a portion of the field of view based on the determined range of interest (¶ 101, return light measurement is time gated to reject interval G1 and select interval G2).
The referenced embodiment of Hicks does not teach: “wherein the environmental condition comprises fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain.” However, Hicks in a separate embodiment teaches the limitation in Fig. 11C and ¶ 103, “detect the presence of one or more of rain, snow, hale, sleet, dust, exhaust, haze, fog, smog, steam, or another atmospheric obscurant.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reception of environmental information of Hicks to include weather conditions, as further taught by Hicks, with a reasonable expectation for success in order to identify and remedy spurious interreference readings caused by atmospheric conditions, thereby yielding a lidar operating method that has greater measurement reliability and accuracy. See Hicks, ¶¶ 103-105; See further, Response to Arguments, presented above.
Regarding claim 29, Hicks teaches the vehicle of claim 26. Hicks, as modified, does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one light control parameter comprises: reducing a return light sampling rate. However, Hicks in a separate embodiment further teaches the reduction in sampling rate in ¶ 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter adjustment of Hicks with reduced sampling as further taught by Hicks with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate interference/cross-talk and obscurant-induced spurious returns, thereby yielding a system with more accurate and consistent ranging measurements (see Hicks, ¶¶ 92 & 104).
Regarding claim 32, Hicks teaches the computing device of claim 13. The referenced embodiment of Hicks does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: reducing a return light sampling rate. However, Hicks in a separate embodiment teaches the reduction in sampling rate in ¶ 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter adjustment of Hicks with reduced sampling as further taught by Hicks with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate interference/cross-talk and obscurant-induced spurious returns, thereby yielding a system with more accurate and consistent ranging measurements (see Hicks, ¶¶ 92 & 104).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Yang (US20200210726A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hicks discloses a lidar system (Fig. 1, lidar system 10 as operatively employed in Fig. 11B) coupled to a vehicle (¶ 62, “integrated into a vehicle”), the lidar system comprising:
one or more light-emitter devices (Fig. 1, light source 110; ¶ 36) configured to emit light into a field of view of the lidar system (Fig. 1, light 125 directed towards 130);
one or more detectors (Fig. 1, receiver 140; ¶ 39, detector array) configured to detect returned light (Fig. 1, return light 135); and
a controller (Fig. 1, controller 150) having at least one processor and at least one memory (¶¶ 40 & 124, processor and memory) wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations (¶ 124, computer program implementation), the operations comprising:
receiving information identifying an environmental condition surrounding the vehicle (Fig. 1, controller 150 receives information from camera 101; analogous to processor/camera of Fig. 11B; ¶¶ 98-101, provides information on environmental surroundings/objects 808, 805, 812 where the presence of a highly reflective object 808 beyond the maximum range of the lidar is identified to generate the presence of virtual object 812, corresponding to the environmental condition);
determining a range of interest within the field of view of the lidar system based on the received information (Fig. 11B, range interval G1; ¶ 101), wherein the range of interest represents a distance from the vehicle to a portion of an environment surrounding the vehicle (¶¶ 99 & 101, G1 represents TOF distance from lidar to virtual object 812), and wherein determining the range of interest comprises determining a value representing a range to the environmental condition (¶¶ 99 & 101, G1 is a value representing a range to virtual object 812) […]; and
adjusting at least one return light control parameter for at least a portion of the field of view based on the determined range of interest (¶ 101, return light measurement is time gated to reject interval G1 and select interval G2).
Although Hicks in ¶¶ 99 & 101 discloses determining a range interval (G1) of the environmental condition (virtual object 812 due to range-warp) based on the camera-estimated distance of a distant object (reflective object 808 beyond the range of lidar), Hicks does not disclose the particulars of camera-based distance estimation, specifically: [determining the range of interest comprises determining a value representing a range] “plus or minus a buffer distance.” However, Yang teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 123-125, specifically determining a range of interest expressed as a range value (d) plus or minus a buffer distance (e). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of the range of interest of Hicks with the teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to account for noise and inaccuracies/uncertainties associated with camera-based distance estimations, thereby yielding a vision system with greater measurement reliability and robustness (Yang, ¶¶ 5, 10, 106, 124 & 127).
Regarding claim 23, Hicks in view of Yang teaches the lidar system of claim 22. The combination does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: reducing a return light sampling rate. However, Hicks in a separate embodiment teaches the reduction in sampling rate in ¶ 104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter adjustment of Hicks in view of Yang with reduced sampling as further taught by Hicks with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate interference/cross-talk and obscurant-induced spurious returns, thereby yielding a system with more accurate and consistent ranging measurements (see Hicks, ¶¶ 92 & 104).
Claims 4-5, 15-16 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Keilaf (US20190271767A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection time period […] of the lidar system (¶ 101, time period G2 of Fig. 11B is adjusted based on expected target location). Hicks fails to teaches detection “for a subset of detectors.” However, Keilaf teaches the dynamic allocation of a subset detector elements based on object range in ¶¶ 157-158, “dynamic allocation of detection elements to pixels include… range information [or] a determined region of interest within a FOV.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter adjusting method of Hicks and incorporate the selection of detector subsets as taught by Keilaf with a reasonable expectation for success in order to improve the signal quality of distant object measurements while preserving detail and avoiding saturation for measurement of nearby objects, yielding a lidar operating method with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation (see Keilaf, ¶¶ 160 & 163).
Regarding claim 5, Hicks in view of Keilaf teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein adjusting the return light detection time period for a subset of detectors of the lidar system comprises: delaying a start time of the return light detection time period (Hicks, Fig. 11B, detection period G2 delayed relative to G1, avoiding interference from virtual object 812; ¶¶ 99-101).
Regarding claim 15, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, and further discloses: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection time period […] of the lidar system (¶ 101, time period G2 of Fig. 11B is adjusted based on expected target location). Hicks fails to disclose detection “for a subset of detectors.” However, Keilaf teaches the dynamic allocation of a subset detector elements based on object range in ¶¶ 157-158, “dynamic allocation of detection elements to pixels include… range information [or] a determined region of interest within a FOV.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter adjustment of Hicks and incorporate the selection of detector subsets as taught by Keilaf with a reasonable expectation for success in order to improve the signal quality of distant object measurements while preserving detail and avoiding saturation for measurement of nearby objects, yielding a system with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation (see Keilaf, ¶¶ 160 & 163).
Regarding claim 16, Hicks in view of Keilaf teaches the computing device of claim 15, and further teaches: wherein adjusting the return light detection time period for a subset of detectors of the lidar system comprises: delaying a start time of the return light detection time period (Hicks, Fig. 11B, detection period G2 delayed relative to G1, avoiding interference from virtual object 812; ¶¶ 99-101).
Regarding claim 27, Hicks teaches the vehicle of claim 26, and further teaches: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection time period […] of the lidar system (¶ 101, time period G2 of Fig. 11B is adjusted based on expected target location). Hicks fails to teach detection “for a subset of detectors.” However, Keilaf teaches the dynamic allocation of a subset detector elements based on object range in ¶¶ 157-158, “dynamic allocation of detection elements to pixels include… range information [or] a determined region of interest within a FOV.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Hicks and incorporate the selection of detector subsets as taught by Keilaf with a reasonable expectation for success in order to improve the signal quality of distant object measurements while preserving detail and avoiding saturation for measurement of nearby objects, yielding a system with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation (see Keilaf, ¶¶ 160 & 163).
Regarding claim 28, Hicks in view of Keilaf teaches the vehicle of claim 27, and further teaches: wherein adjusting a return light detection time period for a subset of detectors of the lidar system comprises: delaying a start time of the return light detection time period (Hicks, Fig. 11B, detection period G2 delayed relative to G1, avoiding interference from virtual object 812; ¶¶ 99-101).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Yang further in view of Keilaf.
Regarding claim 33, Hicks in view of Yang teaches the lidar system of claim 22, and further teaches: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection time period […] of the lidar system (Hicks, ¶ 101, time period G2 of Fig. 11B is adjusted based on expected target location). Hicks in view of Yang does not teach detection “for a subset of detectors.” However, Keilaf teaches the dynamic allocation of a subset detector elements based on object range in ¶¶ 157-158, “dynamic allocation of detection elements to pixels include… range information [or] a determined region of interest within a FOV.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing device of Hicks in view of Yang and incorporate the selection of detector subsets as taught by Keilaf with a reasonable expectation for success in order to improve the signal quality of distant object measurements while preserving detail and avoiding saturation for measurement of nearby objects, yielding a system with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation (see Keilaf, ¶¶ 160 & 163).
Regarding claim 34, Hicks in view of Yang and Keilaf teaches the lidar system of claim 33, and further teaches: wherein adjusting the return light detection time period (Hicks, ¶ 101, time period G2 of Fig. 11B is adjusted based on expected target location) for a subset of detectors of the lidar system (Keilaf, ¶¶ 157-158, as previously combined with the lidar system of Hicks) comprises: delaying a start time of the return light detection time period (Hicks, Fig. 11B, detection period G2 delayed relative to G1, avoiding interference from virtual object 812; ¶¶ 99-101).
Claims 7, 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Bhaskaran (US20200249326A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: increasing a return light filtering threshold. Bhaskaran teaches the limitation in ¶ 17, “increasing a detection threshold by a static amount.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the return light control parameter adjustment of Hicks and incorporate increased detection thresholding as taught by Bhaskaran with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the number of false positives and improve measurement accuracy (see Bhaskaran, ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 17, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, however does not disclose: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: increasing a return light filtering threshold. Bhaskaran teaches the limitation in ¶ 17, “increasing a detection threshold by a static amount.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the return light control parameter adjustment of Hicks and incorporate increased detection thresholding as taught by Bhaskaran with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the number of false positives and improve measurement accuracy (see Bhaskaran, ¶ 19).
Regarding claim 30, Hicks teaches the vehicle of claim 26, however does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: increasing a return light filtering threshold. Bhaskaran teaches the limitation in ¶ 17, “increasing a detection threshold by a static amount.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hicks and incorporate increased detection thresholding as taught by Bhaskaran with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the number of false positives and improve measurement accuracy (see Bhaskaran, ¶ 19).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Yang further in view of Bhaskaran.
Regarding claim 24, Hicks in view of Yang teaches the lidar system of claim 22, however does not teach: wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: increasing a return light filtering threshold. Bhaskaran teaches the limitation in ¶ 17, “increasing a detection threshold by a static amount.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lidar system of Hicks in view of Yang and incorporate increased detection thresholding as taught by Bhaskaran with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the number of false positives and improve measurement accuracy (see Bhaskaran, ¶ 19).
Claims 8, 18 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Leppin (US20190146067A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the lidar system comprises a first detector (Fig. 1, receiver 140, analogous to Lidar Rx of Fig. 11B, as further detailed in Fig. 7; ¶ 74) [1: …], wherein the first detector is attenuated (¶ 75, employs filtering, i.e., selective amplitude attenuation of unwanted frequency components), and wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection period by dividing a return light detection time period into a first detection time period (Fig. 11B, G1) during which the first detector detects shorter-range return light (Fig. 11B, 812) and a second detection time period (Fig. 11B, G2) during which the [2: first detector] detects longer-range return light (Fig. 11B, 805).
Hicks fails to teach the second detector implementation, specifically:
[a first detector] “and a second detector”; and,
[the first detector detects shorter-range return light and the] “second detector” [detects longer-range return light];
However, Leppin teaches the limitation in Fig. 3, where a first detector (118) detects shorter range return light (122) and a second detector (120) detects longer-range return light (124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hicks with the teachings of Leppin, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would have recognized that adopting the first and second detector implementation of Leppin would confer the advantages of achieving greater measurement sensitivity at long range while preventing over-saturation at short range, yielding a lidar operating method with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation. This update represents a known design improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, and discloses: wherein the lidar system comprises a first detector (Fig. 1, receiver 140, analogous to Lidar Rx of Fig. 11B, as further detailed in Fig. 7; ¶ 74) [1: …], wherein the first detector is attenuated (¶ 75, employs filtering, i.e., selective amplitude attenuation of unwanted frequency components), and wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection period by dividing a return light detection time period into a first detection time period (Fig. 11B, G1) during which the first detector detects shorter-range return light (Fig. 11B, 812) and a second detection time period (Fig. 11B, G2) during which the [2: first detector] detects longer-range return light (Fig. 11B, 805).
Hicks fails to teach the second detector implementation, specifically:
[a first detector] “and a second detector”; and,
[the first detector detects shorter-range return light and the] “second detector” [detects longer-range return light];
However, Leppin teaches the limitation in Fig. 3, where a first detector (118) detects shorter range return light (122) and a second detector (120) detects longer-range return light (124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing device of Hicks with the teachings of Leppin, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would have recognized that adopting the first and second detector implementation of Leppin would confer the advantages of achieving greater measurement sensitivity at long range while preventing over-saturation at short range, yielding a system with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation. This update represents a known design improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31, Hicks teaches the vehicle of claim 26, and further teaches: wherein the lidar system comprises a first detector (Fig. 1, receiver 140, analogous to Lidar Rx of Fig. 11B, as further detailed in Fig. 7; ¶ 74) [1: …], wherein the first detector is attenuated (¶ 75, employs filtering, i.e., selective amplitude attenuation of unwanted frequency components), and wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection period by dividing a return light detection time period into a first detection time period (Fig. 11B, G1) during which the first detector detects shorter-range return light (Fig. 11B, 812) and a second detection time period (Fig. 11B, G2) during which the [2: first detector] detects longer-range return light (Fig. 11B, 805).
Hicks fails to teach the second detector implementation, specifically:
[a first detector] “and a second detector”; and,
[the first detector detects shorter-range return light and the] “second detector” [detects longer-range return light];
However, Leppin teaches the limitation in Fig. 3, where a first detector (118) detects shorter range return light (122) and a second detector (120) detects longer-range return light (124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Hicks with the teachings of Leppin, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would have recognized that adopting the first and second detector implementation of Leppin would confer the advantages of achieving greater measurement sensitivity at long range while preventing over-saturation at short range, yielding a system with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation. This update represents a known design improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Yang further in view of Leppin.
Regarding claim 25, Hicks in view of Yang teaches the lidar system of claim 22, and further teaches: wherein the lidar system comprises a first detector (Hicks, Fig. 1, receiver 140, analogous to Lidar Rx of Fig. 11B, as further detailed in Fig. 7; ¶ 74) [1: …], wherein the first detector is attenuated (¶ 75, employs filtering, i.e., selective amplitude attenuation of unwanted frequency components), and wherein adjusting the at least one return light control parameter comprises: adjusting a return light detection period by dividing a return light detection time period into a first detection time period (Fig. 11B, G1) during which the first detector detects shorter-range return light (Fig. 11B, 812) and a second detection time period (Fig. 11B, G2) during which the [2: first detector] detects longer-range return light (Fig. 11B, 805).
Hicks in view of Yang fails to teach the second detector implementation, specifically:
[a first detector] “and a second detector”; and,
[the first detector detects shorter-range return light and the] “second detector” [detects longer-range return light];
However, Leppin teaches the limitation in Fig. 3, where a first detector (118) detects shorter range return light (122) and a second detector (120) detects longer-range return light (124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lidar system of Hicks in view of Yang with the teachings of Leppin, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would have recognized that adopting the first and second detector implementation of Leppin would confer the advantages of achieving greater measurement sensitivity at long range while preventing over-saturation at short range, yielding a system with greater signal integrity and detection performance across an extended range of operation. This update represents a known design improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Golov (US20190382004A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein receiving the information comprises receiving the information from one or more sensors coupled to a different vehicle. Golov teaches the limitation in Fig. 2A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reception of information of Hicks such that the information was obtained by a neighboring cooperative vehicle, as taught by Golov, with a reasonable expectation for success in order to extend effective sensory range and perception, thereby yielding a lidar operating method with greater situational awareness and improved safety (see Golov, ¶¶ 37, 40-43, 51).
Regarding claim 11, Hicks teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein receiving the information comprises receiving the information from a server. Golov teaches the limitation in Fig. 2B & ¶ 46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reception of information of Hicks such that the information was obtained by surrounding cooperative vehicles and shared through a server, as taught by Golov, with a reasonable expectation for success in order to extend effective sensory range and perception, thereby yielding a lidar operating method with greater situational awareness and improved safety (see Golov, ¶¶ 37, 40-43, 51).
Regarding claim 19, Hicks discloses the computing device of claim 13, however does not disclose: wherein the controller comprises a cloud-based computing device. Golov teaches the limitation in Fig. 2B & ¶ 46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Hicks to allow for cloud-based computing as taught by Golov with a reasonable expectation for success in order to obtain environmental information from surrounding cooperative vehicles as shared through the cloud, thereby yielding a system with greater effective sensory range and enhanced situational awareness (see Golov, ¶¶ 37, 40-43, 51).
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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645