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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a Non-Final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 02/03/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-14, 16 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-9, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7, 11-12 under 102 and claims 8-10, 13-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Rogers et al. (US 20110037970 A1) and Krauss et al. (US 10969491 B1) necessitated by the claim amendment and the Applicant arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennecot et al. (US 8836922 B1, “Pennecot”) in view of Rogers et al. (US 20110037970 A1,” Rogers”).
Regarding claim 1, Pennecot teaches a light detection and ranging (lidar) device comprising:
a lidar transceiver configured to output a transmitted light beam and to detect a reflected light beam generated by the transmitted light beam (Col. 3, ll. 20–45: “The plurality of light sources 120 emit a plurality of light beams 122 that are reflected by targets … A receive block 130 includes detectors 132 that detect light reflected from targets …”); and
a support platform configured to support the lidar transceiver and to impart, to the lidar transceiver, at least a velocity along a direction of the transmitted light beam (Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1: “The housing 110 can be configured to rotate about an axis of the LIDAR device 100 …”. The rotating housing (support platform) imparts motion and velocity to the transceiver assembly about its scan axis. Pennecot further teaches that the LIDAR device may rotate 360 degrees, rotate back and forth along a portion of the 360-degree view, or wobble back and forth about the axis (Col 13: lines 56-62).).
Pennecot fails to explicitly teach a support platform configured to support the lidar transceiver and to impart, to the lidar transceiver, at least a longitudinal velocity along an instantaneous direction of the transmitted light beam.
However, Pennecot teaches that the housing provides a platform for mounting the LIDAR components, including the transmit block, receive block, and lens, and that the housing may rotate about an axis. Pennecot further teaches that the LIDAR device may rotate 360 degrees, rotate back and forth along a portion of the 360-degree view, or wobble back and forth about the axis (Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1; Col 13: lines 56-62).
Rogers teaches that an optical transceiver may be mounted on a moving platform, that platform motion may include linear and rotational motion, and that the Doppler frequency shift created by such motion is proportional to the velocity component along the laser line of sight ([0028], [0044]– [0048]; Fig. 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Pennecot’s rotating LIDAR device to account for the velocity imparted to the lidar transceiver by Pennecot’s rotating/wobbling support platform using Rogers’s teaching that motion of an optical transceiver/platform is resolved into a velocity component along the laser line of sight, in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of optical sensing by recognizing and compensating for motion of the transceiver during transmission and reception of the light beam.
Pennecot in view of Rogers teaches wherein the longitudinal velocity periodically varies with time. Pennecot’s rotating or wobbling housing imparts velocity to the lidar transceiver, and Rogers teaches that such platform/transceiver motion has a component along the laser line of sight, the combination teaches the claimed longitudinal velocity along an instantaneous direction of the transmitted light beam. Pennecot further teaches 360-degree rotation, back-and-forth rotation, and wobbling back and forth about the axis, the line-of-sight/longitudinal velocity component periodically varies with time.
Regarding claim 2, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the lidar device of claim 1, wherein the support platform is configured to rotate around an axis of rotation (Pennecot, Col. 6, ll. 57–67; Figs. 1–3A: “The housing 110 can have a substantially cylindrical shape and rotate about an axis … the rotation provides scanning of the environment”. See also, Col. 14, ll. 13–20).
Regarding claim 3, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the lidar device of claim 2, wherein the lidar transceiver is affixed to the support platform at a location that is offset relative to the axis of rotation (Pennecot, Fig. 1, Light sources 122 and detectors 132 are positioned around the periphery of the rotating housing 110 …See also, fig. 2. Light sources 222 and detectors 232 are positioned around the periphery of the rotating housing 210 …Peripheral arrangement inherently offset from spin axis).
Regarding claim 4, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the lidar device of claim 3, wherein the support platform is configured to impart, to the lidar transceiver, a rotational velocity that is parallel to the instantaneous direction of the transmitted light beam ( Rogers teaches that platform motion includes both linear and rotational motion, and that the velocity of a target/focal region due to platform motion is expressed using the rotational-motion term ω × r. Rogers further teaches that the Doppler frequency shift created by this velocity is proportional to the component of that velocity along the laser line of sight L. Rogers also states that the second term involving rotational motion represents the rotational-motion component [0045]–[0048]; Fig. 6.).
Regarding claim 5, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the lidar device of claim 2, wherein the support platform is further configured to impart, to the lidar transceiver, a transverse velocity in a direction perpendicular to the transmitted light beam, wherein the transverse velocity periodically varies with time.
Pennecot teaches that the housing provides a platform for mounting the LIDAR components, including the transmit block, receive block, and lens, and that the housing may be rotated about an axis of the LIDAR device by a motor or other rotating means (Figs. 1-2, col 7: lines 4-10). Pennecot’s Fig. 2 shows collimated light beams 204a-c transmitted outward from lens 250 into the environment while the LIDAR device rotates about the axis shown by arrow 290. Because the lidar transceiver components are mounted to and move with the rotating housing, the rotating support platform imparts velocity to the lidar transceiver. The velocity imparted to a supported transceiver component by rotation of the housing is tangential to the rotation path and therefore is transverse to, or at least includes a component perpendicular to, the outward direction of the transmitted light beam. Pennecot further teaches that the LIDAR device may be rotated back and forth along a portion of the 360-degree view or mounted on a platform that wobbles back and forth about the axis without making a complete rotation. Thus, the transverse velocity changes direction and/or magnitude repeatedly over time during the back-and-forth/wobbling motion, such that the transverse velocity periodically varies with time (Col. 13, ll. 48–62).
Regarding claim 6, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the lidar device of claim 2, wherein the support platform is further configured to impart, to the lidar transceiver, a rotational motion relative to the support platform (Pennecot, Col. 6, ll. 57 to Col.7: “The LIDAR device 100 includes a rotating housing 110 that can be rotated about an axis of rotation … driven by a motor positioned within the device.” Here, the support platform corresponds to the non-rotating support frame and motor mount that supports the rotatable housing 110.Thus, the housing (containing the LiDAR transceiver) moves rotationally relative to its stationary supporting structure).
Regarding claim 7, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the lidar device of claim 1, wherein the support platform is configured to impart, to the lidar transceiver, a first oscillatory motion along at least an axis of a field of view of the lidar device (Pennecot, Col. 13, ll. 59–62: This back-and-forth wobble is an oscillatory motion along the scan (FOV) axis.).
Regarding claim 11, Pennecot teaches a detection and ranging device comprising:
a transmitter configured to output a transmitted electromagnetic wave; a receiver configured to detect a reflected electromagnetic wave generated by the transmitted electromagnetic wave (Figs. 1-3A, Col. 3, ll. 20–45: “The plurality of light sources 120 emit a plurality of light beams 122 that are reflected by targets … A receive block 130 includes detectors 132 that detect light reflected from targets …”); and
a support platform configured to support at least a movable portion of the detection and ranging device (Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1: “The housing 110 can be configured to rotate about an axis of the LIDAR device 100 …), wherein the movable portion comprises at least one of the transmitters or the receiver (Fig. 1, Light sources 122 and detectors 132 are positioned around the periphery of the rotating housing 110 …See also, fig. 2. Light sources 222 and detectors 232 are positioned around the periphery of the rotating housing 210 …), and
Pennecot fails to explicitly teach wherein the support platform is configured to impart, to the movable portion, a longitudinal velocity along an instantaneous direction of the transmitted electromagnetic wave, wherein the longitudinal velocity periodically varies with time.
However, Pennecot teaches that the housing provides a platform for mounting the LIDAR components, including the transmit block, receive block, and lens, and that the housing may rotate about an axis. Pennecot further teaches that the LIDAR device may rotate 360 degrees, rotate back and forth along a portion of the 360-degree view, or wobble back and forth about the axis (Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1; Col 13: lines 56-62).
Rogers teaches that an optical transceiver may be mounted on a moving platform, that platform motion may include linear and rotational motion, and that the Doppler frequency shift created by such motion is proportional to the velocity component along the laser line of sight ([0028], [0044]– [0048]; Fig. 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Pennecot’s rotating LIDAR device to account for the velocity imparted to the lidar transceiver by Pennecot’s rotating/wobbling support platform using Rogers’s teaching that motion of an optical transceiver/platform is resolved into a velocity component along the laser line of sight, in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of optical sensing by recognizing and compensating for motion of the transceiver during transmission and reception of the light beam.
Pennecot in view of Rogers teaches wherein the longitudinal velocity periodically varies with time. Pennecot’s rotating or wobbling housing imparts velocity to the lidar transceiver, and Rogers teaches that such platform/transceiver motion has a component along the laser line of sight, the combination teaches the claimed longitudinal velocity along an instantaneous direction of the transmitted light beam. Pennecot further teaches 360-degree rotation, back-and-forth rotation, and wobbling back and forth about the axis, the line-of-sight/longitudinal velocity component periodically varies with time.
Regarding claim 12, Pennecot, in view of Rogers, teaches the detection and ranging device of claim 11, wherein the motion imparted to the movable portion comprises a plurality of first phases and a plurality of second phases, wherein during each of the plurality of first phases the motion imparted to the movable portion is parallel to the direction of the transmitted wave, and wherein during each of the plurality of second phases the motion imparted to the movable portion is antiparallel to the direction of the transmitted wave
Pennecot’s back-and-forth/wobbling motion produces repeated motion in opposite directions. During one portion of the wobbling/back-and-forth cycle, the movable portion moves in a first direction; during another portion of the cycle, the movable portion moves in the opposite direction. Because this back-and-forth/wobbling movement repeats over time, the motion includes a plurality of first phases and a plurality of second phases (Col. 13, ll. 48-62).
Rogers teaches that platform motion may include both linear and rotational motion, that the LDV/transceiver may be mounted on a moving platform, and that the Doppler frequency shift created by this velocity is proportional to the component of the velocity along the laser line of sight L. Rogers further recognizes that the measured relative frequency may be positive or negative, which corresponds to opposite directions of motion along the line of sight ([0007], [0028], [0044]– [0048]; Fig. 6.).
Thus, in the Pennecot in view of Rogers combination, Pennecot’s back-and-forth/wobbling support platform imparts repeated opposite-direction motion to the movable portion including the transmitter and/or receiver. Rogers teaches resolving that platform-imparted motion into a component along the laser line of sight, i.e., along the instantaneous direction of the transmitted electromagnetic wave. During the portions of the repeated cycle in which the line-of-sight component is in the same direction as the transmitted electromagnetic wave, the longitudinal velocity is parallel to the instantaneous direction of the transmitted electromagnetic wave. During the portions of the repeated cycle in which the line-of-sight component reverses direction, the longitudinal velocity is antiparallel to the instantaneous direction of the transmitted electromagnetic wave.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennecot et al. (US 8836922 B1) in view of Sutherland et al. (US 11448766 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Pennecot fails to explicitly teach the lidar device of claim 7, wherein the support platform is further configured to impart, to the lidar transceiver, a second oscillatory motion along at least a first direction perpendicular to the axis of the field of view of the lidar device. However, Sutherland in Col. 6, ll. 14-45 and Col. 7, ll. 19-32 discloses a mount 220 having an offset portion 224, a support portion 230, and a pivot 234 (a two-axis gimbal) that enables swaying and wobbling motions of the sensor 210 consistent with precession of the sensor axis 212 relative to a rotation axis 222. This structure produces an orbital wobble motion of the sensor at an inclination angle 214, i.e., oscillation in a direction perpendicular to the main rotation axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the wobbling platform of Hall with the gimbal-based precession structure of Sutherland to achieve multi-axis oscillation of the LiDAR transceiver, yielding predictable improvements such as expand field-of-view coverage and 3-D point-cloud density.
Regarding claim 9, Pennecot, in view of Sutherland, fails to explicitly teach the lidar device of claim 8, wherein the support platform is further configured to impart, to the lidar transceiver, a third oscillatory motion along a second direction perpendicular to the axis of the field of view of the lidar device (Hall discloses the primary wobble about the scan axis (Col. 13, ll. 59–62). Sutherland discloses that the pivot 234 is a two-axis gimbal allowing both swaying and wobbling of the support arm (Col. 6, ll. 14-45 and Col. 7, ll. 19-32), thereby providing two perpendicular oscillations. Once such dual-axis motion is implemented, adding a third oscillatory component (e.g., roll compensation or fine stabilization) would have been a predictable design extension to enhance volumetric scanning, compensate for vehicle motion, or balance sensor inertia.).
Claims 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennecot in view of Rogers and Krauss et al. (US 10969491 B1, “Krauss”).
Regarding claim 10, Pennecot in view of Rogers, fails to explicitly teach the lidar device of claim 1, further comprising: a coherent optical receiver circuit configured to detect a frequency difference between a frequency of the transmitted light beam and a frequency of the reflected light beam; and
a processing device communicatively coupled to the coherent optical receiver circuit, the processing device configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the reflected light beam is (i) generated upon interaction of the transmitted light beam with a target located in an outside environment or (ii) caused by an internal reflection of the transmitted light beam within the lidar device.
However, Krauss teaches a vehicle-mounted FMCW lidar system (Col 3: lines 16-20) including optical receivers 104 (Col 4: lines 42-64) and LIDAR control systems 110 having a signal processing unit 112 (Col 4: lines 14-15). Krauss teaches that FMCW lidar uses coherent receivers in which backscattered or reflected light is combined with a local copy of the transmitted signal to generate a beat frequency proportional to distance (Col 1: lines 12-20). Krauss further teaches that the optical receivers 104 generate analog signals that are converted to digital signals and sent to the LIDAR control systems 110, where signal processing unit 112 interprets the signals (Col 5: lines 48-52). Krauss teaches that a target return signal 311-1 from target 310 and a separate return signal 311-2 from an obstruction 312 at or proximate the LIDAR window 309 are included in a combined return signal 311, and that this combined return signal is spatially mixed with a local sample 307 of the FMCW beam to generate a range-dependent baseband signal 313, i.e., the frequency difference between the local sample and the combined return signal (Col 7: lines 7-38). Krauss further teaches transforming the sampled baseband signal into the frequency domain, searching for frequency-domain energy peaks below a threshold frequency, and determining an obstructed FOV/window blockage (Col 8: lines 17-27; claim 1). Therefore, Krauss teaches or suggests a vehicle data processing system communicatively coupled to a coherent optical receiver circuit and configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the return corresponds to an outside target or to a near-field/internal reflection associated with the lidar window/device (See Krauss, Claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pennecot’s vehicle lidar system to include Krauss’s coherent/FMCW receiver and signal-processing technique for distinguishing target returns from returns caused by a lidar-window or near-device obstruction, in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicle lidar sensing by identifying when a received return is not from an outside-environment target but instead is caused by a near-field/internal reflection or obstruction associated with the lidar device.
Regarding claim 13, Pennecot in view of Rogers, fails to explicitly teach the detection and ranging device of claim 11, further comprising: a coherent receiver circuit configured to detect a frequency difference between a frequency of the transmitted electromagnetic wave and a frequency of the reflected electromagnetic wave; and
a processing device communicatively coupled to the coherent receiver circuit, the processing device configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the reflected electromagnetic wave is generated upon interaction of the transmitted electromagnetic wave with a target located in an outside environment or is caused by an internal reflection within the detection and ranging device.
However, Krauss teaches a vehicle-mounted FMCW lidar system (Col 3: lines 16-20) including optical receivers 104 (Col 4: lines 42-64) and LIDAR control systems 110 having a signal processing unit 112 (Col 4: lines 14-15). Krauss teaches that FMCW lidar uses coherent receivers in which backscattered or reflected light is combined with a local copy of the transmitted signal to generate a beat frequency proportional to distance (Col 1: lines 12-20). Krauss further teaches that the optical receivers 104 generate analog signals that are converted to digital signals and sent to the LIDAR control systems 110, where signal processing unit 112 interprets the signals (Col 5: lines 48-52). Krauss teaches that a target return signal 311-1 from target 310 and a separate return signal 311-2 from an obstruction 312 at or proximate the LIDAR window 309 are included in a combined return signal 311, and that this combined return signal is spatially mixed with a local sample 307 of the FMCW beam to generate a range-dependent baseband signal 313, i.e., the frequency difference between the local sample and the combined return signal (Col 7: lines 7-38). Krauss further teaches transforming the sampled baseband signal into the frequency domain, searching for frequency-domain energy peaks below a threshold frequency, and determining an obstructed FOV/window blockage (Col 8: lines 17-27; claim 1). Therefore, Krauss teaches or suggests a vehicle data processing system communicatively coupled to a coherent optical receiver circuit and configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the return corresponds to an outside target or to a near-field/internal reflection associated with the lidar window/device (See Krauss, Claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pennecot’s vehicle lidar system to include Krauss’s coherent/FMCW receiver and signal-processing technique for distinguishing target returns from returns caused by a lidar-window or near-device obstruction, in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicle lidar sensing by identifying when a received return is not from an outside-environment target but instead is caused by a near-field/internal reflection or obstruction associated with the lidar device.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennecot et al. (US 8836922 B1) in view of Krauss.
Regarding claim 14, Pennecot teaches a system comprising:
a sensing system of a vehicle, the sensing system comprising a light detection and ranging (lidar) device (Fig. 8, Col. 16, ll. 51 to Col. 16, ll. 2), the lidar device comprising:
a lidar transceiver configured to output a transmitted light beam and to detect a reflected light beam generated by the transmitted light beam (Figs. 1-3A, Col. 3, ll. 20–45: “The plurality of light sources 120 emit a plurality of light beams 122 that are reflected by targets … A receive block 130 includes detectors 132 that detect light reflected from targets …”);
a support platform configured to support the lidar transceiver and to impart, to the lidar transceiver, at least a velocity along a direction of the transmitted light beam (Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1: “The housing 110 can be configured to rotate about an axis of the LIDAR device 100 … the housing 110 is supported by the base 102.”. The rotating housing (support platform) imparts motion and velocity to the transceiver assembly about its scan axis.).
Pennecot fails to explicitly teach a coherent optical receiver circuit configured to detect a frequency difference between a frequency of the transmitted beam and a frequency of the reflected light beam; and
a data processing system communicatively of the vehicle, the data processing system communicatively coupled to the coherent optical receiver circuit and configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the reflected light beam is generated upon interaction of the transmitted light beam with a target located in an outside environment or is caused by an internal reflection within the lidar device.
However, Krauss teaches a vehicle-mounted FMCW lidar system (Col 3: lines 16-20) including optical receivers 104 (Col 4: lines 42-64) and LIDAR control systems 110 having a signal processing unit 112 (Col 4: lines 14-15). Krauss teaches that FMCW lidar uses coherent receivers in which backscattered or reflected light is combined with a local copy of the transmitted signal to generate a beat frequency proportional to distance (Col 1: lines 12-20). Krauss further teaches that the optical receivers 104 generate analog signals that are converted to digital signals and sent to the LIDAR control systems 110, where signal processing unit 112 interprets the signals (Col 5: lines 48-52). Krauss teaches that a target return signal 311-1 from target 310 and a separate return signal 311-2 from an obstruction 312 at or proximate the LIDAR window 309 are included in a combined return signal 311, and that this combined return signal is spatially mixed with a local sample 307 of the FMCW beam to generate a range-dependent baseband signal 313, i.e., the frequency difference between the local sample and the combined return signal (Col 7: lines 7-38). Krauss further teaches transforming the sampled baseband signal into the frequency domain, searching for frequency-domain energy peaks below a threshold frequency, and determining an obstructed FOV/window blockage (Col 8: lines 17-27; claim 1). Therefore, Krauss teaches or suggests a vehicle data processing system communicatively coupled to a coherent optical receiver circuit and configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the return corresponds to an outside target or to a near-field/internal reflection associated with the lidar window/device (See Krauss, Claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pennecot’s vehicle lidar system to include Krauss’s coherent/FMCW receiver and signal-processing technique for distinguishing target returns from returns caused by a lidar-window or near-device obstruction, in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicle lidar sensing by identifying when a received return is not from an outside-environment target but instead is caused by a near-field/internal reflection or obstruction associated with the lidar device.
Regarding claim 15, Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the data processing system of the vehicle is further configured to cause a driving path of the vehicle to be determined in view of determining that the reflected light beam is caused by the internal reflection within the lidar device (Krauss, Col 9: lines 5-31; Fig. 8: claims 2-5).
Regarding claim 16, Pennecot teaches a method comprising:
outputting, using a lidar transceiver of a lidar device, a transmitted light beam; receiving, using the lidar transceiver of the lidar device, a reflected light beam generated by the transmitted light beam (Col. 3, ll. 20–45: “The plurality of light sources 120 emit a plurality of light beams 122 that are reflected by targets … A receive block 130 includes detectors 132 that detect light reflected from targets …”);
imparting, to the lidar transceiver, at least a velocity along a direction of the transmitted light beam (Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1: “The housing 110 can be configured to rotate about an axis of the LIDAR device 100 ….”. The rotating housing (support platform) imparts motion and velocity to the transceiver assembly about its scan axis.); and
Pennecot fails to explicitly teach detecting a frequency difference between a frequency of the transmitted light beam and a frequency of the reflected light beam; and determining, using the frequency difference, whether the reflected light beam is generated upon interaction of the transmitted light beam with a target located in an outside environment or is caused by an internal reflection within the lidar device.
However, Krauss teaches a vehicle-mounted FMCW lidar system (Col 3: lines 16-20) including optical receivers 104 (Col 4: lines 42-64) and LIDAR control systems 110 having a signal processing unit 112 (Col 4: lines 14-15). Krauss teaches that FMCW lidar uses coherent receivers in which backscattered or reflected light is combined with a local copy of the transmitted signal to generate a beat frequency proportional to distance (Col 1: lines 12-20). Krauss further teaches that the optical receivers 104 generate analog signals that are converted to digital signals and sent to the LIDAR control systems 110, where signal processing unit 112 interprets the signals (Col 5: lines 48-52). Krauss teaches that a target return signal 311-1 from target 310 and a separate return signal 311-2 from an obstruction 312 at or proximate the LIDAR window 309 are included in a combined return signal 311, and that this combined return signal is spatially mixed with a local sample 307 of the FMCW beam to generate a range-dependent baseband signal 313, i.e., the frequency difference between the local sample and the combined return signal (Col 7: lines 7-38). Krauss further teaches transforming the sampled baseband signal into the frequency domain, searching for frequency-domain energy peaks below a threshold frequency, and determining an obstructed FOV/window blockage (Col 8: lines 17-27; claim 1). Therefore, Krauss teaches or suggests a vehicle data processing system communicatively coupled to a coherent optical receiver circuit and configured to determine, using the frequency difference, whether the return corresponds to an outside target or to a near-field/internal reflection associated with the lidar window/device (See Krauss, Claim 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pennecot’s vehicle lidar system to include Krauss’s coherent/FMCW receiver and signal-processing technique for distinguishing target returns from returns caused by a lidar-window or near-device obstruction, in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicle lidar sensing by identifying when a received return is not from an outside-environment target but instead is caused by a near-field/internal reflection or obstruction associated with the lidar device.
Regarding claim 17, Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein imparting, to the lidar transceiver, the velocity along the direction of the transmitted light beam comprises rotating a support platform around an axis of rotation (Pennecot, Col. 2, ll. 25–45; Col. 7, ll. 16-19; Fig. 1: “The housing 110 can be configured to rotate about an axis of the LIDAR device 100 ….”. The rotating housing (support platform) imparts motion and velocity to the transceiver assembly about its scan axis.), and
wherein the lidar transceiver is affixed to the support platform at a location that is offset relative to the axis of rotation (Pennecot, Fig. 1, Light sources 122 and detectors 132 are positioned around the periphery of the rotating housing 110 …See also, fig. 2. Light sources 222 and detectors 232 are positioned around the periphery of the rotating housing 210 …Peripheral arrangement inherently offset from spin axis).
Regarding claim 18, Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein imparting, to the lidar transceiver, the velocity along the direction of the transmitted light beam comprises imparting, to the lidar transceiver, a rotational velocity that is parallel to the direction of the transmitted light beam (Pennecot, Col. 6, ll. 57–67; Figs. 1–3A: “The housing 110 can have a substantially cylindrical shape and rotate about an axis … the rotation provides scanning of the environment”. The housing 110 rotates about an axis that is aligned with the optical axis of emitted light beams. Axis alignment means rotational velocity vector parallel to the beam direction).
Regarding claim 19, Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein imparting, to the lidar transceiver, the velocity along the direction of the transmitted light beam comprises imparting, to the lidar transceiver, an oscillatory motion along at least the direction of the transmitted light beam (Pennecot, Col. 13, ll. 59–62: “In certain embodiments, the housing may be driven to oscillate or wobble back and forth about the axis … without completing a full revolution.”. Wobble/oscillation perpendicular to beam).
Regarding claim 20, Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: causing a driving path of a vehicle to be determined in view of determining that the reflected light beam is caused by the internal reflection within the lidar device (Krauss, Col 9: lines 5-31; Fig. 8: claims 2-5.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holler et al. (US 20210190951 A1), teaches Method for operating a lidar system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights