DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Abari does not teach a symbol reader that produces a digital output.
Examiner’s position is that Abari teaches the cameras are part of the vehicle’s sensor system (paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”) and can recognize symbols (paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”), and the images are sent to the computer for analysis (paragraph 0025 “The time information, the calculated distance and other measurement data may be sent to the computer 240 for further analyzing and processing. The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.”). As the LiDAR data is digital (Figure 2A shows the detector output going through Digital Signal Processor 206 on the way to the computer), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the information from the cameras also be digitized, in order to better correlate the two data sets and create an accurate 3D model.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Abari’s discussion of a dot pattern is not symbol reading.
Examiner’s position is that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘symbol’ includes a pattern of dots. In this case, the cameras are capable of seeing the LiDAR light (paragraph 0057 “the computer version cameras may capture one or more images based on the reflected light signals which are originated from the LiDAR system light source.”), and as the pattern is used for e.g. range measurements (paragraph 0045 “The LiDAR system may measure its detectable range by projecting many laser dots in a pre-determined pattern (e.g., points of cloud) into the environment”) the pattern is obviously of interest, which is recognizable by the camera (paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing … any other visible objects of interest.”). While the examiner gave the example of the dot pattern, the reference should be considered as a whole, including other teachings of symbol-reading (e.g. paragraph 0084).
Applicant argues on page 9 that generic environmental recognition is not symbol reading providing a digital output.
Examiner’s position is that symbol reading is a component of the environmental recognition (paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”, paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.” and paragraph 0025 “The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.”). As the LiDAR data is digital (Figure 2A shows the detector output going through Digital Signal Processor 206 on the way to the computer), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the information from the cameras also be digitized, in order to better correlate the two data sets and create an accurate 3D model.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Abari does not teach producing a decoded symbol value.
Examiner’s position is that the cameras of Abari recognize symbols (paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs”), and output information that is interpretable by the computer as an element of the environment (paragraph 0025 “The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.”).
Applicant argues on page 9 that Abari does not teach or suggest the photosensor for sequential wavelength tests is also used to generate a digital symbol output that is part of the comparative performance assessment.
Examiner’s position is that the term ‘optical sensing system’ is interpreted to comprise all sensors of the vehicle (paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”) that work in combination to recognize the environment (paragraph 0025 “The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.”). The new limitation “wherein the optical sensing system is part of a symbol reader system” is interpreted as being read on by the presence of the cameras that recognize e.g. lane markings & street signs.
Additionally, the camera output is used to recognize the environment (paragraph 0025 “The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.”), which is used in the determination of wavelength switching (paragraph 0043 “the system may determine that there is needs to improve the measurement confidence level (e.g., diving in harsh area) or the spatial resolution (e.g., many obstacles in the surrounding environment) and may switch to the corresponding operation modes based on the needs to improve the confidence level or spatial resolution”).
Applicant argues on page 10 that Abari does not assess the performance of the production of the digital output.
Examiner’s position is that Abari teaches the concept of ‘how reliable is this information’ (paragraph 0042 “the system may measure and track one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level”) and uses this concept with the camera output (paragraph 0052 “Even if other sensing systems like visual cameras and radar may detect some of the objects, the LiDAR system may similarly reduce the confidence levels of these sensing systems based on the reduced confidence level of the measurement of the LiDAR system.”), which as argued above is digital.
Applicant argues on page 10 that it is improper to equate the symbol production to LiDAR metrics for the comparative performance.
Examiner’s position is that the invention of Abari must be taken as a whole, and the teachings of paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”, paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.” and paragraph 0025 “The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.” indicate a combined approach in which all sensors contribute to an environmental model that is used for wavelength switching (paragraph 0043 “the system may determine that there is needs to improve the measurement confidence level (e.g., diving in harsh area) or the spatial resolution (e.g., many obstacles in the surrounding environment) and may switch to the corresponding operation modes based on the needs to improve the confidence level or spatial resolution”).
Applicant argues on page 11 that Abari uses the dot pattern for range detection, not an external symbol that yields a digital output.
Examiner’s position is that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘symbol’ includes a pattern of dots. In this case, the cameras are capable of seeing the LiDAR light (paragraph 0057 “the computer version cameras may capture one or more images based on the reflected light signals which are originated from the LiDAR system light source.”), and as the pattern is used for e.g. range measurements (paragraph 0045 “The LiDAR system may measure its detectable range by projecting many laser dots in a pre-determined pattern (e.g., points of cloud) into the environment”) the pattern is obviously of interest, which is recognizable by the camera (paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing … any other visible objects of interest.”). Examiner acknowledges the breadth of this interpretation and directs the applicant to paragraph 0052 (“a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”) and paragraph 0084 (“The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”) for teachings of the cameras yielding digital output.
Applicant argues on page 11 that the Abari-Kim combination does not teach the comparative assessment is performed using symbol reading with both wavelengths.
Examiner’s position is that Abari teaches the mode switching is based on the measuring of performance metrics for different wavelengths (paragraph 0043 “The system may characterize the surrounding environment and switch to the corresponding operation modes based on the characteristic of the surrounding environment.”), and that the concept of ‘performance metric’ is very broad (paragraph 0042 “the system may measure and track one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc. In particular embodiments, the distances to the one or more objects in the surrounding environment may be measured based on measurements related to, for example, but not limited to, a light intensity, a time-of-flight, a point-cloud pattern, a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern, a light signal amplitude, a light signal phase, a light signal wavelength, etc.”).
As the cameras are part of the vehicle’s sensor system (paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”) and can recognize symbols (paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”) which are sent to the computer for analysis (paragraph 0025 “The time information, the calculated distance and other measurement data may be sent to the computer 240 for further analyzing and processing. The computer 240 may be associated with a perception system which may construct a 3D model of the objects in the surrounding environment or/and a 3D profile for the perception of the surrounding environment itself.”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date that the camera output is part of the comparative assessment. This is supported by the teaching of ‘change mode depending on obstacles (paragraph 0043 “the system may determine that there is needs to improve the measurement confidence level (e.g., diving in harsh area) or the spatial resolution (e.g., many obstacles in the surrounding environment) and may switch to the corresponding operation modes”) that are detected by the vision system.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Abari does not teach or suggest replacing the LiDAR metric with a symbol-reading metric for wavelength selection.
Examiner’s position is that the claim language indicates the symbol reading performance is only part of the assessment (amended claim 1, last two lines “based at least in part on”, and claim 23, last two lines “based on” which broadly interpreted means the symbol reading is part of but not the exclusive factor). As Abari uses the sensor system output as a whole in the mode determination (paragraphs 0043, 0042, 0052, 0084, 0025, 0043 quoted in the ‘response to argument’ above), Abari is deemed to read on the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues on page 12 that neither Abari nor Kim teach or suggest object localizing under each sequential wavelength.
Examiner’s position is that Abari teaches assessing performance metrics for each wavelength (paragraph 0046 “the LiDAR system may compute a first performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof) based on a first measurement of reflected light associated with laser signals that are emitted by the LiDAR system and in a first set of wavelength ranges. The LiDAR system may compute a second performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof) based on a second measurement of reflected light associated with laser signals that are emitted by the LiDAR system and in a second set of wavelength ranges.”) and object localization is one of the example metrics (paragraph 0042 “distances to the one or more objects in the surrounding environment may be measured based on measurements related to, for example, but not limited to, a light intensity, a time-of-flight, a point-cloud pattern, a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern, a light signal amplitude, a light signal phase, a light signal wavelength, etc.”). As such, object localization is an obvious performance metric that is included in the wavelength testing and mode switching determination process (paragraph 0043 “the system may determine that there is needs to improve the measurement confidence level (e.g., diving in harsh area) or the spatial resolution (e.g., many obstacles in the surrounding environment) and may switch to the corresponding operation modes”).
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that to “identify an object in an image and use the position & accuracy of that measurement as metrics” is not supported by Abari.
Examiner position is that Abari teaches that wavelength switching depends at least in part on the spatial resolution of objects in the environment (paragraph 0043 “the system may determine that there is needs to improve the measurement confidence level (e.g., diving in harsh area) or the spatial resolution (e.g., many obstacles in the surrounding environment) and may switch to the corresponding operation modes”), and the output of the vision camera is obviously used in the assessment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form because they depend upon a cancelled claim. See MPEP 608.01(n) V. “If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete.”
For purposes of examination, examiner reads the claims as depending upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10, 12-16, 18, 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20190361100) in view of Kim (United States Patent Application Publication 20210179111), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “AK”.
As to claim 1, Abari teaches an optical sensing system (Abstract “The system may determine a characteristic of the surrounding environment based on reflections of the light beams.” and Figure 1, “LiDAR 120”), comprising:
an illumination system including a plurality of photo emitters (paragraph 0021 “lasers in the wavelengths around 760 nm, 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, or/and 1550 nm” indicates the use of multiple lasers, as does paragraph 0054 “When the LiDAR system emits a laser in one wavelength range, the system may turn off other lasers in other wavelength ranges”),
wherein the illumination system includes a first group of at least one photo emitter selectively operative to emit light at a first wavelength, and a second group of at least one photo emitter selectively operative to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (paragraph 0054 “When the LiDAR system emits a laser in one wavelength range, the system may turn off other lasers in other wavelength ranges”);
a photosensor (paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”, paragraph 0057 “one or more computer vision cameras”, also paragraph 0084 “an autonomous vehicle 540 may obtain and process sensor/telemetry data. Such data may be captured by any suitable sensors.”) that is sensitive over a range that includes an infrared band (paragraph 0057 “cameras operating in the red wavelength range or/and the infrared wavelength range”), the range comprising the first wavelength and the second wavelength (paragraph 0057 “the computer version cameras may capture one or more images based on the reflected light signals which are originated from the LiDAR system light source.”);
the illumination system and the photosensor (Figure 1, LiDAR 120) being arranged such that emitted light from the illumination system (Figure 1, LiDAR emitted light 122) is directed towards a target area (Figure 1, Object 130), and a portion of the emitted light is reflected from the target area and received by the photosensor (Figure 1, Reflected Light 124); and
control circuitry (Figure 2A, paragraph 0022 “adaptive LiDAR system 200A”) operatively coupled to the illumination system (Figure 2A, Light Source 202) and to the photosensor (Figure 2A, Light Detector 212), the control circuitry operative to autonomously select a preferred at least one wavelength of the emitted light from among the first wavelength and the second wavelength based on assessed comparative performance of the photosensor in conjunction with the emitted light of the first wavelength and of the second wavelength in currently prevailing conditions (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”);
wherein the assessed comparative performance is produced based on sequential activation of the first group of at least one photo emitter and the second group of at least one photo emitter, under control of the control circuitry (paragraph 0029 “for the LiDAR system using multiple wavelengths, the system may configure one or more light emitters to emit light beams of different wavelengths sequentially along the time domain”), while the photosensor receives the reflected portion of the emitted light from the target area, to thereby produce a first set of photosensor output based on the sequential activation of different wavelengths of the emitted light (paragraph 0046 “the LiDAR system may compute a first performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof) based on a first measurement of reflected light associated with laser signals that are emitted by the LiDAR system and in a first set of wavelength ranges. The LiDAR system may compute a second performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof) based on a second measurement of reflected light associated with laser signals that are emitted by the LiDAR system and in a second set of wavelength ranges. In particular embodiments, the first and second set of wavelength ranges may be non-overlapping wavelength ranges or may share one or more overlapping wavelength ranges. The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”); and
wherein the optical sensing system is part of a symbol reader system (paragraph 0042 indicates measurements are made “related to, for example, but not limited to, a light intensity, a time-of-flight, a point-cloud pattern, a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern”) and wherein the control circuitry is operative to process output of the photosensor to produce a digital output representing a symbol visible in the target area (paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”); and wherein the assessed comparative performance is produced based at least in part on an assessed performance of the production of the digital output (paragraph 0046 teaches comparing performance metrics (paragraph 0046 “performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof)” also paragraph 0042 “one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.”) and base a decision on them (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”), which is interpreted to read on the claimed production of the digital output).
Abari does not teach a photosensor that is sensitive over a range that includes an ultraviolet band. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kim. Kim teaches an autonomous vehicle (paragraph 0002 “The present disclosure relates to a system and a method of controlling an operation of an autonomous vehicle”) with a sensor system (paragraph 0036 “an autonomous vehicle (subject vehicle) uses IOT/V2V (communication technology between vehicles) 100, a camera 101 (or other imaging device), a navigation system 102, a radar/lidar sensor 103, an ultraviolet sensor, and the like for collecting information regarding various neighboring vehicles”) using a photosensor that is sensitive over a range that includes an ultraviolet band (Figure 1, paragraph 0036 “an ultraviolet sensor”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a photosensor that is sensitive over a range that includes an ultraviolet band, in order to provide more information about the surrounding area to the autonomous vehicle, so that it doesn’t hit things.
As to claim 2, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Abari teaches the control circuitry is operative to perform assessment to produce the assessed comparative performance (paragraph 0046 “when the environmental conditions negatively impact the LiDAR system's performance, the LiDAR system may perform an optimization calculation for the laser wavelength ranges based on the environmental conditions. The LiDAR system may test the performance using laser signals in different wavelength ranges and switch to the wavelength ranges which eliminate or minimize the impact from the environment.”).
As to claim 7, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim [1], in addition Abari teaches the optical sensing system is part of an imaging system (and wherein the control circuitry is operative to process output of the photosensor to produce an image of any object of interest in the target area (paragraph 0057 “the computer version cameras may capture one or more images based on the reflected light signals which are originated from the LiDAR system light source. The system may detect one or more object based on the captured images in this low-light environment using computer version technologies.”); and wherein the assessed comparative performance is produced based at least in part on an assessed quality of the image (paragraph 0042 “the system may measure and track one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.” which is interpreted to read on ‘image quality’).
As to claim 8, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim [1], in addition Abari teaches the optical sensing system is part of a ranging system and wherein the control circuitry is operative to process output of the photosensor to produce a distance measurement to any object of interest in the target area (paragraph 0020 “The LiDAR system 120 may measure the time taken by the emitted light 122 to reach the object 130 and the time taken by the reflected light 124 to fly back to LiDAR system to measure the distance between the LiDAR system 120 and the object 130.”); and wherein the assessed comparative performance is produced based at least in part on an assessed performance of the distance measurement production (paragraph 0025 “The DSP 206 may receive the time information from the wavelength controller 208 and the TOF circuit 218 and calculate the distance between the LiDAR system 200A and the object which reflects the reflected light 213. In particular embodiments, the DSP 206 may determine the testing and switching logic for selecting different operation modes to allow the LiDAR system to have the best performance.”).
As to claim 10, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Abari teaches the control circuitry is further operative to cause the optical sensing system to perform a measurement regime in which the illumination system is operated to emit light at the preferred at least one wavelength while the photosensor is operated to receive the portion of the reflected emitted light from the target area, to thereby produce a second set of photosensor output that is based on a preferred illumination configuration (Figure 4 step 420 determines the environment and step 430 chooses an appropriate wavelength setting (paragraph 0058 “At step 430, the system may determine whether the characteristic of the surrounding environment meets a characteristic criterion to configure the one or more light emitters in different operational modes for transmitting the light beams of different wavelengths.”), then on the “YES” path step 450 takes data at the chosen settings (paragraph 0059 “At step 450, the system may measure distances to one or more objects in the surrounding environment based on reflections of the sequentially transmitted light beams of different wavelengths.”)).
As to claim 12, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Abari teaches at least one of the first wavelength and second wavelength is in the ultraviolet band or the infrared band (paragraph 0021 “LiDAR systems may use lasers in the wavelengths around 760 nm, 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, or/and 1550 nm” which represent the infrared range).
As to claim 13, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Abari teaches the photosensor is sensitive over a range of wavelengths that includes a wavelength of greater than 900 nm (paragraph 0021 “lasers in the wavelengths around 760 nm, 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, or/and 1550 nm” and paragraph 0058 “the system may determine a characteristic of the surrounding environment based on reflections of the light beams”).
Abari does not teach a photosensor that is sensitive to a wavelength less than 300 nm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kim. Kim teaches an autonomous vehicle using an ultraviolet sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0036 “an ultraviolet sensor” and as UV light ranges from 100 to 400 nm it would be obvious to include the UVB & UBC ranges in a sensor, in order to cover the UV range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a detector sensitive to a wavelength less than 300 nm, in order to provide more information about the surrounding area to the autonomous vehicle, so that it doesn’t hit things.
As to claim 14, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition while Abari does not explicitly teach the photosensor is sensitive over a range of wavelengths that includes a wavelength of 2000 nm, Abari paragraph 0021 teaches a plurality of wavelengths in the near and middle infrared, and paragraph 0047 gives examples of IR wavelengths and goes on to teach “or any other suitable ranges”. As the IR band spans 700 nm to 1 mm (1 million nm), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use any desired IR wavelength including the claimed 2000 nm, in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and improve object detection.
Abari does not teach a photosensor that is sensitive over a range of wavelengths that includes a wavelength of 200 nm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kim. Kim teaches an autonomous vehicle using an ultraviolet sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0036 “an ultraviolet sensor” and as UV light ranges from 100 to 400 nm it would be obvious to include the UBC range in a sensor, in order to cover the UV range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a photosensor be sensitive over a range of wavelengths that includes a wavelength of 200 nm, in order to provide more complete information about the surrounding area to the autonomous vehicle, so that it doesn’t hit things.
As to claim 15, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Abari teaches the first wavelength is in an infrared band of greater than 1000 nm (paragraph 0021 “LiDAR systems may use lasers in the wavelengths around … 1550 nm”).
Abari does not teach the second wavelength is in an ultraviolet band of less than 400 nm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kim. Kim teaches an autonomous vehicle using an ultraviolet sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0036 “an ultraviolet sensor” and UV light ranges from 100 to 400 nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the second wavelength be in an ultraviolet band of less than 400 nm, in order to provide more information about the surrounding area to the autonomous vehicle, so that it doesn’t hit things.
As to claim 16, the method would flow from claim 1 (paragraph 0046 “the LiDAR system may compute a first performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof) based on a first measurement of reflected light associated with laser signals that are emitted by the LiDAR system and in a first set of wavelength ranges. The LiDAR system may compute a second performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof) based on a second measurement of reflected light associated with laser signals that are emitted by the LiDAR system and in a second set of wavelength ranges. In particular embodiments, the first and second set of wavelength ranges may be non-overlapping wavelength ranges or may share one or more overlapping wavelength ranges. The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”).
Abari teaches that carrying out the comparative performance assessment includes performing localization of an object within the target area, iteratively, under sequential illumination of each of the first and the second wavelength (paragraph 0046 teaches comparing performance metrics (paragraph 0046 “performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof)” also paragraph 0042 “one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.”) and base a decision on them (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”), which is interpreted to read on the claimed object localization (paragraph 0057 “the computer version cameras may capture one or more images based on the reflected light signals which are originated from the LiDAR system light source. The system may detect one or more object based on the captured images in this low-light environment using computer version technologies.”) and the location of objects (paragraph 0042 “the distances to the one or more objects in the surrounding environment may be measured”), and in combination with paragraph 0042’s teachings of ranges, trends and thresholds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to identify an object in an image and use the position of that object & the accuracy of that measurement as metrics on which to determine a wavelength range).
As to claim 18, the method would flow from claim 5 (Abari paragraph 0046 teaches the sequential use of wavelengths, paragraph 0042 indicates measurements are made “related to, for example, but not limited to, a light intensity, a time-of-flight, a point-cloud pattern, a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern” and paragraph 0084 teaches “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”).
Abari teaches that carrying out the comparative performance assessment includes symbol reading operations within the target area, iteratively, under sequential illumination of each of the first and the second wavelength (paragraph 0046 teaches comparing performance metrics (paragraph 0046 “performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof)” also paragraph 0042 “one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.”) and base a decision on them (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”), which is interpreted to read on the claimed symbol reading (“a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern” and in combination with paragraph 0042’s teachings of ranges, trends and thresholds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include symbol reading & the accuracy of that measurement as metrics on which to determine a wavelength range).
As to claim 25, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Abari teaches the comparative performance assessment is further based on additional information provided by at least one environmental sensor that is distinct from the photosensor (paragraph 0039 “the system may detect, using a humidity sensor, that the surrounding environment is humid because of the raining or fog weather condition”), the additional information representing at least one of: air-particulate measurement, precipitation measurement, humidity measurement, or a combination thereof (Figure 1 “Water Vapor 140” and paragraph 0046 “when the environmental conditions negatively impact the LiDAR system's performance, the LiDAR system may perform an optimization calculation for the laser wavelength ranges based on the environmental conditions. The LiDAR system may test the performance using laser signals in different wavelength ranges and switch to the wavelength ranges which eliminate or minimize the impact from the environment.” also paragraph 0049 “The environmental conditions may include, for example, but are not limited to, environment humidity, environment temperature, atmosphere pressure, weather conditions (e.g., rain, sunshine, cloud, or fog), a road condition (e.g., passing by a lake, a spring, or a sprinkler truck), particles in the air (e.g., smoke, fire, fog, or dust), solar light intensity, etc.”).
As to claim 26, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition the assessed comparative performance is further produced based on an ambient-light measurement by the photosensor under control of the control circuitry while the illumination system emits no light (paragraph 0026 “The LiDAR system 200A may measure the background noise level before emitting the light beams and use the measured background noise to determine and improve the SNR of the measurement.”).
As to claim 21, the method would flow from claim 25.
As to claim 22, the method would flow from claim 5 (Abari paragraph 0046 teaches the sequential use of wavelengths, paragraph 0042 indicates measurements are made “related to, for example, but not limited to, a light intensity, a time-of-flight, a point-cloud pattern, a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern” and paragraph 0084 teaches “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”).
Abari teaches that carrying out the comparative performance assessment includes carrying out the comparative performance assessment further includes performing symbol reading operations to attempt to read a machine-readable symbol of an object within the target area, iteratively, under sequential illumination of each of the first and the second wavelength (paragraph 0046 teaches comparing performance metrics (paragraph 0046 “performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof)” also paragraph 0042 “one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.”) and base a decision on them (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”), which is interpreted to read on the claimed symbol reading (“a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern” and in combination with paragraph 0042’s teachings of ranges, trends and thresholds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include symbol reading & the accuracy of that measurement as metrics on which to determine a wavelength range).
As to claim 23, Abari teaches an optical sensing system, comprising:
an illumination system including a plurality of photo emitters (paragraph 0021 “lasers in the wavelengths around 760 nm, 850 nm, 905 nm, 940 nm, or/and 1550 nm” indicates the use of multiple lasers, as does paragraph 0054 “When the LiDAR system emits a laser in one wavelength range, the system may turn off other lasers in other wavelength ranges”),
wherein the illumination system includes a first group of at least one photo emitter selectively operative to emit light at a first wavelength, and a second group of at least one photo emitter selectively operative to emit light at a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (paragraph 0054 “When the LiDAR system emits a laser in one wavelength range, the system may turn off other lasers in other wavelength ranges”);
a photosensor (paragraph 0052 “a vehicle may include different sensing systems including, for example, visual cameras, radars, other LiDAR systems or any other sensing systems.”, paragraph 0057 “one or more computer vision cameras”, also paragraph 0084 “an autonomous vehicle 540 may obtain and process sensor/telemetry data. Such data may be captured by any suitable sensors.”) that is sensitive over a range that includes an infrared band (paragraph 0057 “cameras operating in the red wavelength range or/and the infrared wavelength range”), the range comprising the first wavelength and the second wavelength (paragraph 0057 “the computer version cameras may capture one or more images based on the reflected light signals which are originated from the LiDAR system light source.”);
the illumination system and the photosensor (Figure 1, LiDAR 120) being arranged such that emitted light from the illumination system (Figure 1, LiDAR emitted light 122) is directed towards a target area (Figure 1, Object 130), and a portion of the emitted light is reflected from the target area and received by the photosensor (Figure 1, Reflected Light 124); and
control circuitry (Figure 2A, paragraph 0022 “adaptive LiDAR system 200A”) operatively coupled to the illumination system (Figure 2A, Light Source 202) and to the photosensor (Figure 2A, Light Detector 212), the control circuitry operative to
autonomously carry out a comparative performance assessment of the photosensor in conjunction with the emitted light of the first wavelength and of the second wavelength in currently prevailing conditions (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”) by performing symbol reading operations to attempt to read a machine-readable symbol of an object within the target area (paragraph 0042 indicates measurements are made “related to, for example, but not limited to, a light intensity, a time-of-flight, a point-cloud pattern, a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern” and paragraph 0084 “The cameras may be used for, e.g., recognizing roads, lane markings, street signs, traffic lights, police, other vehicles, and any other visible objects of interest.”), iteratively, under sequential illumination of each of the first and the second wavelength (paragraph 0029 “for the LiDAR system using multiple wavelengths, the system may configure one or more light emitters to emit light beams of different wavelengths sequentially along the time domain”), and
to select a preferred at least one wavelength of the emitted light from among the first wavelength and the second wavelength based on assessed comparative performance of the symbol reading (paragraph 0046 teaches comparing performance metrics (paragraph 0046 “performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof)” also paragraph 0042 “one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.”) and base a decision on them (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”), which is interpreted to read on the claimed symbol reading (“a boundary of a dot pattern, a number of dots of a dot pattern” and in combination with paragraph 0042’s teachings of ranges, trends and thresholds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include symbol reading & the accuracy of that measurement as metrics on which to determine a wavelength range).
Abari does not teach a photosensor that is sensitive over a range that includes an ultraviolet band. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kim. Kim teaches an autonomous vehicle (paragraph 0002 “The present disclosure relates to a system and a method of controlling an operation of an autonomous vehicle”) with a sensor system (paragraph 0036 “an autonomous vehicle (subject vehicle) uses IOT/V2V (communication technology between vehicles) 100, a camera 101 (or other imaging device), a navigation system 102, a radar/lidar sensor 103, an ultraviolet sensor, and the like for collecting information regarding various neighboring vehicles”) using a photosensor that is sensitive over a range that includes an ultraviolet band (Figure 1, paragraph 0036 “an ultraviolet sensor”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a photosensor that is sensitive over a range that includes an ultraviolet band, in order to provide more information about the surrounding area to the autonomous vehicle, so that it doesn’t hit things.
As to claim 24, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 23, in addition Abari teaches the comparative performance of the symbol reading is determined based on relative rates of convergence of the symbol reading (paragraph 0046 teaches comparing performance metrics (paragraph 0046 “performance metric (e.g., SNR, measurement accuracy, measurement precision, deviation from average, noise level, signal amplitude, detectable range, etc., or any combination thereof)” also paragraph 0042 “one or more performance metrics including, for example, but not limited to, a measurement confidence level, a spatial measurement resolution, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a measurement accuracy, a measurement precision, a noise level, a signal amplitude, a detectable field of view, a detectable distance, a detectable range, a signal degradation metric, etc.”) and base a decision on them (paragraph 0046 “The LiDAR system may compare the performance as indicated by the performance metrics to determine which set of wavelength ranges allows the system to perform best.”), which is interpreted to read on the claimed convergence of the symbol reading (“signal degradation metric” and in combination with paragraph 0042’s teachings of ranges, trends and thresholds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include symbol reading & the accuracy of that measurement as metrics on which to determine a wavelength range).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AK, and further in view of Shtukater (United States Patent Application Publication 20170270636).
As to claim 11, AK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the photosensor is a graphene-based photosensor. However, it is known in the art as taught by Shtukater. Shtukater teaches an environment sensing module that comprises a variety of sensor types, including LiDAR and a graphene-based photosensor (paragraph 0053 “The environment sensing module may be comprised of the depth sensors, range finder sensors, lidar, color CMOS or CCD sensors or infrared sensors or variety of graphene sensors or other MEMS types of sensors.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the photosensor be a graphene-based photosensor, in order to improve machine performance in a wide variety of environments.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights