DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/3/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The IDS form listing those references has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, the non-patent literature listed on the last page of the IDS have not been considered since copies of the cited references were not submitted.
All but the following NPLs listed in the IDS submitted 12/3/23 were considered: (1) BEGER et al.; Data fusion of extremely high resolution aerial imagery and LiDAR data for automated railroad centre line reconstruction; ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Rem; (2) TEO et al.; Pole-Like Road Object Detection From Mobile Lidar System Using a Coarse-to-Fine Approach; IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote; (3) VOJNOVIC; Notes on optical fibres and fibre bundles; Gray Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford; 15 pages; retrieved from the internet ( http://users.ox.ac.u O'KEEFFE; (4) U.S. Pat. Appl. # 15/857,960 entitled "Planning a lidar scan with smart test vectors,” filed 12/29/201
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 7, the phrase “circuitry configured determine a location” should be amended to include the word “to” before “determine” to fix a grammatical error.
Regarding Claim 20, the phrase “to the first plurality of light pulses and processing” appears to include a repetitive “and processing” step that should be deleted as duplicative.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 20200041614 (hereinafter Donovan).
Regarding Claim 2, Donovan teaches a 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system comprising:
a first light detection and ranging system (LIDAR) (receiver 1902) located on a host platform (car 1602, FIG. 16 shows how transmit/receive modules 1604,1606,1608 (LIDARS) are installed on a host platform);
a second LIDAR (receiver 1904) located on the host platform (car 1602) and separated from the first LIDAR (receiver 1902) by a portion of the host platform (FIG. 16 shows how transmit/receive modules 1604, 1606 and 1608 are spatially distributed across an exterior of car 1602); and
wherein the first and second LIDARs are each configured to:
receive light reflections, the light reflections corresponding to light emitted by a shared light emitter (transmitter 1906, [0084] describes how controller 1938 selects the optimum detector / receiver to measure reflected light from a target located in overlap region 1936 – meaning that transmitter 1906 is periodically selected for use by receiver 1902 or 1904 when targets are in the overlap region 1936 depending on which receiver provides, e.g., the maximum received signal power or highest SNR), and to generate range data indicative of 3D reflection locations corresponding to at least some of the light reflections ([0087] describes how after return pulses are received at a receiver a TOF analysis is performed).
Regarding Claim 3, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 2 further comprising the shared light emitter (transmitter 1906).
Regarding Claim 4, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 2 further comprising:
the shared light emitter (1906);
a second shared light emitter (1908); and,
wherein the first and second LIDARs (1902/1904) are each configured to receive light reflections corresponding to light emitted by the second shared light emitter (as described above [0084] describes that either receiver 1902 or 1904 can be selected by controller 1938 to collect reflected light emitted by either emitter for targets located in overlap region 1936 making 1906 and 1908 both shared emitters), and
to generate range data indicative of 3D reflection locations corresponding to at least some of the light reflections from the second shared light emitter ([0087] describes how after return pulses are received at a receiver a TOF analysis is performed).
Regarding Claim 5, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 4 wherein the shared light emitter is located within the first LIDAR and wherein the second shared light emitter is located within the second LIDAR (FIG. 16 shows how transmit/receive modules 1604 and 1606 have receivers and transmitters co-located within the same module. This arrangement of sensors can be seen in greater detail in FIG. 14, which shows co-location of transmitters 1406 with a receiver 1408 within a single module, see module 1402 & 1404).
Regarding Claim 8, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 3 further comprising:
a second shared light emitter (1908) located separately from the shared light emitter (1906) by a portion of the host platform (FIG. 19 shows transmitters 1906 and 1908 separated by at least receivers 1902 and 1904, which would include a portion of the host platform); and
wherein the first and second LIDARs are each further configured to use light reflections corresponding to light emitted by the second shared light emitter, to generate second range data indicative of 3D reflection locations corresponding to at least some of the light reflections corresponding to light emitted by the second shared light emitter (as explained above in claim 1, referencing [0081] and [0084] transmitters 1906 and 1908 can be combined with either of receivers 1902 or 1904, meaning that receivers 1902 and 1904 (first/second LIDAR) when matched with transmitter 1908 (second shared light emitter) by controller 1938 will generate second range data).
Regarding Claim 9, Donovan teaches: a 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system comprising:
a first light detection and ranging system (LIDAR) (receiver 1902) configured to process light reflections corresponding to light emitted by a first shared emitter (transmitter 1906) and thereby generate first range data (see paragraphs [0084] and [0087] as applied to claim 1);
a second LIDAR (receiver 1904), located separate from the first LIDAR by a portion of a vehicle (car 1602), and configured to process light reflections corresponding to light emitted by the first shared emitter (transmitter 1906) and thereby generate second range data (see paragraphs [0084] and [0087] as applied to claim 1); and
a ranging subassembly (controller 1938) configured to calculate a set of 3D locations (pedestrians 1910, 1912), indicative of reflection locations of the light emitted by the first shared emitter, by processing at least some of the first range data and at least some of the second range data (first range data associated with pedestrian 1910 and second range data associated with pedestrian 1912).
Regarding Claim 10, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 9 further comprising:
the first shared emitter (1906) and a second shared emitter (1908);
wherein the first shared emitter is located in the first LIDAR (FIGS. 14, 16, 17 all show modules that co-locate receivers and emitters, see transmit/receive modules 1402/1404, 1604/1606/1608, 1706-1716);
wherein the second shared emitter is located in the second LIDAR (FIGS. 14, 16, 17 all show modules that co-locate receivers and emitters, see transmit/receive modules 1402/1404, 1604/1606/1608, 1706-1716);
wherein the first LIDAR is configured to process light reflections corresponding to light emitted by the second shared emitter to generate third range data (as explained above in claim 1, referencing [0081] and [0084] transmitters 1906 and 1908 can be combined with either of receivers 1902 or 1904, meaning that receiver 1902 (i.e. first LIDAR) when matched with transmitter 1908 (second shared light emitter) by controller 1938 will generate third range data); and,
wherein the ranging subassembly is configured to calculate 3D locations (pedestrian 1912), by processing at least some of the third range data ([0087] describes how after return pulses are received at a receiver a TOF analysis is performed).
Regarding Claim 11, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 9 further comprising the first shared emitter (transmitter 1906).
Regarding Claim 12, Donovan teaches: The 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 9 wherein the first shared emitter is located inside first LIDAR (FIG. 14 shows exemplary modules 1402 & 1404 where transmitters 1406 are disposed within the same enclosure as receiver 1408, see).
Regarding Claim 15, Donovan teaches: A method comprising:
positioning a first LIDAR (1902) on a host platform (car 1602) positioning a second LIDAR (1904) on the host platform (car 1602) separate from the first LIDAR by a portion of the host platform;
emitting light pulses (1916, 1918) from a shared light emitter (transmitter 1906 is a shared transmitter as described above and in [0084] saying that either receiver 1902 or 1904 can be selected by controller 1938 to collect reflected light emitted by either emitter for targets located in overlap region 1936);
detecting, with the first LIDAR (1902), light reflections from a first plurality of the light pulses (1916);
measuring distances to 3D reflection locations (pedestrian 1910) corresponding to the first plurality of the light pulses (1916);
detecting with the second LIDAR (1904) light reflections from a second plurality of the light pulses (1918); and
measuring distances to 3D reflection locations (pedestrian 1912) corresponding to the second plurality of the light pulses (1918).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 13-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 20200041614 (hereinafter Donovan) in view of US Patent 8988662 (hereinafter Haskin).
Regarding Claim 6, Donovan teaches the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 2 further comprising: circuitry (controller 1938) configured to transmit signals (see [0083] and FIG. 19) to the shared light emitter (1906) and the first (1902) and second LIDARs (1904).
Donovan fails to specifically teach that those signals should by a first timing signal to the shared light emitter and a second timing signal to the first and second LIDARs; and wherein the first and second LIDARs are each configured to use the second timing signal to generate at least some of the range data.
However, Haskin in the text corresponding to FIGS. 7 – 9, describes a distributed TOF based distance measurement system that includes an emitter pod 702 with a shared light emitter 106 and a communication port 710 configured to transmit a first timing signal (clock cycle from clock 502, see col 10 lines 52-53) to the shared light emitter (106, via internal circuit connecting clock 502 and light emitter 106 from FIG. 7) and configured to transmit (via radio link 714, col 11 lines 10-11,20-21 OR optical link 718, col 11 lines 31-33,48-49) a second timing signal to the first and second LIDARs (sensor pods 704); and wherein the first and second LIDARs are each configured to use the second timing signal (see col 11 lines 1-3) to generate at least some of the range data (Examiner notes that operation of a TOF sensor with a shared light emitter would result in a generation of range data).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Haskin with the teachings of Donovan since they are both directed to distributed depth sensing sensor configurations and so are in the same field of endeavor. Furthermore, the use of a common timing signal as taught by Haskin would allow for the embodiments taught by Donovan to utilize multiple detectors with a shared emitter instead of just a single transmitter / receiver pair in order to provide a larger amount of data to track any particular object.
Claims 13 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Donovan and Haskin as articulated in the rejection of claim 6 also teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 9 wherein the ranging subassembly (controller 1938) is further configured to calculate at least one 3D location in the set of 3D locations using both first range data from the first LIDAR and second range data from the second LIDAR (see FIG. 9 and col 12 lines 21-23 that describe use of overlapping sensor fields of views to improve distance accuracy).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Donovan and Haskin as articulated in the rejection of claim 6 also teaches: the method of claim 15 further comprising the steps of: transmitting a first time reference (clock cycle from clock 502 described by Haskin) signal to the shared light emitter, to instruct the shared light emitter to emit at least one light pulse (optical link 718); and, transmitting a second time reference signal to the first and second LIDARs to time synchronize the first and second LIDARs with the at least one light pulse (FIG. 7 of Haskin shows the use of a light pulse to synchronize operation of LIDARs via optical link 718, col 11 lines 31-33,48-49).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 20200041614 (hereinafter Donovan) in view of US Patent 12085647 (hereinafter Karplus).
Regarding Claim 7, Donovan teaches: the 3-dimensional (3D) location sensing system of claim 2 but fails to teach: circuitry configured determine a location of the shared light emitter by processing at least some of the range data from at least one of the first or the second LIDAR.
However, Karplus teaches at col 16, lines 5-7 “scanning a portion of an external structure within a field of view of a LIDAR device” and then at col 16 lines 28-30 that “the external structure may correspond to a component of vehicle 300 (or portion thereof) that is within a FOV scanned by LIDAR 310”. Col 13 lines 36 – 38 describe vehicle 300 including multiple LIDAR sensors 302, 304, 306, 308 and 310. FIGS. 3A – 3B of Karplus shows at least LIDAR sensors 308 and 310 being in line of sight of LIDAR sensor 302. At col 18 lines 13-15, Karplus describes determining a distance to an object (e.g. LIDAR sensor) occluding its field of view. The aforementioned passages from Kaplan teach the use of circuitry configured to determine a location of the shared light emitter (shared light emitter is merely a specific LIDAR sensor taught by Donovan) by processing at least some of the range data from at least one of the first or the second LIDAR.
Donovan and Karplus both describe the use of multiple LIDAR devices to monitor an environment of an autonomous vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Donovan to incorporate the teachings of Karplus, which improves the system of Donovan to allow it to identify and account for occlusions protruding into the field of view of one or more LIDAR sensors. More specifically, this would allow for identification of the position of other sensors (that would include at least one transmitter) or other occluding features enabling removal of perpetual instances of false readings associated with these objects protruding from the host platform / vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Donovan and Karplus as applied to claim 7 teaches the method of claim 15 further comprising the steps of: generating a point cloud by (col 10 lines 62-63 of Karplus describes generation of a point could showing objects within the field of view of the LIDAR sensor):
receiving a position of the shared light emitter (col 18 lines 13-15 of Karplus describes determining a distance to an object (e.g. LIDAR sensor) occluding its field of view),
processing data from the first LIDAR according to the position of the shared light emitter (col 10 lines 32-34 describes a reduction in power per shot based on shorter maximum distance to target per shot and Examiner notes the location of the shared light emitter within the sensor field of view would constitute a shorter maximum distance to target in the received position); and
thereby generating a point cloud showing at least some of the 3D reflection locations corresponding to at least some of the first plurality of light pulses (col 10 lines 62-63 of Karplus describes generation of a point could showing objects within the field of view of the LIDAR sensor).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 20200041614 (hereinafter Donovan) in view of US Patent 12085647 (hereinafter Karplus) and further in view of US Patent 8988662 (hereinafter Haskin).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Donovan and Karplus as applied to claim 7 teaches: the method of claim 15 further comprising the step of: determining a location of the shared light emitter (1906) comprising the steps of: measuring with the first LIDAR (1902) a first distance to a first 3D reflection location (1910).
This combination of Donovan and Karplus fails to specifically describe measuring with the second LIDAR (1904) a second distance to the first 3D reflection location (1912).
However, Haskin in the same field of endeavor as Donovan and Karplus, describes utilizing a time synchronization signal (clock cycle from clock 502, see col 10 lines 52-53) that allows measurement of the same location with multiple distance measurement sensors when the location is within an overlapping field of view of two or more sensors (see FIG. 9 of Haskin showing large overlapping regions of light sensors 108)
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the configuration of Donovan and Karplus with the timing synchronization teachings of Haskin in order to allow for the use of multiple sensors to increase resolution of the location of the shared light emitter as described by Haskin (see Haskin at col 12 lines 21-25) and consequently the resulting combination teaches measuring with the second LIDAR a second distance to the first 3D reflection location.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Donovan, Karplus and Haskin as applied to claim 16 teaches the method of claim 15 further comprising the steps of: generating a point cloud (col 10 lines 62-63 of Karplus describes generation of a point could showing objects within the field of view of the LIDAR sensor) by:
receiving a position of the shared light emitter (col 18 lines 13-15 of Karplus describes determining a distance to an object (e.g. LIDAR sensor) occluding its field of view);
processing data from the first LIDAR, including using the position of the shared light emitter to measure the distance to the 3D reflection locations corresponding to the first plurality of light pulses (see FIG. 9 of Haskin); and
processing data from the second LIDAR, including using the position of the shared light emitter to measure the distance to the 3D reflection locations corresponding to the second plurality of light pulses (see FIG. 9 of Haskin).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Donovan, Karplus and Haskin as applied to claim 16 teaches the method of claim 15 further comprising the steps of: calculating a position of the shared light emitter (see Karplus at col 16 lines 5-7, 28-30, 36-38 AND col 18 lines 13-15 describing scanning an exterior structure of a host platform for occluding structures including LIDAR sensors and determining their position) by processing at least some of the light reflections corresponding to the first plurality of light pulses and processing, processing at least some of the light reflections corresponding to the second plurality of light pulses (see Haskin at lines ; and, generating a point cloud (see Karplus at col 10 lines 62-63 describing generation of a point showing objects within the field of view of the LIDAR sensor) by using the calculated position of the shared light emitter to plot at least some of the 3D reflection locations corresponding to first plurality of light pulses and at least some of the 3D reflection locations corresponding to the second plurality of light pulses (see FIG. 9 of Haskin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular:
US 11,508,247 describes the use of multiple overlapping Flash LIDAR sensors on a vehicle for collision avoidance (see at least FIG. 10 and its accompanying text).
US US20190179320 describes a method for using multiple LIDAR sensors installed on a vehicle to refine a determined location of the LIDAR sensors on the vehicle (see FIG. 5 and paragraphs [0117] and [0120]
US 9,804,264 describes the use of a single shared emitter (laser located in the trunk of an autonomous vehicle) generating emissions for multiple sensors arranged around the periphery of a vehicle (see FIG. 6).
US 20160003946 describes a multi-ladar automotive configuration and details multiple methods for deconflicting interference from ladar sensors with overlapping fields of view (see text accompanying FIGS. 9-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am to 6:00pm.
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 at 5712703603. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645