eNotice 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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 01/26/2026.
The rejection of claims 1. 12, 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) are withdrawn in response to a
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 11-17, filed on 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102 claims 1, 12, 19 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of David S. Hall (US 7969558 B2) and Steinberg et al. (US 20200249324 A1) necessitated by the Applicant’s arguments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David S. Hall (US 7969558 B2, “Hall”) in view of Steinberg et al. (US 20200249324 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a method, comprising:
scanning a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device about an axis (Col 3: lines 3-9; col 3: line 67-col 4: line 7 disclose a Lidar based 3D point cloud measuring system that rotates a plurality of lasers emitters and detectors about a vertical axis. See also, FIGS. 14-16),
wherein the LIDAR device comprises a first light emitter, a second light emitter, a first light detector, and a second light detector (claims 1-3 disclose a plurality of laser emitters and avalanche photodetectors mounted in pairs within a rotary housing. See also, FIGS. 22-26),
wherein the first light emitter is configured to emit light pulses in a first direction and the second light emitter is configured to emit light pulses in a second direction (Hall discloses that each of the emitter/detector pairs are physically aligned in angularly separated directions (claims 3-4 FIGS. 13, 18–22, col 4: line 59- col 5: line 4). Each emitter is fixed to project along its own optical axis, thereby emitting pulses in different directions),
wherein the first direction comprises a first yaw angle in a reference plane perpendicular to the axis and the second direction comprises a second yaw angle in the reference plane (Hall discloses that the system provides a “360-degree horizontal field of view” by rotating the emitter/detector pairs about the vertical axis (FIGS. 5–6 and FIG. 13, col 3: line 67-col 4: line 8). Horizontal angular orientation corresponds to yaw in a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.),
wherein a yaw angle difference between the first yaw angle and the second yaw angle is less than 90 degrees (Hall discloses angular separation between emitter/detector pairs as small as “⅓° increments” (claim 5; Col 5: lines 5-11). Such angular separations are explicitly less than 90 degrees.),
wherein scanning the LIDAR device results in the first direction intersecting an object at a first time and the second direction intersecting the object at a second time (Hall discloses that as the LiDAR head rotates, each emitter/detector pair sequentially observes the environment at different angular positions and times (FIGS. 5–6, 13–16; col 3: line 67-col 4: line 11 and claims 1-5). Thus, an object is intersected by different directions at different times during rotation.), and
emitting, by the first light emitter, a first emitted light pulse at a first emission time and detecting, by the first light detector, a first detected light pulse at a first detection time, wherein the first detected light pulse corresponds to reflection of the first emitted light pulse by the object (Hall discloses pulsed laser emission and detection using avalanche photodiodes, with timing controlled by DSP-driven firing circuits (Hall, Detailed Description, FIGS. 23–26. See also, col 3: line 67-col 4: line 11 and lines 66-67, the system can collect approximately 1 million time of flight (TOF) distance points per second.);
emitting, by the second light emitter, a second emitted light pulse at a second emission time and detecting, by the second light detector, a second detected light pulse at a second detection time, wherein the second detected light pulse corresponds to reflection of the second emitted light pulse by the object (Hall discloses emitting a second emitted light pulse and detecting a reflected pulse. Hall teaches that a rotary encoder feeds rotational position to the DSPs that use the position data to determine firing sequence, such that laser emission is controlled as a function of angular orientation (FIGS. 14–16, col 5: lines 40-42). Hall further teaches that each of the emitter/detector pairs are controlled by one or more DSPs, which determines when they will fire based on rotational position, such that as the device rotates, a first laser pulse is emitted at a first angular position and, after angular displacement, a second laser pulse is emitted at a second angular position distinct from the first (Col 5: lines 11-15). Hall additionally teaches pulsed laser emission, stating that the DSP sends a charge/on signal…which in turn causes a laser to fire (FIGS. 23A–24, col 7: lines 18-22). Hall further teaches detection of reflected pulses, stating that FIG. 26 shows digitized sensed values at the photo diode of the receiving side (FIGS. 25–26, col 7: lines 48-49. See also, Col 4: lines 66-67). Accordingly, the second detected light pulse corresponds to reflection of the second emitted light pulse emitted at a second angularly displaced orientation of the rotating LiDAR device.);
determining a first range to the object based on a difference between the first emission time and the first detection time (Hall discloses determining a first range based on a difference between a first emission time and a first detection time. Hall teaches that the time it takes for that pulse of light to return to a detector…is measured, and a distance can then be derived from that measurement (Col 1: lines 15-18). Hall further teaches controlled pulsed emission, stating that the DSP sends a charge/on signal…which in turn causes a laser to fire, establishing a first emission time (Hall, FIGS. 23A–24, col 7: lines 19-22). Hall further teaches detection of the reflected pulse, stating that FIG. 26 shows digitized sensed values at the photo diode of the receiving side, establishing a first detection time (FIGS. 25–26, col 7:48-49). Accordingly, Hall determines a first range based on the difference between the first emission time and the first detection time.);
determining a second range to the object based on a difference between the second emission time and the second detection time (Hall discloses determining a second range based on a difference between a second emission time and a second detection time. Hall teaches that when multiple pulses are emitted in rapid succession…each distance measurement can be considered a pixel, thereby disclosing separate time-of-flight distance calculations for successive pulses (Col 1: lines 19-24). Hall further teaches that emitter firing is controlled based on rotational position, such that pulses are emitted at different angular orientations and times (FIGS. 14–16; Col 5: lines 11-15). For each emitted pulse, Hall teaches detection of a corresponding reflected pulse and digitization of the return signal for time-of-flight processing (FIGS. 25–26; col 4: lines 29-33). Accordingly, Hall determines a second range based on the difference between the second emission time and the second detection time.).
Hall discloses a rotary encoder [that] feeds rotational position to the DSPs that use the position data to determine firing sequence (FIG. 14; col 5: lines 40-42, claim 11). This teaches explicit knowledge of angular position at emission time.
Hall fails to explicitly teach wherein the second time is chosen such that the second direction intersecting the object occurs when the second light emitter has rotated the yaw angle difference between the first yaw angle and the second yaw angle. However, Steinberg discloses that the LiDAR system performs multiple scans over time, with each scan corresponding to a known scan position and time. FIG. 16 (para 347-348) explicitly illustrates successive scan cycles that revisit the same object at different angular positions and times. Steinberg further discloses selection of later measurements based on angular direction and prior detections, not passive or incidental timing (FIG. 17F, para 376).
Hall also fails to explicitly teach determining a relative speed of the object based on the first range, the second range, the first time, and the second time.
However, Steinberg explicitly teaches determining motion properties, including velocity, by comparing object detections obtained at different scan times (Para 363).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hall’s encoder-controlled rotating LiDAR system to select emission and detection times based on known angular positions and to compute object velocity using time-separated range measurements, as taught by Steinberg. Hall already provides precise knowledge of the LiDAR’s angular orientation through a rotary encoder and controls firing of emitters based on that orientation. Steinberg teaches selecting and correlating detections obtained at different scan times and directions to determine object motion and velocity. Applying Steinberg’s scan-to-scan correlation and velocity determination techniques to Hall’s time-of-flight measurements would have involved only routine integration of known LiDAR processing techniques to achieve predictable results in object speed estimation.
Regarding claim 2, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the yaw angle difference between the first yaw angle and the second yaw angle is less than 10 degrees (Hall, claims 4-5 and col 5: lines 5-11 disclose angular separations between adjacent emitters on the order of 1/3 degree. Such separations are well under 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 3, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR device has a period of rotation that corresponds to a time to complete one scan about the axis, and wherein a time difference between the first time and the second time is a fraction of the period of rotation, the fraction being dependent on the yaw angle difference between the first yaw angle and the second yaw angle Hall discloses a LiDAR device with a rotational period corresponding to one scan (Hall, FIGS. 14–16, col 3: line 67-col 4: line 11 and claim 8). Hall further discloses a rotary encoder providing angular position used by DSPs to control firing sequence (Hall, col. 5, ll. 40–42; claim 11). Because angular position is known and firing is controlled based on that position, the time difference between detections corresponding to two yaw angles is a function of the angular separation and the rotation period. Steinberg further teaches selecting detections at specific scan times based on angular offset (FIG. 16; FIG. 17F). Thus, the time difference being a fraction of the rotation period dependent on yaw angle difference is taught by the combination (See also, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR device further comprises a third light emitter and a third light detector, wherein the third light emitter is configured to emit light pulses in a third direction, wherein the third direction comprises a third yaw angle in the reference plane, wherein a yaw angle difference between the second yaw angle and the third yaw angle is less than 90 degrees, wherein scanning the LIDAR device results in the third direction intersecting the object at a third time, and wherein the third time is chosen such that the third direction intersecting the object occurs when the third light emitter has rotated the yaw angle difference between the second yaw angle and the third yaw angle, further comprising: emitting, by the third light emitter, a third emitted light pulse at a third emission time and detecting, by the third light detector, a third detected light pulse at a third detection time, wherein the third detected light pulse corresponds to reflection of the third emitted light pulse by the object; and determining a third range to the object based on a difference between the third emission time and the third detection time, wherein determining the relative speed of the object is based on the first range, the second range, the third range, the first time, the second time, and the third time.
Hall discloses a LiDAR device comprising a plurality of emitter/detector pairs, including a third light emitter and a third light detector, each aligned in a direction angularly separated from the others (Hall, FIGS. 5, 13–18, claims 1-3, col 4: lines 59-63). Hall further teaches that a rotary encoder provides angular position information to DSPs that control when each emitter fires, such that as the device rotates, each angular direction intersects an object at a distinct time (Hall, FIGS. 14–16, Col 5: lines 39-42, claims 3-4, 6). Hall teaches emitting discrete laser pulses from each emitter and detecting corresponding reflected pulses, and determining a range for each pulse based on a difference between emission time and detection time (Hall, FIGS. 23–26, col 2: lines 61-62; col 5: lines 11-15). Steinberg teaches selecting and correlating detections from multiple scan cycles and directions to determine object motion and relative speed, including using more than two temporally separated detections to improve velocity estimation (Steinberg, FIGS. 16–17F, see rejection of claim 1.). It would have been obvious to apply the same selection logic used for the first and second emitters to a third emitter, selecting a third time after the LiDAR has rotated through the yaw angle difference between the second and third yaw angles, and determining a third range via TOF, as taught by Hall.
Regarding claim 5, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first direction comprises a first pitch angle relative to the reference plane, the second direction comprises a second pitch angle relative to the reference plane, and the third direction comprises a third pitch angle relative to the reference plane, wherein determining the relative speed of the object is based on the first range, the second range, the third range, the first time, the second time, the third time, the first pitch angle, the second pitch angle, and the third pitch angle.
Hall discloses that different emitter/detector pairs are aligned at different vertical angles relative to horizontal, stating that the pairs are “physically aligned in ⅓° increments, ranging from above horizontal to approximately −24°,” thereby providing first, second, and third directions each having a respective pitch angle relative to a reference plane (FIGS. 13–18, col 5: lines 8-11). Hall further teaches that an inertial navigation system reports pitch and roll of the unit, confirming that pitch angles are known and usable parameters (Col 4: lines 14-18). Steinberg teaches determining object velocity by comparing spatial representations of an object across multiple scan cycles and determining offsets and translation parameters based on direction and range information (Steinberg, FIGS. 17E–17F, see rejection of claim 1). Accordingly, the combination teaches determining relative speed of an object based on multiple ranges and times obtained at different pitch angles, as recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the axis is a vertical axis and the reference plane is a horizontal plane (Hall discloses a LiDAR device rotating about a vertical axis to achieve a horizontal 360° scan (FIGS. 5–6, 14–16, col 4: lines 3-9). The reference plane perpendicular to the axis is therefore horizontal.).
Regarding claim 7, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 6, wherein at least one of the first pitch angle, the second pitch angle, or the third pitch angle is a negative pitch angle corresponding to a downward direction relative to the horizontal plane (Hall discloses emitter/detector pairs oriented with downward elevation angles to detect objects below the sensor, such as ground surfaces (Hall, FIGS. 13-14, 17–22, col 7: 5-8. See also, Col 3: line 65- col 4: line 11, Lidar scanning covers vertical FOV, obviously will include positive/negative angles).
Regarding claim 8, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 6, wherein at least one of the first pitch angle, the second pitch angle, or the third pitch angle is a positive pitch angle corresponding to an upward direction relative to the horizontal plane (Hall discloses emitter/detector pairs oriented with upward elevation angles to detect elevated objects (Hall, FIGS. 13-14, 18–22). Thus, at least one pitch angle is positive relative to the horizontal plane. See also, Col 3: line 65- col 4: line 11, Lidar scanning covers vertical FOV, obviously will include positive/negative angles).
Regarding claim 9, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the third yaw angle of the third direction is equal to the first yaw angle of the first direction, and wherein the second pitch angle of the second direction is between the first pitch angle of the first direction and the third pitch angle of the third direction.
Hall discloses that multiple emitter/detector pairs are secured within a common rotating housing that rotates about a base, such that the emitters share a common yaw orientation when fired at the same rotational position (Hall, FIGS. 13–16, claim 10). Hall further teaches that emitters are vertically stacked and aligned at different pitch angles relative to horizontal, including emitters located above and below one another within the same housing (Hall, FIGS. 13–18, col 6: lines 42-49, claims 1-3). Hall expressly discloses that emitter/detector pairs are aligned in ordered pitch increments ranging from above horizontal to approximately −24°, such that an intermediate emitter has a pitch angle between the pitch angles of upper and lower emitters (Col 5: lines 8-15). Accordingly, Hall teaches a first and third direction having equal yaw angles with differing pitch angles, and a second direction having a pitch angle between the first and third pitch angles, as recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR device is coupled to a vehicle (Hall, FIG. 7; Col 3: line 65- col 4: line 11, Lidar mounted vertically on vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising controlling the vehicle based on the speed of the object relative to the vehicle.
Hall discloses controlling a vehicle based on the speed of an object relative to the vehicle. Hall teaches a LiDAR system mounted on a vehicle and used for autonomous navigation (Hall, FIGS. 7 and 11, col 3: lines 65-67, col 6: lines 31-33). Hall further teaches converting range data into spatial coordinates and updating a terrain map in concert with vehicle motion, thereby determining object motion relative to the vehicle (col 4: lines 34-43). Hall expressly teaches using the terrain map to calculate obstacle avoidance vectors and determine the maximum allowable speed given the terrain ahead (Col 4: lines 44-47), and issuing braking, steering, and acceleration commands accordingly (Col 4: lines 53-58; FIGS. 8-10, col 6: lines 13-15). Accordingly, Hall teaches controlling the vehicle based on detected object motion and relative speed, as recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 13, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the LIDAR device is coupled to a vehicle, and wherein the computing device transmits signals used to navigate the vehicle based on the relative speed of the object (See the rejections of claims 10-11).
Regarding claim 14, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the LIDAR device is coupled to an external surface of the vehicle, and wherein the axis is perpendicular to the external surface of the vehicle (Hall, Fig. 7, Col 3: line 65- col 4: line 11, Lidar mounted vertically to an external surface of a vehicle. Hall discloses a LiDAR device rotating about a vertical axis to achieve a horizontal 360° scan (FIGS. 5–6, 14–16, col 4: lines 3-9).).
Regarding claim 15, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the external surface of the vehicle comprises a top portion of the vehicle (Hall, Fig. 7, col 4: lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 16-18 are system claim corresponding to method claims 3-5. They are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 19 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, Hall, in view of Steinberg, teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise: controlling a vehicle based on the relative speed of the object. (See the rejection of claim 11).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645