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 Final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 07/27/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 14 and 16 have been amended.
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks pages 7-11, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The amendment fails to overcome the rejections of claims 14-20. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues that Pennecot in view of Rogers fails to teach or suggest “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, wherein the longitudinal velocity periodically varies with time.” Applicant further argues that Rogers merely compensates for platform motion and does not teach intentionally imparting the claimed periodically varying longitudinal velocity.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it considers Rogers substantially in isolation rather than the combined teachings relied upon in the rejection.
Pennecot supplies the support platform and the repeated platform motion. Specifically, Pennecot teaches that LIDAR device 200 may be rotated about the substantially vertical axis indicated by arrow 290, may rotate clockwise or counterclockwise, and may be “rotated back and forth along a portion of the 360-degree view.” Pennecot further teaches that LIDAR device 200 may be mounted on a “platform that wobbles back and forth about the axis without making a complete rotation.” See Pennecot, Fig. 2; col. 13, ll. 48-62, particularly ll. 56- 62.
Pennecot additionally teaches the supporting structure. Pennecot states that LIDAR device 100 may include a mounting structure for housing 110, that the mounting structure may include “a motor or other means for rotating the housing 110 about the axis of the LIDAR device 100,” and that housing 110 “provides the platform for the various components of the LIDAR device 100.” See Pennecot, col. 7, ll. 4-19. Pennecot claim 1 likewise recites a LIDAR device having a housing “configured to rotate about an axis.”
Rogers is relied upon for teaching the relationship between movement of a platform supporting the transceiver and the resulting velocity component along the laser line of sight. Rogers [0046] and Fig. 6 teach that platform 1 supports LDV 100 and transceiver modules 300, and that movement of platform 1 includes both linear translations and rotations. Rogers further teaches that the Doppler frequency shift produced by this velocity is proportional to its component along the laser line of sight L. Rogers [0047] further identifies both the relative linear-motion and rotational-motion components.
Thus, the rejection does not rely on Rogers alone to supply the repeated or periodically varying platform motion. Rather, Pennecot supplies the repeated back and forth/wobbling motion, while Rogers teaches that motion of the supporting platform/transceiver produces a velocity component along the laser line of sight. Pennecot’s repeated reversing motion, when considered with Rogers’s line of sight velocity teaching, teaches or suggests the claimed longitudinal velocity varying with the platform motion. Rogers [0048] further confirms that the angular velocity of a moving platform “may change rapidly with time.” Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not demonstrate error in the combination relied upon in the rejection.
Applicant further argues that Rogers teaches away because Rogers treats platform motion as an unwanted component that should be measured and compensated for. This argument is not persuasive.
Rogers [0028] contemplates operation of the disclosed velocimeter on a moving platform. Although Rogers states that the velocimeter itself may have “no moving parts,” that statement concerns the internal construction of the velocimeter and does not mean that the velocimeter remains stationary during operation. In the same paragraph, Rogers teaches use of an IMU or GPS so that motion of the velocimeter platform may be compensated and states that the LDV “may be mounted on any moving platform (e.g., a helicopter, a boat, etc.)” and still obtain accurate readings.
Rogers [0044] further teaches that signal processor 440 calculates line of sight speeds from Doppler shifts and may use a motion sensor to determine whether “the platform upon which the transceivers 310 are mounted is moving.” Rogers then states that any platform motion is detected and used to adjust or correct the measured velocity. Rogers [0045] likewise teaches that LDV 100, or transceiver module 300, may be located on a moving boat, ground vehicle, or aircraft, and recognizes that both linear and rotational motion occur and that rotational motion introduces an additional frequency shift.
Rogers’s claims are consistent with this disclosure. Rogers claim 61 determines velocity from a Doppler shift; claim 62 further adjusts the determined velocity “by accounting for movement of the transceiver”; and claim 63 identifies an attitude heading reference system, IMU, GPS, or ground-speed detection device for determining that movement.
Accordingly, Rogers does not discourage operation of a transceiver on a moving platform. Rogers teaches such operation and then compensates for the resulting motion component. The subsequent compensation does not negate the underlying teaching that the moving platform imparts motion to the supported transceiver and produces a line of sight velocity/Doppler component. Therefore, Applicant’s teaching away argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Rogers merely recognizes incidental motion caused by boats, vehicles, or aircraft and does not purposely impart a longitudinal velocity that periodically varies with time.
This argument does not address the references as combined. The rejection relies on Pennecot, not Rogers alone, for the repeated platform motion. Pennecot teaches rotating LIDAR device 200 back and forth and mounting the device on a platform that wobbles back and forth about the axis. See Pennecot, Fig. 2; col. 13, ll. 56–62. Rogers [0046]- [0047] and Fig. 6 supply the teaching that platform/transceiver motion has a corresponding velocity component along the laser line of sight. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument regarding what Rogers alone does not disclose does not address the combination relied upon in the rejection.
Applicant further argues that Rogers does not use or exploit platform motion to create Doppler shifts for reflection discrimination. This argument is not persuasive with respect to claims 1 and 11.
The disputed limitation requires the support platform to impart the recited longitudinal velocity, it does not require that the particular purpose for creating that platform motion be reflection discrimination. Pennecot teaches the repeated platform motion, and Rogers teaches that platform/transceiver motion produces the corresponding line of sight velocity and Doppler frequency component. The fact that Rogers subsequently compensates for that component does not remove the underlying technical teaching relied upon in the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 11 is maintained.
Applicant argues that Pennecot in view of Krause fails to teach determining whether the detected frequency difference includes a component attributable to the velocity imparted to the LIDAR transceiver along the direction of the transmitted light beam. Applicant characterizes Krause as merely identifying a nearby window obstruction from short-range frequency information.
Applicant’s argument does not account for the full disclosure of Krause.
Krause teaches an FMCW LIDAR capable of measuring both range and velocity. See Krause, col. 5, ll. 9- 14. In connection with Fig. 2, Krause teaches that return signal 202 is optically mixed with scanning signal 201, generating a range dependent difference or “beat frequency.” Krause then states that target return signal 202 generally also includes a frequency offset (Doppler shift) when there is velocity relative to LIDAR system 100, and that the Doppler shift can be separately determined and used to correct the frequency of the return signal. See Krause, Fig. 2; col. 6, ll. 5- 33.
Thus, contrary to Applicant’s characterization, Krause recognizes that the measured frequency information may contain both a range-related component and a velocity/Doppler related component. Pennecot, as relied upon in the rejection, supplies the motion imparted to the LIDAR device. Accordingly, when the teachings are considered together, Krause’s relative velocity/Doppler processing is applicable to the motion imparted to the LIDAR by Pennecot’s moving support platform.
Applicant further argues that Krause distinguishes obstruction 312 from target 310 solely because the obstruction is located at a known short range. The argument does not account for Krause’s complete frequency-processing disclosure.
As shown in Fig. 3, Krause teaches optical beam 304 illuminating outside target 310, thereby producing target return 311-1. Krause also teaches optical beam 304 being reflected or partially reflected by obstruction 312, thereby producing unwanted return 311-2. Krause combines returns 311-1 and 311-2 into combined return signal 311, which is spatially mixed at photodetector 308 with local sample 307. Krause states that resulting baseband signal 313 is the frequency difference between local sample 307 and combined return signal 311 versus time. See Krause, Fig. 3; col. 7, ll. 5- 38.
Krause then transforms baseband signal 313 into frequency domain sequence 504 and teaches that frequencies corresponding to obstruction 312 are distinguishable from frequencies associated with target 310. Peak-search processor 506 identifies both target return 311-1 and obstruction return 311-2. See Krause, Fig. 5; col. 8, ll. 3- 27.
Krause further teaches frequency compensation processor 507 for correcting or removing frequency artifacts and explains that scanner motion can introduce Doppler-frequency shifts due to high-speed rotation of mirrors in optical scanner 301. See Krause, Fig. 5; col. 8, ll. 27- 38. Thus, Krause’s processing is not limited merely to a static short-range measurement; Krause recognizes and processes motion/Doppler-related frequency information.
Krause’s Claim 1 recites generating a range dependent baseband signal and determining whether a return is caused by an obstruction on or proximate to the LIDAR window and claim 2 recites detecting frequencies below a threshold frequency. Krause Corresponding method claims 7–8 likewise recite generating the FMCW baseband signal and detecting the window obstruction.
Applicant further argues that obstruction 312 is located on or proximate to the exterior surface of LIDAR window 309 and therefore return 311-2 cannot constitute an “internal reflection within the lidar device.”
Applicant’s argument focuses on the obstruction 312 embodiment but does not account for Krause’s separate disclosure of reflections originating from optical components of the LIDAR itself. Krause teaches that a portion of polarized light may be reflected back to optical circuits 101 and further explains that lensing or collimating systems used in LIDAR system 100 may have “natural reflective properties or a reflective coating to reflect a portion of the light back to the optical circuits 101.” See Krause, col. 5, ll. 25-32) Krause therefore recognizes unwanted reflected light originating from optical components of the LIDAR optical system itself, in addition to the separate window obstruction embodiment of Fig. 3.
Krause further explains that returned/reflected optical signals are directed to the receivers and interfere to generate a combined signal from which a beat frequency is measured. See Krause, col. 5, ll. 33- 47. Accordingly, Krause’s disclosure is not limited solely to reflections from debris outside the LIDAR device, as asserted by Applicant.
Applicant further argues that Krause does not recognize the particular problem addressed by Applicant.
This argument is not persuasive. Krause addresses unwanted reflected returns in an FMCW LIDAR system and provides frequency domain processing for distinguishing legitimate target return 311-1 from unwanted return 311-2, as shown in Figs. 3 and 5. Krause additionally recognizes internally generated reflections from lensing/collimating optical components and recognizes velocity/Doppler related frequency components. The fact that Krause describes its objectives or embodiments differently from Applicant does not negate the particular technical teachings relied upon in the rejection.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 14 and 16 do not demonstrate error in the combination of Pennecot and Krause, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further asserts that the dependent claims are patentable for at least the same reasons advanced with respect to their respective independent claims. These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. To the extent Applicant relies upon the arguments presented with respect to independent claims 1, 11, 14, and 16, those arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Applicant has not separately identified a deficiency in the prior art teachings relied upon for the additional limitations of the corresponding dependent claims. Accordingly, the rejections of the dependent claims are 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 1-7, 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 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) and Rogers as applied to claim 7 above, and further 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.
Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches wherein determining whether the reflected light beam is generated upon interaction with the target located in the outside environment or is caused by the internal reflection within the lidar device comprises determining whether the frequency difference includes a component attributable to the velocity imparted to the lidar transceiver along the direction of the transmitted light beam.
Pennecot teaches imparting velocity to the LIDAR transceiver by moving the supported LIDAR device. In particular, LIDAR device 200 may be rotated about the axis indicated by arrow 290, may be rotated back and forth, and may be mounted on a platform that wobbles back and forth about the axis (Pennecot, Fig. 2; col. 13, ll. 48- 62). Krause teaches that its FMCW LIDAR measures range and velocity and that return signal 202, when optically mixed with scanning signal 201, produces a difference/beat frequency. Krause further teaches that return signal 202 generally includes a frequency offset (Doppler shift) when the target has a velocity relative to LIDAR system 100, and that the Doppler shift may be separately determined and used to correct the frequency of the return signal (Krause, Fig. 2; col. 5- 6). Thus, when Krause's frequency difference processing is applied to Pennecot's moving LIDAR, the relative velocity between an outside target and the LIDAR includes the velocity imparted to the LIDAR transceiver along the transmitted light direction, and the corresponding Doppler component forms a component of the detected frequency difference. Accordingly, determining the Doppler component of the frequency difference teaches or suggests determining whether the frequency difference includes a component attributable to the velocity imparted to the LIDAR transceiver. Krause further teaches that optical components within LIDAR system 100, including lensing or collimating systems, may have natural reflective properties or reflective coatings that reflect a portion of the light back to optical circuits 101 (Krause, col. 5 ll. 25- 33). Such device associated reflected light originates from an optical component carried by the LIDAR device, whereas an outside target has relative motion with respect to the moving LIDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Krause’s known determination of the relative velocity Doppler component to Pennecot’s moving LIDAR because doing so would predictably identify the motion dependent component of the detected frequency difference and provide additional information for distinguishing a return associated with an outside target from an internal/device-associated reflection.
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.
Pennecot, in view of Krauss, teaches wherein determining whether the reflected light beam is generated upon interaction with the target located in the outside environment or is caused by the internal reflection within the lidar device comprises determining whether the frequency difference includes a component attributable to the velocity imparted to the lidar transceiver along the direction of the transmitted light beam.
Pennecot teaches imparting velocity to the LIDAR transceiver by moving the supported LIDAR device. In particular, LIDAR device 200 may be rotated about the axis indicated by arrow 290, may be rotated back and forth, and may be mounted on a platform that wobbles back and forth about the axis (Pennecot, Fig. 2; col. 13, ll. 48- 62). Krause teaches that its FMCW LIDAR measures range and velocity and that return signal 202, when optically mixed with scanning signal 201, produces a difference/beat frequency. Krause further teaches that return signal 202 generally includes a frequency offset (Doppler shift) when the target has a velocity relative to LIDAR system 100, and that the Doppler shift may be separately determined and used to correct the frequency of the return signal (Krause, Fig. 2; col. 5- 6). Thus, when Krause's frequency difference processing is applied to Pennecot's moving LIDAR, the relative velocity between an outside target and the LIDAR includes the velocity imparted to the LIDAR transceiver along the transmitted light direction, and the corresponding Doppler component forms a component of the detected frequency difference. Accordingly, determining the Doppler component of the frequency difference teaches or suggests determining whether the frequency difference includes a component attributable to the velocity imparted to the LIDAR transceiver. Krause further teaches that optical components within LIDAR system 100, including lensing or collimating systems, may have natural reflective properties or reflective coatings that reflect a portion of the light back to optical circuits 101 (Krause, col. 5 ll. 25- 33). Such device associated reflected light originates from an optical component carried by the LIDAR device, whereas an outside target has relative motion with respect to the moving LIDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Krause’s known determination of the relative velocity Doppler component to Pennecot’s moving LIDAR because doing so would predictably identify the motion dependent component of the detected frequency difference and provide additional information for distinguishing a return associated with an outside target from an internal/device-associated reflection.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 -5:30.
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 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights