DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 27 and 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al. (2019/0318177) in view of PACALA ANGUS et al. (WO 2021/026241A1).
With respect to claim 1, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 a lidar system comprising: a photodetector circuit (1442, which is similar to 116; Fig. 14), the photodetector circuit [0272] comprising an array of pixels (410) for sensing incident light [0131]; and a signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) for processing a signal representative of the sensed incident light to detect a reflection (as seen in Fig. 4A) of a laser pulse (from 1410/112; [0095] and [0272]) from a target (i.e. targets like 1,2, or 3 in Fig. 16) within a field of view [0092] [0277], wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) comprises a matched filter ((1446(1); Fig. 14 and [0264]) corresponding to a retro-reflective target (i.e. one of the targets 1-3) that is tuned to a reflected pulse shape (via from a target, example 1 or 2) that exhibits a vertical clipping (as Steinberg et al. teaches matched filters are tuned in accordance to the reflected signals, including heights in a z-axis when using a cylindrical coordinate system, thereby reading on the claimed “vertical clipping”; [0274-0275] and [0337]) relative to a transmitted pulse shape (photonic inspection pulse seen in Fig. 15) for the laser pulse (1410/112) that is indicative of the retro-reflective target (i.e.one of the targets 1-3), and wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) determines a retro-reflector status i.e. a type of object based on its reflective fingerprint) for the target (targets 1-3) based how the matched filter responds to the applied signal (as based on the selected match filter, the processor determines the existence of a road-surface or sign; [0266] [0269]).
Steinberg et al. remains silent regarding wherein the matched filter is tuned according to a function that computes a minimum as between (1) a specified vertical clip level corresponding to a saturation threshold of at least one of the photodetector array or an analog-to-digital converter and (2) a reference pulse corresponding to the transmitted pulse shape.
PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches a similar Lidar system that includes a matched filter (i.e. PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches implementing match filters to return signals; [0079]) is tuned (as PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches match filters are applied such as they corresponds to pulse trains emitted by a light source; [0014] [0232]) according to a function that computes a minimum as between (1) a specified vertical clip level corresponding to a saturation threshold (1902; Fig. 30) of at least one of the photodetector array (236; [0077]) and (2) a reference pulse corresponding to a transmitted pulse shape (as PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches the reference pulse being known pulse trains from the emitted light source, thereby reading on “a reference pulse”; further PACALA ANGUS teaches the match filters are tuned according to a function defined by the match filtered excluding maximum values, thereby minimizing the distance between the reflected signal and the reference pulse trains; [0246])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the match filter of Steinberg et al. to include the match filter control logic and tuning as taught in PACALA ANGUS et al. because PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches such a modification improves the accuracy in which distances to surrounding objects are determined (Abstract and [0246]), thereby improving the accuracy of the lidar system of Steinberg et al.
The method steps of claim 27 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the matched filter includes a plurality of matched filters (1446(1)-1446(Max); Fig. 14) corresponding to different amounts of retro-reflectivity for the target (i.e. objects) that are tuned to different reflected pulse shapes for reflections from the target (i.e. objects) at different amounts of retro-reflectivity (as Steinberg et al. teaches “The “MAX” filter may select the matched filter with the highest outcome of the correlation to reference pulses of varying durations; [0273]).
With respect to claim 3, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) determines an amount of retro- reflectivity for the target (i.e. the object reflecting light back to the sensor) based on which of the matched filters produces a largest response to the applied signal (as Steinberg et al. teaches a filter is selected based on the highest outcome of the correlation, i.e. reading on “largest response”; [0273]).
With respect to claim 4, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the different amounts of retro-reflectivity include non-retro-reflectivity (as the system taught by Steinberg et al. includes measurements related to pulses not reflected back when classifying objects; [0280]).
With respect to claim 5, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the matched filters include: a first matched filter (for example 1446(1)) tuned to a reflected pulse shape for a reflection from a non-retro- reflective target (as insofar as how the filter is tuned, Steinberg et al. teaches the filters designed to match the reflectance or no reflectance [0280]); and a second matched filter (1446(2) tuned to a reflected pulse shape for a reflection from a retro- reflective target (for example something that would reject light, like a street sign; [0304], as the filters, tuned according different threshold of reflectance, will be selected based off the sensed reflectance).
With respect to claim 6, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) classifies the target as retro- reflective (like a sign; [0292]) or non-oblique (like a windshield; [0292]) not retro-reflective based on which of the first and second matched filters (1446(1) or (2)) produces a larger response to the applied signal (as the match filter is chosen based on the highest correlation and the system then classifies the object based on the processing using that matching filter to classify the object).
With respect to claim 7, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the matched filters (1446(1-Max)) include: a first matched filter (1446(1) is capable of being) tuned to a reflected pulse shape for a reflection from a non-retro- reflective target (like a windshield, as Steinberg et al. teaches the system capable of classifying objects as windshields; [0292]); and a second matched filter (1226(2) is capable of being) tuned to a reflected pulse shape for a reflection from a retro- reflective target at a first amount (i.e. a first threshold; [0279]) of retro-reflectivity (like a sign, as Steinberg et al. teaches the system capable of classifying objects as signs; [0292]); and a third matched filter (1226(3) is capable of being) tuned to a reflected pulse shape for a reflection from a retro- reflective target (like lane markings) at a second amount (i.e. a second threshold) of retro-reflectivity [0279].
With respect to claim 8, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) determines whether the target (i.e. objects) exhibits non-retro-reflectivity (like a windshield), the first amount of retro-reflectivity (describing for example a sign), or the second amount of retro-reflectivity (describing for example lane markings) based on which of the first, second, and third filters (1446(1-3) produces a largest response to the applied signal (as Steinberg will chose the appropriate filter based on the one with the largest correspondence; [0273]).
With respect to claim 9, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein each of a plurality of the matched filters (1446(1-Max) is tuned according to a function that computes a minimum as between (1) a specified vertical clip level (associated with an object) corresponding to a defined amount of retro-reflectivity (for that object, as sensed) and (2) a reference pulse (i.e. essential a temple or known delayed signal from a object in which that matched filter is describing), wherein the different matched filters (1446(1-Max)) are associated with different specified vertical clip levels corresponding to different amounts of retro-reflectivity (of various objects).
With respect to claim 11, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system further comprising: a lookup table of precomputed minimum functions [0359]; and a control circuit (as indirectly taught) that tunes a plurality of the matched filters (1446(1-Max)) based on the precomputed minimum functions in the lookup table (as Steinberg teaches using these stored algorithms to detect and classify objects; [00359]).
With respect to claim 12, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the matched filter (1446(1-Max)) comprises: a register [0387] in which data corresponding to a pulse reflection reference shape (is capable of being) stored to thereby tune the matched filter (1446(1-Max)) to a given reflected pulse shape (as defined by an object the filter aims to represent); and correlation logic that performs a cross-correlation (i.e. a correlation out; [0252] [0273]) between the data in the register and the applied signal [0252].
With respect to claim 13, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the pulse reflection reference shape is stored in the register as a plurality of samples (as each potential objects and their respective reflection shapes), and wherein the correlation logic [0252] and [0273] performs the cross-correlation [0252 and 273] between the samples in the register (i.e. the samples of the reference shapes) and a plurality of samples representative of the applied signal (i.e. the sensed signals of the objects being detected).
With respect to claim 14, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) applies the signal to the matched filters (1446(1-Max)) in parallel (as seen in Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 15, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) further comprises an analog-to-digital converter [0152] that generates a plurality of digital samples that are representative of the sensed incident light, and wherein the applied signal comprises the digital samples (i.e. the digital samples of the sensed objects fed to the matched filters).
With respect to claim 16, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) further comprises a cache memory [0387] for caching the digital samples to be applied to the matched filter (1446(1-Max)).
With respect to claim 17, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) comprises an application- specific integrated circuit (ASIC) on which the matched filter is deployed [0089].
With respect to claim 18, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the signal processing circuit (108/408/1448) comprises a field programmable gate array (FPGA) on which the matched filter is deployed.
With respect to claim 19, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system further comprising: a lidar transmitter (116/1410); and a control circuit (as indirectly taught); wherein the control circuit (as indirectly taught) defines a shot energy for a laser pulse [0097] shot to be transmitted by the lidar transmitter (116/1410) and for use in producing a pulse reflection from which the target retro-reflectivity is determined [0097], wherein the defined shot energy (is capable of providing) a desired amount of signal-to-noise ratio for producing a desired amount of accuracy with respect to the determined target retro-reflectivity (as the systems, transmitter and processor are design to supply a desired signal-to-noise ratio that ensures an improved signal; [0121]).
With respect to claim 20, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the laser pulse exhibits a transmitted laser pulse shape that is Gaussian (as seen by the figures, the LiDAR shape is approximately Gaussian).
With respect to claim 21, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the target is a road surface (i.e. road-surface markings, Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 22, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the target is an object above a road surface (for example a sign which are above a road surface; [0205]).
With respect to claim 23, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the object comprises a moving object (i.e. like a car, [0077]).
With respect to claim 24, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the object comprises a street sign [0205].
With respect to claim 25, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system further comprising: a laser source (112/1410); and a lidar transmitter (1430), wherein the lidar transmitter (1430) comprises a plurality of scannable mirrors (114 and 216), and wherein the lidar transmitter (1430) transmits a plurality of laser pulses (as seen in Fig.4B) from the laser source (112/1410) toward a plurality of targets (652 and 654) in the field of view (Fig. 6D) via the scannable mirrors (114 and 216) according to a shot list (i.e. a predefined horizontal range; [0076]); and a control circuit (i.e. a control portion of system 100) that schedules [0104] laser pulses in the shot list (i.e. the predefined ranges) for targeting defined range points in the field of view (Fig. 6D) based on (1) a laser energy model (i.e. an energy profile; [0156]) that models energy available for laser pulses from the laser source (112/1410) over time (as the profile defines emissions occurring over time) and (2) a mirror motion model (Steinberg et al. discloses data that allows the system to direct more energy towards the FOV 120; [0162] [0223]) that models motion for at least one of the scannable mirrors over time (114 and 216).
With respect to claim 26, Steinberg et al. teaches in Fig. 14 the lidar system wherein the lidar transmitter (1430) scans a first scannable mirror in a resonant mode [0114] and (2) scans a second scannable mirror in a point-to-point mode according to a step function (i.e. a linear mode; [0114]) that varies as a function of the range points (according to the predefined ranges) targeted by the shot list (i.e. the predefined ranges; [0104]).
With respect to claim 28, Steinberg et al. teaches an article of manufacture (i.e. processor and corresponding control logic and programming) for a lidar receiver (200A), the article of manufacture comprising: machine-readable code [0385] that is resident on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [0385], wherein the code [0385] defines processing operations to be performed by a processor (abstract) to cause the processor (abstract) to perform the rejected steps apply a signal to a matched filter (1446(1)) corresponding to a retro-reflective target (i.e. an object), wherein the applied signal (i.e. the signal sent to the matched filter) is representative of incident light sensed by an array of pixels [0131], wherein the incident light includes a reflection (as seen in Fig. 4A) of a laser pulse (from 116) from a target within a field of view (120; [0092] [0277]) for the lidar receiver (200A), and wherein the matched filter (1446(1)) is tuned to a reflected pulse shape (via from a target, example 1 or 2) that exhibits a vertical clipping relative to a transmitted pulse shape (photonic inspection pulse seen in Fig. 15) for the laser pulse (1410/112) that is indicative of the retro-reflective target (i.e.one of the targets 1-3); and in response to the applied signal (i.e. the signal sent to the matched filter), determine a retro-reflector status (i.e. a type of object based on its reflective fingerprint) for the target (targets 1-3) based how the matched filter responds to the applied signal (as based on the selected match filter, the processor determines the existence of a road-surface or sign; [0266] [0269]).
Steinberg et al. remains silent regarding wherein the matched filter is tuned according to a function that computes a minimum as between (1) a specified vertical clip level corresponding to a saturation threshold of at least one of the photodetector array or an analog-to-digital converter and (2) a reference pulse corresponding to the transmitted pulse shape.
PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches a similar Lidar system that includes a matched filter (i.e. PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches implementing match filters to return signals; [0079]) is tuned (as PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches match filters are applied such as they corresponds to pulse trains emitted by a light source; [0014] [0232]) according to a function that computes a minimum as between (1) a specified vertical clip level corresponding to a saturation threshold (1902; Fig. 30) of at least one of the photodetector array (236; [0077]) and (2) a reference pulse corresponding to a transmitted pulse shape (as PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches the reference pulse being known pulse trains from the emitted light source, thereby reading on “a reference pulse”; further PACALA ANGUS teaches the match filters are tuned according to a function defined by the match filtered excluding maximum values, thereby minimizing the distance between the reflected signal and the reference pulse trains; [0246])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the match filter of Steinberg et al. to include the match filter control logic and tuning as taught in PACALA ANGUS et al. because PACALA ANGUS et al. teaches such a modification improves the accuracy in which distances to surrounding objects are determined (Abstract and [0246]), thereby improving the accuracy of the lidar system of Steinberg et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. (10,473,770) which teaches a multi-pulse analysis for LiDAR.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853