Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 10/25/2025 and 1/7/2026 and 4/18/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant states they are not filing a terminal disclaimer at this time. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
The amendments to the specifications overcome the objections to the drawings and specifications, which are now withdrawn.
Amendments to claims 9 and 16, with regard to their respective claim objections, have overcome the objections, which are now withdrawn.
On pages 14-15, applicant argues that the Kudla reference does not disclose the “cost function.” The Kudla reference was not relied upon to teach this limitation. 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). Thus, this argument is not convincing
On pages 16-17, applicant argues against the combination of the Kudla and Keilaf reference, arguing that they do not teach the “cost function” limitation. Kudla discloses mapping of pixels to particular regions of the field of view, such that individual detector pixels are only ‘activated’ when they are expected to detect a return signal. Keilaf teaches a function that optimizes the computational budget and optical budget, which includes how many pulses to send/measurements to take for each ‘pixel’ of the FOV. This rejection involved modifying the device disclosed by Kudla, to include the function taught by Keilaf, which optimizes and allocates optical and computational budgets. Kudla, in view of Keilaf, still teaches that the individual detector pixels (which are also directly mapped to individual ‘pixels’ of the FOV), are only activated when they are expected to receive a return pulse.
So now, this is a system where (1) individual pixels are directly mapped to distinct ‘pixels’/regions of the FOV, (2) individual pixels are only activated when they are expected to receive a return pulse, and (3) the scanning scheme optimizes the optical budget by allocating more/less measurements for each ‘pixel’/region of the FOV. In this system, the measurement intervals are optimized such that different ‘pixels’/regions of the FOV receive more/less measurements. If a particular ‘pixel’/region of the FOV is expected to receive three pulses/measurements, the individual photodetector mapped to this region is expected to receive a signal for a longer period of time than a photodetector mapped to a region receiving only one measurement/pulse. Because the measurement interval/time is optimized, the detection interval timing of the individual photodetectors of the array are also optimized accordingly. Since this system has optimized the measurement scheme, the detection interval timings are also optimized to only be activated when they are expected to receive detections. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the Kudla and Keilaf references, is maintained.
On pages 17-18, applicant argues against the rejection of claims 2 and 3, arguing that the Nguyen reference does not teach the cost function limitation recited by claim 1. However, as explained above, Kudla and Keilaf are relied upon to teach that limitation. The rejection is maintained.
On page 19, applicant argues against the rejections of claims 10, 11, and 14, arguing that the Wilton reference does not teach the cost function limitation recited by claim 1. However, as explained above, Kudla and Keilaf are relied upon to teach that limitation. The rejection is maintained.
On page 20, applicant argues against the rejection of claims 19-23, arguing that the Campbell reference does not teach the cost function limitation recited by claim 1. However, as explained above, Kudla and Keilaf are relied upon to teach that limitation. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12, 13, 15-18, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla (US 20200386876 A1) in view of Keilaf (US 20190271767 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Kudla discloses a lidar system (Fig. 2, lidar scanning system 200) comprising:
a photodetector circuit, the photodetector circuit comprising an array of pixels for sensing incident light (Fig. 2, receiver path 22 with receiver circuit 24 and photodetector array 15; Fig. 1A, photodetector array 15); and
a control circuit (Fig. 2, system controller 23);
wherein the control circuit (1) processes a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view ([0098] “The system includes Mk laser channels and Ni detector columns and Oj detector rows. For each laser channel k, the detector pixels ij with the highest intensity for each discrete transmission angle are defined.” [0099] each laser channel k has assigned target pixels for each discrete angle that is scanned by the scanning mirror. This means every group of target pixels is mapped to a specific point in the field of view. This information is stored in a lookup table) and (2) determines a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots (Figs. 5A and 5B and [0095-0099] a calibration is performed, where all pixels are activated and the pixels with the maximum intensity for each transmission angle by each of the light sources is identified. These target pixels are directly mapped to each light source and each discrete transmission angle. With this mapping, the detection interval for each of the pixels in the array is determined for each transmission such that pixels are only activated when they are expected to receive light from the receiving line RL), optimizing determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list ([0095-0097] calibration is performed so for each transmission, the light source + transmission angle is mapped directly to its corresponding group of target pixels, optimizing the return signal by ensuring that the most responsive RX pixels are selected and activated for each TX channel and emission); and
wherein the photodetector circuit selectively starts and stops collections from a plurality of pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector circuit to sense the returns from the laser pulse shots ([0067] “The controller 23 may refer to the relevant mapping information stored in look-up tables for determining a timing to fire a particular light source and a timing to activate a particular photodiode, and transmit control signals to the illumination unit 10 and to the photodetector array 15 accordingly”).
Kudla does not expressly disclose: the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list.
However, Keilaf teaches the use of a cost function to optimize detection and distance measurement (Fig. 5B and [0141-0142] for each point in the field of view, the processor 108 determines the level of light flux that is allocated to each point in the field of view. The first diagram, A, is “utilized in a start up phase” and is used to inform how much light flux is to be allocated to each of the points in subsequent detections in diagrams B and C to make better use of the optical budget. [0294] and [0324] the system has an available optical budget and computational budget and is used to define the amount of light that can be emitted in a predetermined time period by the source. Fig. 17A, with a flow chart for controlling a LIDAR system based on the budgets). Light flux is the amount of light incident on a spot per unit time, and increasing light flux can be accomplished by emitting more pulses to a particular spot (Keilaf, [0143]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection intervals disclosed by Kudla, such that they are further optimized by taking the optical and computational budgets into consideration as taught by Keilaf. The computational budget, or processing capability of the system, is finite, and it is critical to control various aspects of the LIDAR system (Keilaf, [0301]. The optical budget defines the amount of light that can be emitted by a light source in a given time period and is controlled by the system processor (Keilaf, [0300]). Because the detection intervals of the pixels disclosed by Kudla are directly mapped to their corresponding transmissions, it is understood that if one region in the field of view is allocated a higher light flux (by receiving multiple pulses, for example), that the corresponding pixels will have detection intervals that still correspond to the higher light flux. By using optical and computational budgets to optimize detection, as taught by Keilaf, the lidar system is able to concentrate “more of the optical budget on the edges of the identified objects and less on their center which have less importance” (Keilaf, [0142]).
Regarding Claim 4: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. Kudla further discloses wherein the control circuit, for each of a plurality of the laser pulse shots, identifies a pixel set of the array to use for sensing a return from that laser pulse shot ([0095-0097] the system is calibrated by activating all of the pixels and determining which pixels the light is incident on for each light source and transmission angle, and this is stored in a lookup table), and wherein the determined detection intervals are associated with corresponding identified pixel sets ([0099] “each laser channel has an assigned pixel column and pixel row (i.e., assigned target pixels) that have the highest intensity for a given discrete transmission angle. The calibration is performed for each discrete angle and the mapping information in a corresponding look-up table for the detector readout circuit is updated accordingly”); and
wherein the photodetector circuit starts and stops collections from the identified pixel sets in accordance with their associated corresponding determined detection intervals ([0069] each beam covers a distinct region in the field of view and based on what light source is activated and what angle regions are sampled, system controller 23 determines which photodiodes to activate/deactivate such that only pixels that are expected to receive a reflected beam at a specific time are activated, while others are deactivated).
Regarding Claim 5: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 4. Kudla further discloses wherein the control circuit identifies the pixel sets based on the range points that are targeted by the laser pulse shots (Fig. 6 and [0101-0102] measured distances is also used for determining which pixels to activate/deactivate and the mapping of target pixels to transmitter + transmission angle is updated based on distance. “For example, up to a first transmission distance d1 (i.e., distance zero to d1), pixel column a is enabled; for distances greater than distance d1 up to distance d2, pixel column b is enabled; for distances greater than distance d2 up to distance d3, pixel column c is enabled; and for distances greater than distance d3, pixel column d is enabled. Thus, certain pixel columns can be enabled (activated) or disabled (deactivated) based on a time-of-flight”).
Regarding Claim 6: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 5. Kudla further discloses wherein the shot list identifies the targeted range points for the laser pulse shots by azimuth ([0030-0032] each field of view has a plurality of discrete angle transmission regions. Horizontal regions are defined by specific transmission positions of the MEMS mirror 12, which corresponds to an azimuth angle. (See Fig. 1A, where each horizontal region can be represented by a vertical “slice” of the field of view, defined as vertical scanning line)) and elevation angles ([0032] and Fig. 1A, each of the light sources measures a different vertical location in the field of view and is also used for mapping transmissions to their target pixel groups. As seen in Fig. 1A, each transmitter scans at a different vertical angle, differentiated by their different shading in the indicated vertical scanning line SL).
Regarding Claim 7: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 4. Kudla further discloses wherein each of the identified pixel sets comprises one or more of the pixels of the array (Figs. 5A and 5B, each light source, 1-8, is mapped onto its corresponding target pixels. For example, Fig. 5A shows that light source 1 is incident on the two pixels in column n and in the top two rows. Meanwhile, light source 8 is incident on the two pixels in column n+3 and the bottom two rows).
Regarding Claim 8: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 4. Kudla further discloses wherein each of the identified pixel sets follow a pattern that correspond to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots ([0102] “Each mapping for a respective pixel may thus be defined according to a light source, a discrete transmission angle, and a distance or a distance range”).
Regarding Claim 9: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 4. Kudla further discloses wherein each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals comprises (1) first data that indicates when to start collection from its corresponding identified pixel set ([0069] “the system controller 23 also determines which photodiodes to activate and which to deactivate based on corresponding light sources and discrete angle regions being sampled by the corresponding light sources”; [0074] controller 23 sends signals to the receiver circuit 24 to trigger activation of photodetectors) and (2) second data that indicates when to stop collection from its corresponding identified pixel set ([0072-0073] receiving pixels are activated and selectively coupled to output channels if they are expecting a return, and non-receiving pixels are deactivated by decoupling them from output channels; [0069] “the system controller 23 also determines which photodiodes to […] deactivate based on corresponding light sources and discrete angle regions being sampled by the corresponding light sources”).
Regarding Claim 12: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 9. Kudla further discloses wherein, for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise start and stop collection times for the identified pixel set associated with that determined detection interval ([0069] “the system controller 23 also determines which photodiodes to activate and which to deactivate based on corresponding light sources and discrete angle regions being sampled by the corresponding light sources”; [0050] a timer for the detector is started when the transmitted pulse is transmitted, so the start collection time starts when the pulse is transmitted. [0072-0073] because the non-receiving pixels are deactivated as the receiving pixels are activated, the stop time corresponds to the start time of the next transmission).
Regarding Claim 13: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. However, this combination of Kudla, in view of Keilaf, does not expressly teach, wherein the determined detection intervals are non-overlapping.
However, Keilaf teaches this limitation in Fig. 2A with bistatic lidar system 100 that only has one transmitter 112 that scans all of the points in the field of view. Keilaf accomplishes this with a 2D MEMS mirror that scans both vertically and horizontally, and is shown in Fig. 3B and described in the specifications in paragraph [0073].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Kudla and Keilaf, by adopting the single-laser coupled with 2D scanner architecture taught by Keilaf. Because the system disclosed by Kudla specifies that the detection intervals are mapped directly to each laser transmission, only having one laser would result in only one group of pixels needing to be activated, thus making the detection intervals non-overlapping. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MEPE 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 15: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. Kudla further discloses wherein the defined criteria further comprises data indicative of scheduled fire times for the next laser pulse shots from the shot list ([0068] “The firing of laser beams from the illumination unit 10 is coordinated with a rotational (angular) position of the MEMS mirror 12 to transmit laser beams into the field of view based on, for example, a desired timing interval”).
Kudla, in combination with Keilaf, teaches a system that also optimizes the amount of light flux that is to be directed at a specific point in the field of view. This means there is a certain amount of light per unit time that is allocated to each point and a higher flux can be achieved by emitting more pulses in a unit of time. Because this system of claim 1 employs Keilaf’s optimization, where, based on previous detections, the allocated light flux for each point in the field of view can be changed, the determination that one point should receive high light flux means the desired timing intervals between detections of each point in the field of view must also reflect this change.
Regarding Claim 16: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. Kudla further discloses a signal processing circuit that processes sensed signal data from the photodetector circuit to (1) detect the returns within the sensed signal data (Fig. 2, system controller 23 + receiver circuit 24; [0050-0051] when reflected light is incident on its receiving photodiode in the photodetector array 15, a corresponding electrical signal is generated and read out by the circuit) and (2) compute return data for the detected returns ([0050-0051] the time of flight, which yields distance, is determined by the differential time between the start and stop signals from the timer in the TDC).
Regarding Claim 17: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 16. Kudla further discloses wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a plurality of processors that share processing of the sensed signal data ([0073-0075] and Fig. 2, there is receiver circuit 24, which activates photodetectors and controls gain for photodetectors. An ADC may be incorporated into the receiver circuit which processes the analog electric signal into a digital signal. The system controller can further process the signal to obtain a measured distance).
Regarding Claim 18: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. Kudla further discloses a lidar transmitter (Fig. 2, transmitter 21) wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror, and wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the scannable mirror (Fig. 2, transmitter 21 has MEMS mirror 12; Fig. 1A, MEMS mirror 12 directs light from the illuminator 10 towards the field of view).
Regarding Claim 24: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 18. Kudla further discloses wherein the lidar transmitter and the photodetector circuit are in a bistatic arrangement with respect to each other (Fig. 6, the transmitter 21 and receiver 22 are separate and also have slightly offset fields of view).
Regarding Claim 25: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 18. Kudla further discloses comprising a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots (Fig. 2, transmitter 21 has laser illumination unit 10 that emits pulses toward the environment). With this combination of Kudla and Keilaf, Keilaf further teaches that the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source ([0324] and Fig. 17A, steps 3004 and 3006, determine optical budget, or light output capabilities of available light sources. Step 3008, develop scanning plan for allocating light flux to each of the spots in the field of view based on conditions of the lidar sensor and the host device and the optical budget).
Regarding Claim 26: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 25. In the system of claim 25, mapped above, Keilaf teaches: the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source ([0324] and Fig. 17A, steps 3004 and 3006, determine optical budget, or light output capabilities of available light sources. Step 3008, develop scanning plan for allocating light flux to each of the spots in the field of view based on conditions of the lidar sensor and the host device and the optical budget).
This system does not expressly disclose that the energy model and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror is specifically used to schedule the laser pulse shots in the shot list.
Keilaf further teaches this limitation in Fig. 17A and with paragraph [0324]. In step 3010, the system controls the per-beam-spot light projection based on the budgets, controlling operation of the light source and the scanner to ensure that this specific spot receives the light flux allocated to it by the scan plan obtained in step 3008 based on the optical and computational budgets. In step 3014, if the optical budget for the spot is complete, the system moves onto the next spot, which means the scanner is controlled to continue scanning and direct the beam to the next spot. Because light flux allocation is dependent on the specific point being sensed, the scanning plan also includes how many shots are to be directed at each spot.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the scanning plan disclosed by Kudla and Keilaf, such that the scanning plan takes into account not only the optical budget of the laser, but also includes the motion of the scanning mirror. This would be applying a known technique to improve the system taught by Kudla and Keilaf, to yield the predictable result of optimizing the scanning plan (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D).
Regarding Claim 27: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. Kudla further discloses wherein the array comprises a two-dimensional array of pixels (Figs. 1A, 5A, and 5B, the array 15 is a 2D array of pixels; [0098] “The system includes Mk laser channels and Ni detector columns and Oj detector rows. For each laser channel k, the detector pixels ij with the highest intensity for each discrete transmission angle are defined”).
Regarding Claim 28: Claim 28 is essentially the method version of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. It is noted that the lidar system of clam 1, disclosed by Kudla, has a lidar receiver (Fig. 2, receiver 22 with pixel array 15) comprising a photodetector that comprises an array of pixels (Figs. 1A, 5A, and 5B, the array 15 is a 2D array of pixels).
Regarding Claim 29: Kudla discloses an article of manufacture for controlling a lidar receiver ([0122] method for using this lidar system is stored using a digital storage medium that has electronically readable control signals), where the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector (Fig. 2, receiver 22 with pixel array 15 that is made up of APD diodes), the photodetector comprising an array of pixels (Figs. 1A, 5A, and 5B, the array 15 is a 2D array of pixels), the article of manufacture comprising:
machine readable code that is resident on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, wherein the code defines processing operations to be performed by a processor ([0122] the digital storage medium is computer readable and contains the program that has the method for using the lidar system) to cause the processor to:
process a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view ([0098] “The system includes Mk laser channels and Ni detector columns and Oj detector rows. For each laser channel k, the detector pixels ij with the highest intensity for each discrete transmission angle are defined.” [0099] each laser channel k has assigned target pixels for each discrete angle that is scanned by the scanning mirror. This means every group of target pixels is mapped to a specific point in the field of view. This information is stored in a lookup table);
determine a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots (Figs. 5A and 5B and [0095-0099] a calibration is performed, where all pixels are activated and the pixels with the maximum intensity for each transmission angle by each of the light sources is identified. These target pixels are directly mapped to each light source and each discrete transmission angle. With this mapping, the detection interval for each of the pixels in the array is determined for each transmission such that pixels are only activated when they are expected to receive light from the receiving line RL), optimizing determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list ([0095-0097] calibration is performed so for each transmission, the light source + transmission angle is mapped directly to its corresponding group of target pixels, optimizing the return signal by ensuring that the most responsive RX pixels are selected and activated for each TX channel and emission); and
selectively start and stop collections from pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector to detect the returns from the laser pulse shots ([0067] “The controller 23 may refer to the relevant mapping information stored in look-up tables for determining a timing to fire a particular light source and a timing to activate a particular photodiode, and transmit control signals to the illumination unit 10 and to the photodetector array 15 accordingly”).
Kudla does not expressly disclose: the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list.
However, Keilaf teaches the use of a cost function to optimize detection and distance measurement (Fig. 5B and [0141-0142] for each point in the field of view, the processor 108 determines the level of light flux that is allocated to each point in the field of view. The first diagram, A, is “utilized in a start up phase” and is used to inform how much light flux is to be allocated to each of the points in subsequent detections in diagrams B and C to make better use of the optical budget. [0294] and [0324] the system has an available optical budget and computational budget and is used to define the amount of light that can be emitted in a predetermined time period by the source. Fig. 17A, with a flow chart for controlling a LIDAR system based on the budgets). Light flux is the amount of light incident on a spot per unit time, and increasing light flux can be accomplished by emitting more pulses to a particular spot (Keilaf, [0143]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection intervals disclosed by Kudla, such that they are further optimized by taking the optical and computational budgets into consideration as taught by Keilaf. The computational budget, or processing capability of the system, is finite, and it is critical to control various aspects of the LIDAR system (Keilaf, [0301]. The optical budget defines the amount of light that can be emitted by a light source in a given time period and is controlled by the system processor (Keilaf, [0300]). Because the detection intervals of the pixels disclosed by Kudla are directly mapped to their corresponding transmissions, it is understood that if one region in the field of view is allocated a higher light flux (by receiving multiple pulses, for example), that the corresponding pixels will have detection intervals that still correspond to the higher light flux. By using optical and computational budgets to optimize detection, as taught by Keilaf, the lidar system is able to concentrate “more of the optical budget on the edges of the identified objects and less on their center which have less importance” (Keilaf, [0142]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Keilaf, further in view of Nguyen et. al. (X. T. Nguyen, H. Kim and H. J. Lee, "An Efficient Sampling Algorithm With a K-NN Expanding Operator for Depth Data Acquisition in a LiDAR System," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 4700-4714, Dec. 2020).
Regarding Claim 2: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. Kudla and Keilaf do not expressly teach wherein the cost function comprises a state space equation that solves for the determined detection intervals using multiple simultaneous inequality constraint equations.
However, Nguyen et. al. teaches this limitation in Section III. Specifically, the multiple simultaneous inequality constraint equations are shown in Section III.A and Section III.B with timing and memory space constraints. The timing constraint is represented by equation 11, which has a timing budget T for scanning M locations, whose indexes are represented by i1 through iM. The memory space constraint is represented by equation 14, which shows the amount of data that needs to be stored must be less than or equal to the available memory capacity. In order to optimize detection intervals, the function represented by equation 24 in Section III.C must be minimized. This represents the state space equation that solves for the determined detection intervals. In equation 24,
x
j
represents real values and
x
j
~
represents the estimated distance for M measurements of
x
i
1
…
x
i
M
.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the optimization taught by Kudla and Keilaf, by implementing the efficient sampling algorithm taught by Nguyen et. al. The optimization algorithm taught by Nguyen improves image quality while reducing computational complexity and memory requirements (Nguyen et. al., last paragraph of Section III.C).
Regarding Claim 3: Kudla, in view of Keilaf and Nguyen et. al., teaches the system of claim 2. Nguyen et. al. further teaches wherein the control circuit uses quadratic programming to solve for the determined detection intervals according to the state space equation and the multiple simultaneous inequality constraint equations (Section III.C, equation 24 is a quadratic equation and therefore must be solved for with quadratic programming).
Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Keilaf, further in view of Wilton (US 10386487 B1).
Regarding Claim 10: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 9. However, they do not teach: wherein, for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise estimates of minimum and maximum ranges for the range point targeted by the laser pulse shot associated with that determined detection interval.
Wilton teaches for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise estimates of minimum (Col. 7, lines 18-25, the delay for beginning detection is based on the minimum distance, Lmin, to be detected and the region of interest) and maximum ranges for the range point targeted by the laser pulse shot associated with that determined detection interval (Col. 7, lines 35-41, the disarming time is based on the maximum range, Lmax, to be detected in the region of interest; Fig. 6 shows the timing of arming and disarming the SPAD in subsequent image frames).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the timing of the detection intervals taught by Kudla and Keilaf, such that a minimum and maximum range of the region of interest is used to determine when to start and stop detection, as taught by Wilton. This is applying the known technique of determining detection intervals based on a maximum and minimum range in the field of interest, to improve the determination of detection intervals taught by Kudla and Keilaf, yielding predictable results (MPEP Section 2141.III KSR Rationale D).
Regarding Claim 11: Kudla, in view of Keilaf and Wilton, teaches the system of claim 10. Wilton further teaches: wherein the control circuit translates the minimum and maximum range estimates into start and stop collection times for the identified pixel sets associated with the determined detection intervals (Fig. 6, the desired minimum and maximum ranges for detection in each frame are used to determine the arming time ta-i and the disarming time td).
Regarding Claim 14: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 1. However, Kudla and Keilaf do not teach: wherein the control circuit activates pixels of the array to be used for detecting the returns sufficiently prior to when collections are to start from the activated pixels for a pixel settle time to have passed when the collections are to start from the activated pixels.
However, Wilton teaches this limitation in Col. 7, lines 42-48. Wilton teaches that the pixels of the receiver are disarmed slightly before the end of each detection frame, defining a hold-off time, or a pixel settle time.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the timing of the detection intervals taught by Kudla and Keilaf, to incorporate a hold-off time before activating pixels for detection in subsequent frames, as taught by Wilton. This is beneficial because it enables trapped charges in the APDs to de-trap and avoid spurious avalanche events, such as dark counts due to after pulsing (Wilton, Col. 7 lines 42-48).
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Keilaf, further in view of Campbell (US 20180275249 A1).
Regarding Claim 19: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 18. Kudla and Keilaf do not teach wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in a resonant mode.
Campbell teaches the use of a scanning mirror that scans in a resonant mode ([0052] and Fig. 1, scanner 120 has mirrors that are mechanically driven by a resonant scanner).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the scanning mirror taught by Kudla and Keilaf, with the mirror that scans through the use of a resonant actuator, as taught by Campbell. This would be a simple substitution of a MEMS scanning mirror disclosed by Kudla, for a resonant scanner taught by Campbell (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B).
Regarding Claim 20: Kudla, in view of Keilaf and Campbell, teaches the system of claim 19. Campbell further discloses wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 100 Hz and 20 kHz ([0091] resonant mirror scanner can scan an output beam 125 at any suitable frequency such as 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 5 kHz or 10 kHz).
Regarding Claim 21: Kudla, in view of Keilaf and Campbell, teaches the system of claim 19. Campbell further discloses wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 10 kHz and 15 kHz ([0091] resonant mirror scanner can scan an output beam 125 at any suitable frequency such as 10 kHz).
Regarding Claim 22: Kudla, in view of Keilaf, teaches the system of claim 18. This combination of Kudla and Keilaf does not teach wherein the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror, wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors.
Campbell teaches the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror (Fig. 3, scanner 120 has mirrors 300-1 and 300-2), wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors (Fig. 3 and [0054], a galvanometer actuator scans one of the mirrors along a first direction and a resonant actuator scans the second mirror along a second direction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system architecture taught by Kudla and Keilaf, such that only one light source is used and two scanning mirrors are used to enable 2-dimensional scanning of the entire field of view, as taught by Campbell. This different system architecture would just be a different design option commonly known in the art, and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 23: Kudla, in view of Keilaf and Campbell, teaches the system of claim 22. Campbell further teaches wherein the lidar transmitter scans the second scannable mirror in a point-to-point mode according to a step function that varies as a function of the range points targeted with the laser pulse shots ([0054] mirror 300-2 can be controlled via a galvanometer actuator; [0057] straight line scans can be achieved with a resonant actuator that scans in a horizontal direction, while the galvanometer scans the other mirror to adjust the vertical direction to “to step the output beam 125 to a subsequent row of a scan pattern 200”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-12, 14-23, and 15-30 of copending Application No. 17/490,213 in view of Nguyen et. al. (X. T. Nguyen, H. Kim and H. J. Lee, "An Efficient Sampling Algorithm With a K-NN Expanding Operator for Depth Data Acquisition in a LiDAR System," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 4700-4714, Dec. 2020).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 1 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 1 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 1: A lidar system comprising: a photodetector circuit, the photodetector circuit comprising an array of pixels for sensing incident light; and a control circuit;
wherein the control circuit (1) processes a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view and
(2) determines a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots,
and wherein the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list; and
wherein the photodetector circuit selectively starts and stops collections from a plurality of pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector circuit to sense the returns from the laser pulse shots.
Claim 1: A lidar system comprising: a photodetector circuit, the photodetector circuit comprising an array of pixels for sensing incident light; and a control circuit;
wherein the control circuit (1) processes a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view and
(2) determines a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots,
and wherein the defined criteria comprises estimates of ranges to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots; and
wherein the photodetector circuit selectively starts and stops collections from a plurality of pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector circuit to sense the returns from the laser pulse shots.
Claim 1 of App ‘213 does not expressly teach: wherein the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list. However, Nguyen et. al. teaches this limitation in Section III.C. Specifically with equation 24, which, in order to optimize the sampling of the system, is minimized. This is minimized subject to two constraints, timing and memory-space. The timing constraint is represented by equation 11, and the memory-space constraint is represented by equation 14. Storing detections ‘costs’ memory-space in the system, and is used in optimizing sampling.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the defined criteria disclosed in App ‘213, by implementing the efficient sampling algorithm taught by Nguyen et. al. The optimization algorithm taught by Nguyen improves image quality while reducing computational complexity and memory requirements (Nguyen et. al., last paragraph of Section III.C).
Regarding Claim 4: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 4 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 5 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 4: The system of claim 1 wherein the control circuit, for each of a plurality of the laser pulse shots, identifies a pixel set of the array to use for sensing a return from that laser pulse shot, and wherein the determined detection intervals are associated with corresponding identified pixel sets; and
wherein the photodetector circuit starts and stops collections from the identified pixel sets in accordance with their associated corresponding determined detection intervals.
Claim 5: The system of claim 1 wherein the control circuit, for each of a plurality of the laser pulse shots, identifies a pixel set of the array to use for sensing a return from that laser pulse shot, and wherein the determined detection intervals are associated with corresponding identified pixel sets; and
wherein the photodetector circuit starts and stops collections from the identified pixel sets in accordance with their associated corresponding determined detection intervals.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 5 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 6 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 5: The system of claim 4
wherein the control circuit identifies the pixel sets based on the range points that are targeted by the laser pulse shots.
Claim 6: The system of claim 5
wherein the control circuit identifies the pixel sets based on the range points that are targeted by the laser pulse shots.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 6 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 7 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 6: The system of claim 5
wherein the shot list identifies the targeted range points for the laser pulse shots by azimuth and elevation angles.
Claim 7: The system of claim 6
wherein the shot list identifies the targeted range points for the laser pulse shots by azimuth and elevation angles.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 7 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 8 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 7: The system of claim 4
wherein each of the identified pixel sets comprises one or more of the pixels of the array.
Claim 8: The system of claim 5
wherein each of the identified pixel sets comprises one or more of the pixels of the array.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 8 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 9 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 8: The system of claim 4 wherein the identified pixel sets follow a pattern that correspond to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots.
Claim 9: The system of claim 5 wherein the identified pixel sets follow a pattern that correspond to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 9: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 9 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 10 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 9: The system of claim 4 wherein each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals comprises (1) first data that indicates when to start collection from its corresponding identified pixel set and (2) second data that indicates when to stop collection its corresponding identified pixel set.
Claim 10: The system of claim 5 wherein each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals comprises (1) first data that indicates when to start collection from its corresponding identified pixel set and (2) second data that indicates when to stop collection its corresponding identified pixel set.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 12 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 11 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 12: The system of claim 9 wherein, for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise start and stop collection times for the identified pixel set associated with that determined detection interval.
Claim 11: The system of claim 10 wherein, for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise start and stop collection times for the identified pixel set associated with that determined detection interval.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 13 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 12 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 13: The system of claim 1 wherein the determined detection intervals are non-overlapping.
Claim 12: The system of claim 1 wherein the determined detection intervals are non-overlapping.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 14 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 14 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 14: The system of claim 1 wherein the control circuit activates pixels of the array to be used for detecting the returns sufficiently prior to when collections are to start from the activated pixels for a pixel settle time to have passed when the collections are to start from the activated pixels.
Claim 14: The system of claim 1 wherein the control circuit activates pixels of the array to be used for detecting the returns sufficiently prior to when collections are to start from the activated pixels for a pixel settle time to have passed when the collections are to start from the activated pixels.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 15 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 15 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 15: The system of claim 1 wherein the defined criteria further comprises data indicative of scheduled fire times for next laser pulse shots from the shot list.
Claim 15: The system of claim 1 wherein the defined criteria further comprise data indicative of scheduled fire times for next laser pulse shots from the shot list.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 16 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 16 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 16: The system of any of claim 1 further comprising: a signal processing circuit that processes sensed signal data from the photodetector circuit to (1) detect the returns within the sensed signal data and (2) compute return data for the detected returns.
Claim 16: The system of any of claim 1 further comprising: a signal processing circuit that processes sensed signal data from the photodetector circuit to (1) detect the returns within the sensed signal data and (2) compute return data for the detected returns.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 17 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 17 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 17: The system of claim 16 wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a plurality of processors that share processing of the sensed signal data.
Claim 17: The system of claim 16 wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a plurality of processors that share processing of the sensed signal data.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 18 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 18 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 18: The system claim 1 further comprising: a lidar transmitter, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror, and wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the scannable mirror.
Claim 18: The system claim 1 further comprising: a lidar transmitter, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror, and wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the scannable mirror.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 19 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 19 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 19: The system of claim 18 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in a resonant mode.
Claim 19: The system of claim 18 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in a resonant mode.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 20 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 20 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 20: The system of claim 19 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 100 Hz and 20 kHz.
Claim 20: The system of claim 19 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 100 Hz and 20 kHz.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 21: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 21 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 21 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 21: The system of claim 19 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 10 kHz and 15 kHz.
Claim 21: The system of claim 19 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 10 kHz and 15 kHz.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 22: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 22 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 22 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 22: The system of claim 18 wherein the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror, wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors.
Claim 22: The system of claim 18 wherein the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror, wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 23: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 23 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 23 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 23: The system of claim 22 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the second scannable mirror in a point-to-point mode according to a step function that varies as a function of the range points targeted with the laser pulse shots.
Claim 23: The system of claim 22 wherein the lidar transmitter scans the second scannable mirror in a point-to-point mode according to a step function that varies as a function of the range points targeted with the laser pulse shots.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 22.
Regarding Claim 24: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 24 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 25 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 24: The system of claim 18 wherein the lidar transmitter and the photodetector circuit are in a bistatic arrangement with respect to each other.
Claim 25: The system of claim 18 wherein the lidar transmitter and the photodetector circuit are in a bistatic arrangement with respect to each other.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 25: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 25 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 26 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 25: The system of claim 18 further comprising a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots, and wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source.
Claim 26: The system of claim 18 further comprising a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots, and wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 26: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 26 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 27 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 26: The system of claim 25 wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to the laser energy model and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror.
Claim 27: The system of claim 26 wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to the laser energy model and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 26.
Regarding Claim 27: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 27 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 28 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 27: The system of claim 1 wherein the array comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array of pixels.
Claim 28: The system of claim 1 wherein the array comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array of pixels.
App ‘213 modified by Nguyen et. al. teaches the system of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 28 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 29 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 28: A method for controlling a lidar receiver, wherein the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector, the photodetector comprising an array of pixels, the method comprising:
processing a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view;
determining a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots, and
wherein the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list;
selectively starting and stopping collections from pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector to detect the returns from the laser pulse shots.
Claim 29: A method for controlling a lidar receiver, wherein the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector, the photodetector comprising an array of pixels, the method comprising:
processing a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view;
determining a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots, and
wherein the defined criteria comprises estimates of ranges to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots;
selectively starting and stopping collections from pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector to detect the returns from the laser pulse shots.
Claim 29 of App ‘213 does not expressly teach: wherein the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list. However, Nguyen et. al. teaches this limitation in Section III.C. Specifically with equation 24, which, in order to optimize the sampling of the system, is minimized. This is minimized subject to two constraints, timing and memory-space. The timing constraint is represented by equation 11, and the memory-space constraint is represented by equation 14. Storing detections ‘costs’ memory-space in the system, and is used in optimizing sampling.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the defined criteria disclosed in App ‘213, by implementing the efficient sampling algorithm taught by Nguyen et. al. The optimization algorithm taught by Nguyen improves image quality while reducing computational complexity and memory requirements (Nguyen et. al., last paragraph of Section III.C).
Regarding Claim 29: a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 29 of published patent application US 20220308186 A1 (differences are in bold text) and claim 30 of App ‘213.
Instant Application
Reference Application ‘213
Claim 29: An article of manufacture for controlling a lidar receiver, wherein the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector, the photodetector comprising an array of pixels, the article of manufacture comprising:
machine-readable code that is resident on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, wherein the code defines processing operations to be performed by a processor to cause the processor to:
process a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view;
determine a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots, and
wherein the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list;
selectively start and stop collections from pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector to detect the returns from the laser pulse shots.
Claim 30: An article of manufacture for controlling a lidar receiver, wherein the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector, the photodetector comprising an array of pixels, the article of manufacture comprising:
machine-readable code that is resident on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, wherein the code defines processing operations to be performed by a processor to cause the processor to:
process a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view;
determine a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots, and
wherein the defined criteria comprises estimates of ranges to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots;
selectively start and stop collections from pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector to detect the returns from the laser pulse shots.
Claim 30 of App ‘213 does not expressly teach: wherein the defined criteria comprises a cost function that optimizes determination of the detection intervals for a plurality of the laser pulse shots from the shot list. However, Nguyen et. al. teaches this limitation in Section III.C. Specifically with equation 24, which, in order to optimize the sampling of the system, is minimized. This is minimized subject to two constraints, timing and memory-space. The timing constraint is represented by equation 11, and the memory-space constraint is represented by equation 14. Storing detections ‘costs’ memory-space in the system, and is used in optimizing sampling.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the defined criteria disclosed in App ‘213, by implementing the efficient sampling algorithm taught by Nguyen et. al. The optimization algorithm taught by Nguyen improves image quality while reducing computational complexity and memory requirements (Nguyen et. al., last paragraph of Section III.C).
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 ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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 at (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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights