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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2022 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Keefe (US 2018/0059248 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, O’Keefe discloses a method for detecting targets using a LiDAR system ([0004]), comprising:
generating an illumination profile that identifies a portion of a field of view (FoV) to which enhanced electromagnetic radiation is to be applied by an emitter of the LiDAR system ([0005]: “During a first scan of the FOV a region of the FOV can be identified. During a second scan of the FOV the identified region can receive a dense scan with smaller point spacing than the average laser pulse spacing.”);
generating a scan profile corresponding to the illumination profile ([0117]: “During a first scan of the FOV a region of the FOV can be identified. Laser steering parameters can be generated based at least in part on a target time and based in part on the identified region. During a second scan a laser can be dynamically steered according to the laser steering parameters to perform a dense scan with smaller point spacing than the average laser pulse spacing.”); and
applying the scan profile to an output device of the emitter to produce the selected illumination profile upon targets in the FoV ([0082]: “For the purpose of this disclosure dynamically steering a laser is the process of providing input data (e.g. instructions such as laser steering parameters) to a steerable laser that causes the laser to dynamically modulate the power or trajectory of the laser beam during a scan of the FOV.”; [0088]: “Steerable laser assembly 120 is an example of a dynamically-steerable laser assembly and can comprise circuitry to dynamically accept instructions (e.g. laser steering parameters) and configure laser 121 to rapidly change direction or pulse rate of a laser beam.”) so that a first region within the FoV has a higher first beam density and a second region within the FoV has a lower second beam density ([0095]: “FIG. 3 illustrates dynamically steering laser 121 in FOV 130 to generate two dense scan regions 310a and 310b, each with increased density of laser pulses (e.g. laser pulse 150d) relative to the average pulse density in the remainder of the FOV 130.”).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the scan profile is generated responsive to an external sensor ([0004]: “A plurality of important regions in a LIDAR FOV can be identified based on a variety of types or aspects of sensor data (e.g. previous laser ranging data or external data such as camera images, weather, GPS or inter-vehicle communication data).” The camera here is identified as an external sensor.) that indicates a change in operational environment for the LiDAR system ([0086]: “this technique can be used to dynamically configure a laser in a LIDAR to investigate changes in TOF within a point cloud to iteratively improve boundary definition.”).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the illumination profile is selected responsive to a detected target within the FoV, and the higher first beam density in the first region within the FoV is adaptively modified to track movement of the detected target within the FoV ([0266]: “In several applications (e.g. autonomous vehicles) the objective of laser range finder 110 can be to track the location of interesting objects (e.g. elephant 4240). Laser range finder 110 can use dynamic laser steering to perform laser ranging in a complex-shaped scan region (e.g. 4250) associated with the elephant. In this way the density of laser scan locations (e.g. the number per unit angle of the field of view, such as 4 scan locations per radian) can be increased for objects of interest such as elephant 4240 and decreased for mundane regions such as the ground surrounding the elephant).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the illumination profile is selected responsive to detection of a road marking associated with a path of travel of a vehicle in which the LiDAR system is mounted ([0181]: “For example, such a vehicle-integrated laser distribution system could be used to devote several small portions of a LIDAR FOV to serve as object detectors (e.g. curbs, lane markers) in the wheel arch areas.”).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the illumination profile is selected responsive to a geoposition input supplied by an external sensor ([0004]: “A plurality of important regions in a LIDAR FOV can be identified based on a variety of types or aspects of sensor data (e.g. previous laser ranging data or external data such as camera images, weather, GPS or inter-vehicle communication data).”).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the output system comprises at least a selected one of a solid-state array, a rotatable polygon or a micromirror device to controllably direct a light beam from the emitter over the FoV ([0095]: “A solid state LIDAR 305 can perform a dynamically steered scan of a FOV”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the first region is rasterized ([0082] discloses using raster scans) by a sequence of beam points of the electromagnetic radiation in the form of light pulses along orthogonal directions in a first rasterizing pattern, and wherein the second region is rasterized by a sequence of beam points of the electromagnetic radiation in the form of light pulses along orthogonal directions in a second rasterizing pattern (Figure 3 shows two regions 130 and 310a in which the light pulses are arranged along orthogonal axes.)
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 12, O’Keefe discloses wherein the light pulses in the first rasterizing pattern are each provided with a first waveform characteristic and the light pulses in the second rasterizing pattern are each provided with a different, second waveform characteristic ([0106]: “Other laser steering parameters in the exemplary set of laser steering parameters can indicate how to tailor a scan within this region, such as laser scan speed 614, laser pulse size 616 (e.g. laser pulse cross sectional area at the exit of a LIDAR), number of laser pulses 618, or pulse intensity.” Changing the pulse size or pulse intensity, for example, would result in different waveforms in different regions vis-à-vis Figure 20).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Goldstein (US 2022/0057519 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe further discloses wherein a control circuit provides a positional control input to the output device responsive to the scan profile ([0088]: “Steerable laser assembly 120 is an example of a dynamically-steerable laser assembly and can comprise circuitry to dynamically accept instructions (e.g. laser steering parameters) and configure laser 121 to rapidly change direction or pulse rate of a laser beam.”) to respectively provide a first rasterizing scanning pattern of the first region and a different, second rasterizing scanning pattern of the second region ([0096]: “The dynamic steering can generate a laser pulse sequence within each dense scan region that includes 2-D direction changes and direction reversals.”; Figure 3 shows two regions 130 and 310a in which the light pulses are arranged along orthogonal axes.).
O’Keefe does not teach and Goldstein does teach that the control circuit is a servo control circuit ([0629]: “Mirrors perform a periodic motion using, for instance, rotating polygonal mirrors and/or a freely addressable motion, as in servo-controlled galvanometer scanners. Control of scanning motion may be effected via a rotary encoder and/or control electronics providing electric current to a motor or galvanometer controlling mirror angle. Electrical current may be varied using a servo controller digital to analog converter such as a DAC81416 as produced by Texas Instruments, Inc. of Dallas, Tex.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control circuit of O’Keefe to have the capability disclosed in Goldstein to control a servo. Servos are well-known in the art for their ability to provide feedback into a control system, and therefore provide more precise and accurate positioning of a component. In terms of scanning mirrors for vehicle LiDAR, this benefit can improve the overall safety of the system by yielding higher quality information about potential obstacles.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Curatu (US 2018/0284234 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe does not teach and Curatu does teach wherein the illumination profile is generated responsive to detection of a curved direction of travel of a vehicle in which the LiDAR system is mounted, and wherein the scan profile provides the higher first beam density to the first region within the FoV located in a direction of the curved direction of travel ([0149], [0150], Figure 12 show the allocation of more flux into region located in the direction of the curved travel. The detection can be made by analyzing frames of the FOR for features such as a bend.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of O’Keefe with the teaching of Curatu to detect curved travel and scan with a denser pattern in the region towards which the vehicle is turning. This can increase the overall safety of the vehicle by allocating more scanning resources into a direction in which the driver may naturally have difficulty seeing, and therefore reduce the overall risk of collision.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Englard (US 2019/0180502 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe does not teach and Englard does teach wherein the illumination profile is generated responsive to detection of a change in elevation of travel of a vehicle in which the LiDAR system is mounted, and wherein the scan profile provides the higher first beam density to the first region within the FoV located in a direction associated with the change in elevation of travel of the vehicle ([0134], [0135], and Figure 11 describe adjusting the field of view according to changes in elevation as a vehicle passes over a hill. These changes are made according to the attention model of Englard which is described in [0041]: “The model may be an attention model that is trained to direct the focus of one or more sensors to particular areas (e.g., by adjusting the size and/or center of a field of regard, a scan line distribution, etc.).” And Figure 8B shows regions with different densities of points from adjusting scan line distribution.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR system of O’Keefe with the teaching of Englard to detect changes in elevation and adjust the density of scans based on that information. One skilled in the art would recognize that allocating more resources to obstacle detection in regions that drivers typically have difficulty with, e.g., a sudden rise along a roadway, can improve safety and reduce the possibility of collisions.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe does not teach and Englard does teach wherein the scan profile is adaptively changed to accommodate changes in elevation of a vehicle over a hill or a dip in a road along which a vehicle in which the LiDAR system is mounted is traveling ([0134], [0135], and Figure 11 describe adjusting the field of view according to changes in elevation as a vehicle passes over a hill. These changes are made according to the attention model of Englard which is described in [0041]: “The model may be an attention model that is trained to direct the focus of one or more sensors to particular areas (e.g., by adjusting the size and/or center of a field of regard, a scan line distribution, etc.).” And Figure 8B shows regions with different densities of points from adjusting scan line distribution.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR system of O’Keefe with the teaching of Englard to detect changes in elevation and adjust the density of scans based on that information. One skilled in the art would recognize that allocating more resources to obstacle detection in regions that drivers typically have difficulty with, e.g., a sudden rise along a roadway, can improve safety and reduce the possibility of collisions.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Steinberg (US 2018/0113200 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, O’Keefe does not teach and Steinberg does teach wherein the first region is rasterized at a more frequent first frame rate and the second region is rasterized at a less frequent second frame rate ([0671]: “In regions 4217a and 4217c, a low frame rate (e.g., 10 frames per second (FPS)), a short distance (e.g., 75 meters), and a low spatial and/or temporal resolution may be used to account for the lack of necessity in tracking the walls of the tunnel. On the other hand, in region 4217b, a moderate frame rate (e.g., 20 frames per second (FPS)), a moderate distance (e.g., 100 meters), and a moderate spatial and/or temporal resolution may be used to track possible sudden stopping of another vehicle preceding vehicle 4213.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Steinberg to vary the frame rate in different regions into the LiDAR system of O’Keefe. Steinberg notes in [0671] that “a low spatial and/or temporal resolution may be used to account for the lack of necessity in tracking the walls of the tunnel.” Thus, varying the frame rate can allow for reduced power consumption by decreasing the frame rate in regions that are know to be stationary or otherwise unchanging.
Claims 9, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Tohyama (US 2003/0102427 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, O’Keefe does not teach and Tohyama does teach wherein the scan profile is generated responsive to a plant model ([0036]-[0040] describe a model of the frequency response of the system as a function of driving torque) of a closed loop ([0064]: feedback control indicates a closed-loop system) servo control response characteristic of the output system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR system of O’Keefe with the teaching of Tohyama to include servo control circuitry with the above properties. The controller described in Tohyama solves a similar problem to that posed in the instant application, that is, the precise and arbitrary positioning of a laser beam on a target. Tohyama notes in [0016] that the invention therein can be used “to shorten the time required to position the mirror and to enhance further the accuracy of positioning a laser beam.” These characteristics are desirable as they provide for more faithful translation of the desired scan pattern onto the target.
Regarding Claim 15, O’Keefe discloses an apparatus comprising:
an emitter of a LiDAR system ([0004]) configured to emit light pulses at a first resolution within a baseline, first field of view (FoV) ([0117]: “During a first scan of the FOV a region of the FOV can be identified. Laser steering parameters can be generated based at least in part on a target time and based in part on the identified region. During a second scan a laser can be dynamically steered according to the laser steering parameters to perform a dense scan with smaller point spacing than the average laser pulse spacing.”);
circuitry, responsive to an external input signal, select a region of interest within the first FoV and provide positional control signals to an output device of the emitter to concurrently scan the region of interest within the first FoV with a higher, second resolution ([0095]: “FIG. 3 illustrates dynamically steering laser 121 in FOV 130 to generate two dense scan regions 310a and 310b, each with increased density of laser pulses (e.g. laser pulse 150d) relative to the average pulse density in the remainder of the FOV 130.”), the external input signal supplied by an external sensor ([0004]: “A plurality of important regions in a LIDAR FOV can be identified based on a variety of types or aspects of sensor data (e.g. previous laser ranging data or external data such as camera images, weather, GPS or inter-vehicle communication data).” The camera here is identified as an external sensor.) that indicates a change in operational environment for the apparatus ([0095]: “FIG. 3 illustrates dynamically steering laser 121 in FOV 130 to generate two dense scan regions 310a and 310b, each with increased density of laser pulses (e.g. laser pulse 150d) relative to the average pulse density in the remainder of the FOV 130.”).
O’Keefe does not teach and Tohyama does teach that the circuitry comprises a servo control circuit ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR system of O’Keefe with the teaching of Tohyama to include servo control circuitry with the above properties. The controller described in Tohyama solves a similar problem to that posed in the instant application, that is, the precise and arbitrary positioning of a laser beam on a target. Tohyama notes in [0016] that the invention therein can be used “to shorten the time required to position the mirror and to enhance further the accuracy of positioning a laser beam.” These characteristics are desirable as they provide for more faithful translation of the desired scan pattern onto the target.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 15, O’Keefe teaches circuitry which scans a first region of interest within the FoV at a higher first beam density and a second region of interest within the FoV at a lower second beam density ([0095]: “FIG. 3 illustrates dynamically steering laser 121 in FOV 130 to generate two dense scan regions 310a and 310b, each with increased density of laser pulses (e.g. laser pulse 150d) relative to the average pulse density in the remainder of the FOV 130.”).
O’Keefe does not teach and Tohyama does teach wherein the circuitry is a servo control circuit ([0008]) comprising a plant model ([0036]-[0040] describe a model of the frequency response of the system as a function of driving torque) which models a closed loop response ([0064]: feedback control indicates a closed-loop system) of the output device and an observer which estimates inputs to be supplied to the output device based on the plant model ([0053] describes an angular velocity observer circuit which estimates the angular velocity for feed back into the circuit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR system of O’Keefe with the teaching of Tohyama to include a plant model, observer circuit, and feedback into the servo control circuit. Tohyama notes in [0053] that the observer circuit, and these features as a whole, can be used to “stabilize the servo system shown in FIG. 1.” Stable servo behavior is beneficial to faithful and repeatable execution of the FOV commands, and ultimately enhance the safety of the apparatus as a whole.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 15, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the external input signal comprises a sensor that senses a geoposition of a vehicle in which the apparatus is mounted ([0004]: “A plurality of important regions in a LIDAR FOV can be identified based on a variety of types or aspects of sensor data (e.g. previous laser ranging data or external data such as camera images, weather, GPS or inter-vehicle communication data).”), and wherein the region of interest within the FoV is selected responsive to a change in the geoposition detected by the sensor ([0008]: “The sensor data (e.g. GPS data or Camera data) can be used to classify the local environment. In this way, classification of the local surroundings (e.g. an urban street versus a rural highway) can be used to configure a dynamically steerable laser in a LIDAR to modify or adapt laser steering to account for changing probabilities of particular hazards or occurrences.”).
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 15, O’Keefe further discloses wherein the output device comprises at least a selected one of a rotatable polygon, a solid-state array device or a micromirror device ([0098] discloses simple rotational mirrors and arrays of electromechanical mirrors).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Suoichi and in view of Englard (US 2019/0180502 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 17, O’Keefe does not teach and Englard does teach wherein the change in the geoposition indicates a change in elevation of the vehicle ([0039]: “The overall road configuration may be determined using a fusion of multiple sensor types, such as IMU(s), lidar(s) and/or camera(s), and/or using GPS elevation data, for example.”) and the region of interest within the FoV is selected responsive to the indicated change in elevation ([0138], [0139], The attention model is described in [0041]: “The model may be an attention model that is trained to direct the focus of one or more sensors to particular areas (e.g., by adjusting the size and/or center of a field of regard, a scan line distribution, etc.).” And Figure 8B shows regions with different densities of points.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Englard to use geopositioning such as GPS elevation changes to identify regions of interest in the LiDAR system of O’Keefe in view of Tohyama. GPS and GPS-like systems provide a global means of identifying changes in elevation, and therefore yield the widest possible coverage for improving the safety of vehicles by dynamically targeting relevant regions of the FOV.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Suoichi and in view of Steinberg (US 2018/0113200 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 17, O’Keefe does not teach and Steinberg does teach wherein the change in the geoposition indicates a change in direction of the vehicle ([0694]: “In other embodiments, processor 118 may receive an input indicative of the impending cross-lane turn from another system of the vehicle (e.g., one or more sensors, engaged turn signals, wheel steering direction, GPS sensor, etc.)”) and the region of interest within the FoV is selected responsive to the indicated change in direction ([0698]: “Processor 118 may also be configured to allocate different light flux levels to different regions of the LIDAR FOV based on detected maneuvers by the host vehicle.”)It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Steinberg to use geopositioning such as GPS direction changes to indicate turns and spur identification of regions of interest in response in the LiDAR system of O’Keefe in view of Tohyama. GPS and GPS-like systems provide a global means of identifying changes in direction, and therefore yield the widest possible coverage for improving the safety of vehicles by dynamically targeting relevant regions of the FOV.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645