Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 8th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binder (United States Patent Application Publication 20190154439 A1), hereinafter Binder.
Regarding claim 1, Binder teaches a sensor control system, comprising:
at least one memory ([0515] Any apparatus or device herein may further comprise a memory coupled to, integrated with, or part of, the digital camera); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory ([0820] The control block 61 may include a processor), the at least one processor configured to:
determine a first center frequency for a first Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor ([0823] the emitter 11 of the distance meter A 40a may emit a wave propagating in one carrier (or center) frequency);
schedule a first capture sequence for the first LiDAR sensor to occur at a first time ([0821] A communication to the distance meter A 40a may comprise an activation command, instructing the distance meter A 40a to start a distance measurement operation cycle, and upon determining a distance value, the value is transmitted to the base unit 60 over the connection 66a);
determine a second center frequency for a second LiDAR sensor ([0823] the emitter 11 of the distance meter B 40b may emit a wave propagating in a second carrier (or center) frequency distinct from the first one)
wherein the first center frequency and the second center frequency are separated by a frequency difference ([0543] The first signal may comprise, or may be based on, a carrier having, or centered at, a first frequency, and the reflected first signal may comprise or may be having a carrier having, or centered at, a second frequency, and any apparatus or device herein may comprise a frequency discriminator coupled for measuring or estimating the frequency difference between the first and second frequencies.), and
the frequency difference is based on a selected integration time associated with at least one of the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor ([0579] Any distance meter herein may further comprise a heterodyne or homodyne scheme coupled for shifting a frequency.); and
schedule a second capture sequence for the second LiDAR sensor to occur at a second time, wherein the first time is different than the second time ([0821] Similarly, a communication to the distance meter B 40b may comprise an activation command, instructing the distance meter B 40b to start a distance measurement operation cycle, and upon determining a distance value, the value is transmitted to the base unit 60 over the connection 66b.).
Regarding claim 2, Binder teaches the sensor control system of claim 1, wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a number of LiDAR sensors managed by the sensor control system, and wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor corresponds with a modulation frequency for a transmitter of the first LiDAR sensor ([0886] Alternatively or in addition, a frequency separation may be used, where the echoes are identified according to their center or carrier frequency. An example of an angle meter 55c1 employing frequency separation is shown as part of an arrangement 100b in FIG. 10b. The ‘A’ meter functionality 71a1 uses a sinewave generator 23a (that may be part of the correlator 19a) that generates a sinewave having a frequency fa, so that the wave emitted by the emitter 11a uses the frequency fa as a carrier or center frequency...In one example, the difference between the frequency fa and the frequency fb may be defined as |fb−fa|/fa).
Regarding claim 4, Binder teaches the sensor control system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: schedule a third capture sequence for a third LiDAR sensor at a third time, wherein the third time is different than the first time and the second time ([0916] The planes meter 201 further comprises a the angle meter #2 55a, having two distance meters ‘C’ 40c and ‘D’ 40d (or related functionalities) for measuring along the measurement lines 51c and 51d the respective lengths d3 and d4 that are used).
Regarding claim 6, Binder teaches the sensor control system of claim 1, wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on a common vehicle ([0904] Similarly, the angle meter #1 55 may be mounted or installed in a land vehicle, such as the automobile 185 shown in an arrangement 180 in FIG. 18).
Regarding claim 8, Binder teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, using a sensor control system, a first center frequency for a first Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor ([0823] the emitter 11 of the distance meter A 40a may emit a wave propagating in one carrier (or center) frequency);
scheduling, using the sensor control system, a first capture sequence for the first LiDAR sensor to occur at a first time ([0821] A communication to the distance meter A 40a may comprise an activation command, instructing the distance meter A 40a to start a distance measurement operation cycle, and upon determining a distance value, the value is transmitted to the base unit 60 over the connection 66a);
determining, by the sensor control system, a second center frequency for a second LiDAR sensor ([0823] the emitter 11 of the distance meter B 40b may emit a wave propagating in a second carrier (or center) frequency distinct from the first one),
wherein the first center frequency and the second center frequency are separated by a frequency difference ([0543] The first signal may comprise, or may be based on, a carrier having, or centered at, a first frequency, and the reflected first signal may comprise or may be having a carrier having, or centered at, a second frequency, and any apparatus or device herein may comprise a frequency discriminator coupled for measuring or estimating the frequency difference between the first and second frequencies.), and
the frequency difference is based on a selected integration time associated with at least one of the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor ([0579] Any distance meter herein may further comprise a heterodyne or homodyne scheme coupled for shifting a frequency.); and
scheduling, by the sensor control system, a second capture sequence for the second LiDAR sensor to occur at a second time, wherein the first time is different than the second time ([0821] Similarly, a communication to the distance meter B 40b may comprise an activation command, instructing the distance meter B 40b to start a distance measurement operation cycle, and upon determining a distance value, the value is transmitted to the base unit 60 over the connection 66b.).
Regarding claim 9, Binder teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a number of LiDAR sensors managed by the sensor control system ([0886] Alternatively or in addition, a frequency separation may be used, where the echoes are identified according to their center or carrier frequency. An example of an angle meter 55c1 employing frequency separation is shown as part of an arrangement 100b in FIG. 10b. The ‘A’ meter functionality 71a1 uses a sinewave generator 23a (that may be part of the correlator 19a) that generates a sinewave having a frequency fa, so that the wave emitted by the emitter 11a uses the frequency fa as a carrier or center frequency).
Regarding claim 11, Binder teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: scheduling a third capture sequence for a third LiDAR sensor to occur at a third time, wherein the third time is different than the first time and the second time ([0916] The planes meter 201 further comprises a the angle meter #2 55a, having two distance meters ‘C’ 40c and ‘D’ 40d (or related functionalities) for measuring along the measurement lines 51c and 51d the respective lengths d3 and d4 that are used).
Regarding claim 13, Binder teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on a common vehicle ([0904] Similarly, the angle meter #1 55 may be mounted or installed in a land vehicle, such as the automobile 185 shown in an arrangement 180 in FIG. 18).
Regarding claim 15, Binder teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising at least one instruction for causing a computer or processor ([1235] The term “computer-readable medium” (or “machine-readable medium”) as used herein is an extensible term that refers to any non-transitory computer readable medium or any memory, that participates in providing instructions to a processor, (such as processor 71) for execution) to:
determine a first center frequency for a first Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor ([0823] the emitter 11 of the distance meter A 40a may emit a wave propagating in one carrier (or center) frequency);
schedule a first capture sequence for the first LiDAR sensor to occur at a first time ([0821] A communication to the distance meter A 40a may comprise an activation command, instructing the distance meter A 40a to start a distance measurement operation cycle, and upon determining a distance value, the value is transmitted to the base unit 60 over the connection 66a);
determine a second center frequency for a second LiDAR sensor ([0823] the emitter 11 of the distance meter B 40b may emit a wave propagating in a second carrier (or center) frequency distinct from the first one)
wherein the first center frequency and the second center frequency are separated by a frequency difference ([0543] The first signal may comprise, or may be based on, a carrier having, or centered at, a first frequency, and the reflected first signal may comprise or may be having a carrier having, or centered at, a second frequency, and any apparatus or device herein may comprise a frequency discriminator coupled for measuring or estimating the frequency difference between the first and second frequencies.), and
the frequency difference is based on a selected integration time associated with at least one of the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor ([0579] Any distance meter herein may further comprise a heterodyne or homodyne scheme coupled for shifting a frequency.); and
schedule a second capture sequence for the second LiDAR sensor to occur at a second time, wherein the first time is different than the second time ([0821] Similarly, a communication to the distance meter B 40b may comprise an activation command, instructing the distance meter B 40b to start a distance measurement operation cycle, and upon determining a distance value, the value is transmitted to the base unit 60 over the connection 66b.).
Regarding claim 16, Binder teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a number of LiDAR sensors managed by a sensor control system ([0886] Alternatively or in addition, a frequency separation may be used, where the echoes are identified according to their center or carrier frequency. An example of an angle meter 55c1 employing frequency separation is shown as part of an arrangement 100b in FIG. 10b. The ‘A’ meter functionality 71a1 uses a sinewave generator 23a (that may be part of the correlator 19a) that generates a sinewave having a frequency fa, so that the wave emitted by the emitter 11a uses the frequency fa as a carrier or center frequency).
Regarding claim 18, Binder teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the at least one instruction is further configured to cause the computer or processor to: schedule a third capture sequence for a third LiDAR sensor to occur at a third time, wherein the third time is different than the first time and the second time ([0916] The planes meter 201 further comprises a the angle meter #2 55a, having two distance meters ‘C’ 40c and ‘D’ 40d (or related functionalities) for measuring along the measurement lines 51c and 51d the respective lengths d3 and d4 that are used).
Regarding claim 20, Binder teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on a common vehicle ([0904] Similarly, the angle meter #1 55 may be mounted or installed in a land vehicle, such as the automobile 185 shown in an arrangement 180 in FIG. 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of Hyun et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20160109565 A1), hereinafter Hyun.
Regarding claim 3, Binder teaches the sensor control system of claim 1,
Binder fails to teach the system wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a time duration of the first capture sequence.
However, Hyun teaches the system wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a time duration of the first capture sequence ([0036] First, the controller 210 sets the number of time slots to which signals are transmitted and a time interval between the time slots. Next, it sets different center frequencies of the transmitted signals for respective time slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the first center frequency modulation based on sequence duration similar to Hyun, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping to mitigate crosstalk between sensors that would have different time slots.
Regarding claim 10, Binder teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8,
Binder fails to teach the method wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a time duration of the first capture sequence.
However, Hyun teaches the method wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a time duration of the first capture sequence ([0036] First, the controller 210 sets the number of time slots to which signals are transmitted and a time interval between the time slots. Next, it sets different center frequencies of the transmitted signals for respective time slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the first center frequency modulation based on sequence duration similar to Hyun, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping to mitigate crosstalk between sensors that would have different time slots.
Regarding claim 17, Binder teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16,
Binder fails to teach the medium wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a time duration of the first capture sequence.
However, Hyun teaches the medium wherein the first center frequency for the first LiDAR sensor is based on a time duration of the first capture sequence ([0036] First, the controller 210 sets the number of time slots to which signals are transmitted and a time interval between the time slots. Next, it sets different center frequencies of the transmitted signals for respective time slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the first center frequency modulation based on sequence duration similar to Hyun, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping to mitigate crosstalk between sensors that would have different time slots.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of McCloskey et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20160061935 A1), hereinafter McCloskey.
Regarding claim 5, Binder teaches the sensor control system of claim 1,
Binder fails to teach the system wherein the first LiDAR sensor is associated with a first integration time and the second LiDAR sensor is associated with a second integration time, the selected integration time is the first integration time based on the first integration time being smaller than the second integration time, and the selected integration time is the second integration time based on the second integration time being smaller than the first integration time.
However, McCloskey teaches the system wherein the first LiDAR sensor is associated with a first integration time and the second LiDAR sensor is associated with a second integration time ([0117] In FIGS. 9A-9E, modulated patterns 910a-910e may correspond to modulated patterns of EM radiation from a first sensor in a first vehicle, and modulated patterns 912a-912e may correspond to modulated patterns of EM radiation from a second sensor in a second vehicle. The scenarios 900a-900e present various adjustments of the corresponding modulation patterns to reduce interference in accordance with the present disclosure.),
the selected integration time is the first integration time based on the first integration time being smaller than the second integration time, and the selected integration time is the second integration time based on the second integration time being smaller than the first integration time ([0118] For example, the frequency offset (920a-922a) may be selected to be greater than a bandwidth of the IF filter of the first sensor associated with waveform 910a and/or the IF filter of the second sensor associated with waveform 912a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the integration time selection similar to McCloskey, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating an emitted frequency difference based on the signal which would generate the greatest bandwidth, and therefore the clearest signal, within the system.
Regarding claim 12, Binder teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8,
Binder fails to teach the method wherein the first LiDAR sensor is associated with a first integration time and the second LiDAR sensor is associated with a second integration time, the selected integration time is the first integration time based on the first integration time being smaller than the second integration time, and the selected integration time is the second integration time based on the second integration time being smaller than the first integration time.
However, McCloskey teaches the method wherein the first LiDAR sensor is associated with a first integration time and the second LiDAR sensor is associated with a second integration time ([0117] In FIGS. 9A-9E, modulated patterns 910a-910e may correspond to modulated patterns of EM radiation from a first sensor in a first vehicle, and modulated patterns 912a-912e may correspond to modulated patterns of EM radiation from a second sensor in a second vehicle. The scenarios 900a-900e present various adjustments of the corresponding modulation patterns to reduce interference in accordance with the present disclosure.),
the selected integration time is the first integration time based on the first integration time being smaller than the second integration time, and the selected integration time is the second integration time based on the second integration time being smaller than the first integration time ([0118] For example, the frequency offset (920a-922a) may be selected to be greater than a bandwidth of the IF filter of the first sensor associated with waveform 910a and/or the IF filter of the second sensor associated with waveform 912a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the integration time selection similar to McCloskey, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating an emitted frequency difference based on the signal which would generate the greatest bandwidth, and therefore the clearest signal, within the system.
Regarding claim 19, Binder teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15,
Binder fails to teach the medium wherein the first LiDAR sensor is associated with a first integration time and the second LiDAR sensor is associated with a second integration time, the selected integration time is the first integration time based on the first integration time being smaller than the second integration time, and the selected integration time is the second integration time based on the second integration time being smaller than the first integration time.
However, McCloskey teaches the medium wherein the first LiDAR sensor is associated with a first integration time and the second LiDAR sensor is associated with a second integration time ([0117] In FIGS. 9A-9E, modulated patterns 910a-910e may correspond to modulated patterns of EM radiation from a first sensor in a first vehicle, and modulated patterns 912a-912e may correspond to modulated patterns of EM radiation from a second sensor in a second vehicle. The scenarios 900a-900e present various adjustments of the corresponding modulation patterns to reduce interference in accordance with the present disclosure.),
the selected integration time is the first integration time based on the first integration time being smaller than the second integration time, and the selected integration time is the second integration time based on the second integration time being smaller than the first integration time ([0118] For example, the frequency offset (920a-922a) may be selected to be greater than a bandwidth of the IF filter of the first sensor associated with waveform 910a and/or the IF filter of the second sensor associated with waveform 912a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the integration time selection similar to McCloskey, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating an emitted frequency difference based on the signal which would generate the greatest bandwidth, and therefore the clearest signal, within the system.
Claims 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder in view of Campbell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20210255301 A1), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 7, Binder teaches the sensor control system of claim 1,
Binder fails to teach the system wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on different vehicles.
However, Campbell teaches the system wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on different vehicles ([0041] In some examples, a fleet of autonomous vehicle may leverage techniques described herein to reduce interference during operations... In some instances, the vehicles may communicate with each other to coordinate efforts to reduce interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the sensor system mounted on different vehicles similar to Campbell, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing a fleet of vehicles to communicate effectively with one another in an autonomous environment.
Regarding claim 14, Binder teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8,
Binder fails to teach the method wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on different vehicles.
However, Campbell teaches the method wherein the first LiDAR sensor and the second LiDAR sensor are mounted on different vehicles ([0041] In some examples, a fleet of autonomous vehicle may leverage techniques described herein to reduce interference during operations... In some instances, the vehicles may communicate with each other to coordinate efforts to reduce interference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Binder to comprise the sensor system mounted on different vehicles similar to Campbell, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing a fleet of vehicles to communicate effectively with one another in an autonomous environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-10 of the Applicant Arguments, filed October 8th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102, as well as 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Binder, as required by the newly amended claims.
Regarding the arguments made that the claims above, as amended, are not taught by the rejection set up previously under Binder and Willner, the examiner notes that the argument is persuasive in this regard, and as such a new field of search was required for the amended limitations. However through a reexamination of Binder and further search, the prior art of Binder, under new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments, as well as the new prior art of McCloskey, also necessitated by the amendments, are found to teach the limitations of the claims noted, with the statement of obviousness above reasoning the rational to combine. As such the new grounds of rejection are maintained in this Final Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Willner et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20090059201 A1) teaches a first and second lidar sensor as full field lidar sensors (Title; [0042] Some embodiments of the invention process a received full-field, LIDAR image from reflected optical signal 253 through receiver lens 209).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 8:00-5:00 PST.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645