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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 06/03/2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 1-11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrottet et al. (US 20210373157 A1, “Pierrottet”) in view of Scott Boehmke (US 20170168146 A1, “Boehmke”).
Regarding claim 1, Pierrottet teaches a Reconfigurable Navigation Doppler Lidar (RNDL) for measuring velocity and position relative to terrain, the RNDL comprising:
an optical module comprising:
at least one laser source configured to generate a laser emission (Fig. 1, para 25; laser generator 12),
and
a transceiver configured to generate at least one electrical return signal (Fig. 1, para 29-33, Pierrottet discloses three optical channels (22A–22C) that transmit a modulated laser beam and receive the corresponding reflected beam, thereby forming a transceiver. A portion of the emitted beam is routed as a local oscillator, and the received optical return is mixed with the LO in homodyne receiver 24. The photoreceivers (24A–24C) generate electrical intermediate-frequency return signals, which are transmitted to the SPU for processing. Thus, the transmit/receive optical channels together with the photoreceivers constitute the claimed transceiver, and the electrical IF return signals correspond to the claimed “electrical return signal.”); and
a signal processing and control module (Fig. 1, para 9 and 23; control circuit/signal processing unit (SPU)) configured to receive the at least one electrical return signal, generate a control signal (Para 33), and transmit the control signal to the at least one laser source (para 35, “…From such data, the SPU 50 derives the LOS velocity and range … From such data, the SPU 50 may feed a control node 58 in communication with the host vehicle 55 … the control node 58 controls the various NDL components, e.g., by turning such components on with a defined sequence, monitoring their operational parameters, and turning them off again.”. It is obvious that control circuit/signal processing unit (SPU) also control the laser source),
Pierrottet fails to explicitly teach but Boehmke teaches
wherein the at least one laser source is capable of operating in a plurality of operating modes (Para 38. See also, para 45.);
wherein the control signal causes the at least one laser source to switch between the plurality of operating modes (Para 31-33, 38, 45. Controller adjusts the emission mode of the laser between scanning patterns based on feedback/ environmental conditions).
It would have been obvious to combine Pierrottet’s SPU control with Boehmke’s mode-switching controller to allow multi-mode operation for improved navigation capability.
Regarding claim 2, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operating modes includes a velocity mode, wherein the velocity mode uses a stable laser emission frequency (Pierrottet, para 8, 23-24, 38. Doppler IF section using a constant-frequency segment for line-of-sight velocity.).
Regarding claim 3, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operating modes includes a range-plus-velocity mode, wherein the range-plus-velocity mode uses a Frequency- Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) laser emission (Pierrottet, para 8, 23-24, 38. Up-ramp and down-ramp FMCW portions determine range and velocity simultaneously).
Regarding claim 4, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 1, wherein the plurality of operating modes incudes an imaging mode, wherein the imaging mode uses a FMCW laser emission and wherein ranging and velocity data are produced at an increased rate compared to the range-plus- velocity mode (Pierrottet, para 29-34, teaches three parallel channels each producing FMCW returns. That yields higher data and image like perception).
Regarding claim 5, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of transceivers (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 29-33, discloses three optical channels (22A–22C) that transmit a modulated laser beam and receive the corresponding reflected beam, thereby forming a plurality of transceivers).
Regarding claim 6, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of transceivers operates independently (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 32, 34. Each LOS channel produces separate IF data analyzed individually.).
Regarding claim 7, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 1, wherein the transceiver is further configured to: convert a portion of the laser emission into at least one sensing optical signal and a local oscillator optical signal (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 27 “A portion of the modulated laser beam is split and routed through a local-oscillator path while the remainder is transmitted through the optical channels.”);
receive an optical return signal, wherein the optical return signal includes a portion of the at least one sensing optical signal that was scattered by a target (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 29-30, “The receive lenses (same optics 22A–22C) collect the reflected/scattered return beam from the ground/terrain.”); and
generate the at least one electrical return signal by mixing the optical return signal and the local oscillator optical signal using a detector (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 32 “The homodyne receiver mixes the received optical signal with the local-oscillator beam to produce an intermediate-frequency electrical signal.”).
Regarding claim 8, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 7, wherein the signal processing and control module is further configured to process the at least one electrical return signal to calculate a radial velocity (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 23-24, 33 and 81 “The Doppler IF section yields the line-of-sight velocity value.”).
Regarding claim 9, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 7, wherein the signal processing and control module is further configured to process the at least one electrical return signal to calculate a range ((Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 23-24, 33 and 81 “The ramp IF frequency corresponds to the target range.”).
Regarding claim 10, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 6, wherein the signal processing and control module is further configured to process the radial velocity from at least two transceivers to calculate a vector velocity (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 34-35. 81, 83. Uses three LOS beams to compute 3-D velocity vector).
Regarding claim 11, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 10, wherein optical power emitted by the at least one laser source can be arbitrarily distributed among the at least two transceivers (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 27 teaches power splitting among multiple channels.).
Regarding claim 13, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 7, further comprising at least one optical element to collimate the at least one sensing optical signal (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 29. Lenses 22A-C collimate outgoing beams).
Regarding claim 14, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 13, wherein the at least one optical element changes a direction associated with the at least one sensing optical signal (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 5 and 29 teaches multiple fixed lenses oriented in different directions to direct beams along different LOS paths.).
Regarding claim 15, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 7, wherein the at least one electrical return signal generated by the transceiver includes in-phase (1) and quadrature (Q) signals (Pierrottet, Fig. 1, para 32 and 36, coherent homodyne detection inherently produces I/Q components (well known in FMCW lidar)).
Regarding claim 16, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke teaches the RNDL of claim 14, wherein the processing and control module is further configured to determine a Doppler velocity sign (At least para 10, 23-24. See also, abstract and claim 1. Pierrottet teaches ambiguity mitigation and determining Doppler sign using the Doppler and ramp sections.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrottet in view of Boehmke and John Kevin Moore (US 20200386888 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke, fails to explicitly teach the RNDL of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of transceivers further comprises a dedicated laser source with a selectable operating mode. However, Moore in claim 1, para 54, 59 teaches a lidar architecture in which each ranging unit (or lidar IC) includes its own dedicated laser driver and associated laser diode, and wherein each unit includes a control circuit configured to generate control signals for its corresponding laser driver to activate or adjust that laser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Pierrottet’s multi-channel lidar system by replacing its single-source/split-beam architecture with Moore’s per-transceiver dedicated-laser architecture in order to provide independent control of each transceiver’s optical output, enable per-channel optimization, facilitate fault isolation, and increase system robustness and flexibility. Such substitution represents a predictable use of known lidar design techniques, where per-unit lasers were well-recognized to improve performance and reduce splitting losses.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrottet in view of Boehmke and Mansour et al. (US 11821994 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke, fails to explicitly teach the RNDL of claim 1, further comprising an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to detect the RNDL's acceleration. However, Mansour, col 3: lines 45-52, col 7: lines 35-50 and claim 1, teaches including an IMU having one or more accelerometers configured to detect linear acceleration of a host platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the IMU taught by Mansour into the lidar-based navigation system of Pierrottet in order to improve dead-reckoning capability, provide complementary motion sensing when lidar return quality degrades, and enhance navigation robustness under terrain-occlusion or reduced-visibility conditions.
Regarding claim 18, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke and Mansour, teaches the RNDL of claim 17, wherein the IMU is further configured to detect the RNDL's rotation (Mansour, col 3: lines 45-52, col 7: lines 35-50 and claim 1, teaches discloses that the IMU includes one or more gyroscopes configured to detect pitch, roll, and heading of the host member.).
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Mansour’s gyroscope-based rotation detection into Pierrottet’s system to enable attitude estimation and orientation compensation, which directly improves accuracy of Doppler-derived velocity, pointing stability, and terrain-relative navigation.
Regarding claim 19, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke and Mansour, teaches the RNDL of claim 1, further comprising a digital camera configured to record image data (Mansour, col 9: lines 4-8 (See also, col 6: line 53 to col 7: line 7) teaches that the sensor-fusion navigation architecture includes one or more optical sensors configured to capture images, i.e., a digital camera.).
Incorporating a digital camera into Pierrottet’s system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because cameras provide complementary scene context, visual landmarks, horizon features, and surface appearance information that can augment lidar-only systems. Camera-lidar fusion is a predictable and widely adopted method to improve navigation accuracy and scene understanding, and its use would have been a routine design choice yielding known benefits.
Regarding claim 20, Pierrottet, in view of Boehmke and Mansour, teaches the RNDL of claim 1, further comprising a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (Mansour, col 6: lines 46-52 and col 19-35 teaches using a GPS receiver to determine the initial and ongoing position of the platform. A GPS receiver is a form of GNSS receiver, satisfying this claim limitation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to integrate a GNSS receiver into Pierrottet’s system to obtain global position fixes that complement terrain-relative or IMU-based navigation. GNSS receivers are standard components in autonomous and navigation systems, and combining GNSS with lidar and IMU measurements is a well-established technique that predictably enhances accuracy, reduces drift, and improves overall navigation robustness.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amzajerdian et al. (US 20140036252 A1), teaches Coherent Doppler Lidar for Measuring Altitude, Ground Velocity, And Air Velocity of Aircraft and Spaceborne Vehicles
Donovan et al. (US 20170307736 A1), teaches Multi-Wavelength LIDAR System
Zhu et al. (US 10620302 B2), teaches Adaptive Coding for Lidar Systems
Balbás Margallo (US 20210072384 A1), teaches Apparatus and method for managing coherent detection from multiple apertures in 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