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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 27, 2022. Claims 1-27 are pending.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “410” has been used to designate both Combiner and output fiber, in Fig. 4, and because reference character 1205 has been used to designate one field of view in Fig. 12A and a different field of view in Fig. 12B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5, 14-16, & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway.
5. Regarding Claim 1:
Welford teaches, A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system for detecting objects in blind-spot areas, ([Col. 9, Lines 39-44]: A lidar system 100 may be part of a vehicle ADAS that provides adaptive cruise control, automated braking, automated parking, collision avoidance, alerts the driver to hazards or other vehicles, maintains the vehicle in the correct lane, or provides a warning if an object or another vehicle is in a blind spot). Welford teaches, a housing; and a scanning-based LiDAR assembly disposed in the housing, ([Col. 12, Lines 26-30]: In particular embodiments, light source 110, scanner 120, and receiver 140 may be packaged together within a single housing, where a housing may refer to a box, case, or enclosure that holds or contains all or part of a lidar system 100). Welford teaches, a first light source configured to provide a plurality of light beams, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)). Welford further teaches, ([Col. 6, Lines 18-22]: In particular embodiments, a field of regard (FOR) of a lidar system 100 may refer to an area or angular range over which the lidar system 100 may be configured to scan or capture distance information). Welford teaches, one or more collimation lenses optically coupled to the first light source, the collimation lenses being configured to collimate the plurality of light beams provided by the first light source, (Col. 5, Lines 37-40]: In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include a telescope, one or more lenses, or one or more mirrors to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam 125). Welford further teaches, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)). Welford teaches, one or more collection lenses configured to collect return light generated based on the illumination of the first FOV, (Col. 5, Lines 41-43]: As an example, the lidar system 100 may include one or more lenses to focus the input beam 135 onto an active region of receiver 140). Welford teaches, a light detector configured to receive the collected return light, ([Col. 7, Lines 12-16]: In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include a receiver 140 that receives or detects at least a portion of input beam 135 and produces an electrical signal that corresponds to input beam 135).
6. Welford teaches a multi-facet polygon, ([Col. 6, Lines 6-10]: As an example, scanner 120 may include a galvanometer scanner, a resonant scanner, a piezoelectric actuator, a polygonal scanner, a rotating-prism scanner, a voice coil motor, a DC motor, a stepper motor, or a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device, or any other suitable actuator or mechanism). Welford teaches a light source, ([Col. 1, Lines 61-62]: FIG. 4 illustrates an example light-source field of view and receiver field of view for a lidar system). Welford does not teach, the multi-facet polygon and the first light source being vertically stacked. However, Galloway teaches ([0054]: FIG. 5A is a block diagram that illustrates example scanning with an on-axis impinging beam in a plane that includes the axis of rotation. A beam from source/detector optics 510 impinges on a face (perpendicular to the plane of the drawing) of polygon deflector 544 rotating around axis of rotation 543 in the plane of the diagram). Galloway further teaches, ([Fig. 5A]: Depicts the scanner and light source vertically stacked). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Welford with Galloway since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford with Galloway, (Galloway: [0054]: Because the azimuthal approach angle of the impinging beam is toward the axis of rotation 543, a much larger azimuthal field of view is obtained than the field of view 420 depicted in FIG. 4A. Thus, a smaller polygon deflector can be used to achieve the same horizontal extant at a given range. The use of a smaller polygon is advantageous for a scanning system on vehicles with space or weight limitations).
7. Regarding Claim 2:
Welford does not teach, the first light source is vertically stacked on top of the multi-facet polygon. However, Galloway teaches ([Fig. 5A]: Depicts the light source vertically stacked on top of the multi-fact polygon). See Claim 1.
8. Regarding Claim 3:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, a plurality of light beams, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)).
9. Welford does not teach, emitting the beams in a direction toward the multi-facet polygon. However, Galloway teaches ([Fig. 5A]: Depicts the light source emitting a beam directly toward the multi-facet polygon). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford with Galloway to include the plurality of beams being emitted in a direction toward the multi-facet polygon since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford with Galloway to reduce the number of components, allowing for a more robust system with fewer components to align.
10. Regarding Claim 5:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, the scanning-based LiDAR assembly further comprises: a combining mirror disposed between the one or more collimation lenses and the one or more collection lenses, ([Col. 5, Lines 49-59]: As illustrated in FIG. 1, the lidar system 100 may include mirror 115 (which may be a metallic or dielectric mirror), and mirror 115 may be configured so that light beam 125 passes through the mirror 115. As an example, mirror 115 (which may be referred to as an overlap mirror, superposition mirror, or beam combiner mirror) may include a hole, slot, or aperture which output light beam 125 passes through. As another example, mirror 115 may be configured so that at least 80% of output beam 125 passes through mirror 115 and at least 80% of input beam 135 is reflected by mirror 115). Welford further teaches, ([Fig. 3]: shows overlap mirror 115 between output beam 125 and input beam 135, including lens 330). Welford also teaches, ([Col. 15, Lines 25-27]: In particular embodiments, input beam 135 may pass through a lens 330 which focuses the beam onto an active region of the receiver 140).
While Fig. 3 does not depict a collimation lens, it does include beam 125, drawn with parallel lines, clearly indicating a collimated beam prior to passing through the combining mirror 115. Thus, a collimating lens is indicated. Welford continues to teach, (Col. 5, Lines 37-40]: In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include a telescope, one or more lenses, or one or more mirrors to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam 125). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the collimation lens between the laser source and combining mirror since Welford discloses a beam scanning LiDAR system which predominantly use a collimated beam. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to collimate the output beam in order to reduce the size of the aperture in the combining mirror which would increase the signal reflected by the combining mirror onto the detector for a give mirror outer radius. In addition, the use of a collimated output beam will provide a larger FOV for a given scanner size since this is related to the size of the laser spot on the scanner as well as the angle of incidence. The use of a collimated beam could also reduce the required size of any reflectors or optical elements following the combining mirror.
11. Regarding Claim 14:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, the combining mirror comprises: a first portion configured to allow passing of the plurality of light beams from the first light source; and a second portion configured to redirect the collected return light to the light detector, ([Col. 11, Lines 58-60]: the optical pulses produced by the solid-state laser may be directed through aperture 310 of overlap mirror 115 and then coupled to scanner 120). Welford further teaches, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)). Welford also teaches, ([Col. 15, Lines 45-48]: In particular embodiments, reflective surface 320 of overlap mirror 115 may reflect greater than or equal to 70% of input beam 135 toward the receiver 140).
12. Regarding Claim 15:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, The LiDAR system of claim 14, wherein the first portion comprises a cutout, ([Col. 11, Lines 58-60]: the optical pulses produced by the solid-state laser may be directed through aperture 310 of overlap mirror 115 and then coupled to scanner 120).
13. Regarding Claim 16:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, The LiDAR system of claim 14, wherein the first portion is a center portion of the combining mirror and the second portion is a portion of the combining mirror that is other than the center portion, ([Col. 5, Lines 59-63]: In particular embodiments, mirror 115 may provide for output beam 125 and input beam 135 to be substantially coaxial so that the two beams travel along substantially the same optical path (albeit in opposite directions). Welford further teaches, ([Fig. 3]: depicts a central aperture in mirror 115, passing beam 125 while the non-central portion reflects the collected light towards the detector).
14. Regarding Claim 24:
Welford teaches, A method performed by a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, ([Col. 42, Lines 59-62]: FIG. 20 illustrates an example computer system 800. In particular embodiments, one or more computer systems 800 may perform one or more steps of one or more methods described or illustrated herein). Welford teaches, detecting objects in a blind-spot areas, ([Col. 9, Lines 39-44]: A lidar system 100 may be part of a vehicle ADAS that provides adaptive cruise control, automated braking, automated parking, collision avoidance, alerts the driver to hazards or other vehicles, maintains the vehicle in the correct lane, or provides a warning if an object or another vehicle is in a blind spot). Welford teaches, providing, by a first light source, a plurality of light beams, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)). Welford teaches, collimating, by one or more collimation lenses optically coupled to the first light source, the plurality of light beams provided by the first light source, (Col. 5, Lines 37-40]: In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include a telescope, one or more lenses, or one or more mirrors to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam 125).
Welford further teaches, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)). Welford teaches, scanning, by a multi-facet polygon, the plurality of light beams to illuminate a first FOV, ([Col. 6, Lines 4-10]: As an example, scanner 120 may include a galvanometer scanner, a resonant scanner, a piezoelectric actuator, a polygonal scanner, a rotating-prism scanner, a voice coil motor, a DC motor, a stepper motor, or a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device, or any other suitable actuator or mechanism). Welford further teaches, ([Col. 6, Lines 18-22]: In particular embodiments, a field of regard (FOR) of a lidar system 100 may refer to an area or angular range over which the lidar system 100 may be configured to scan or capture distance information). Welford also teaches, ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: FIG. 8 illustrates an example lidar system 100 that uses multiple output beams to scan a field of regard (FOR)). Welford teaches, collecting, by one or more receiving lenses, return light generated based on the illumination of the first FOV, (Col. 5, Lines 41-43]: As an example, the lidar system 100 may include one or more lenses to focus the input beam 135 onto an active region of receiver 140). Welford teaches, directing, by a combining mirror disposed between the collimation lenses and the receiving lenses, both the plurality of light beams provided by the first light source and the collected return light, ([Col. 5, Lines 49-59]: As illustrated in FIG. 1, the lidar system 100 may include mirror 115 (which may be a metallic or dielectric mirror), and mirror 115 may be configured so that light beam 125 passes through the mirror 115. As an example, mirror 115 (which may be referred to as an overlap mirror, superposition mirror, or beam combiner mirror) may include a hole, slot, or aperture which output light beam 125 passes through. As another example, mirror 115 may be configured so that at least 80% of output beam 125 passes through mirror 115 and at least 80% of input beam 135 is reflected by mirror 115). Fig. 3 shows overlap mirror 115 between output beam 125 and input beam 135, including lens 330, Welford further teaches ([Col. 15, Lines 25-27]: In particular embodiments, input beam 135 may pass through a lens
330 which focuses the beam onto an active region of the receiver 140). While Fig. 3 does not depict a collimation lens, it does include beam 125, Welford also teaches, (Col. 5, Lines 37-40]: In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include a telescope, one or more lenses, or one or more mirrors to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam 125). Welford teaches, receiving the collected light by a light detector, ([Col. 7, Lines 12-16]: In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may include a receiver 140 that receives or detects at least a portion of input beam 135 and produces an electrical signal that corresponds to input beam 135).
15. Welford does not teach, the multi-facet polygon being rotatable and disposed beneath the first light source. However, Galloway teaches ([0054]: FIG. 5A is a block diagram that illustrates example scanning with an on-axis impinging beam in a plane that includes the axis of rotation. A beam from source/detector optics 510 impinges on a face (perpendicular to the plane of the drawing) of polygon deflector 544 rotating around axis of rotation 543 in the plane of the diagram). Galloway further teaches, ([Fig. 5A]: Depicts the scanner and light source vertically stacked). See Claim 1.
16. Claims 4, 10-11, 18-21, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway, further in view of Keilaf et al. (US 20190271767 A1), hereinafter Keilaf.
17. Regarding Claims 4 & 25:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, a non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly disposed in the housing, the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly being configured to transmit laser light to illuminate a second FOV without scanning. However, Keilaf teaches, ([0080]: In the embodiment of FIG. 2B, LIDAR system 100 includes three projecting units 102 each with a single of light source 112 aimed at a common light deflector
114. In one embodiment, the plurality of light sources 112 (including two or more light sources) may project light with substantially the same wavelength and each light source 112 is generally associated with a differing area of the field of view (denoted in the figure as 120A, 120B, and 120C). This enables scanning of a broader field of view than can be achieved with a light source 112). Keilaf further teaches, ([0268]: As aforementioned, there may be cases where a LIDAR FOV scan may not include a moving light deflector to collect reflected light sequentially from different sub-regions of the LIDAR FOV. In some embodiments, the sensor of the LIDAR system may be used to image an entire LIDAR FOV during a single operation. For example, in flash-type LIDAR systems). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include a non-scanning based LiDAR to illuminate a second FOV without scanning since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, flash LiDAR is a solid state device, inherently robust and capable of providing real time 3D data, ideal for applications requiring high speed feedback, such as object detection in autonomous vehicles. These systems can also be very compact, allowing for greater mounting or placement flexibility within any system.
18. Regarding Claim 10:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a flash LiDAR device configured to simultaneously illuminate the second FOV in a single light pulse. However, Keilaf teaches, ([0268]: For example, in flash-type LIDAR systems, one or more light pulses may be emitted to the FOV of the LIDAR system. In such embodiments, the sensor may collect reflected light from substantially the entire FOV of the LIDAR system). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include illuminating the entire second FOV in a single light pulse since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, illuminating the entire FOV simultaneously with a single source, or array of sources, in a single shot maximizes exposure time, reducing noise and increasing signal, while simultaneously eliminating the need for additional scanners.
19. Regarding Claim 11:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the non- scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a second laser source configured to provide the laser light at a second wavelength, the second wavelength being different from the first wavelength. However, Keilaf teaches, ([0080]: In another embodiment, the plurality of light sources 102 may project light with differing wavelengths, and all the light sources 112 may be directed to the same portion (or overlapping portions) of field of view 120). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include a second laser source with the second wavelength being different from the first wavelength since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, using different wavelengths for different LiDAR systems with overlapping or adjacent fields of view can help to avoid cross talk between systems, especially when used in conjunction with suitable interference or absorption filters for each system wavelength chosen.
20. Regarding Claim 18:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, one or more windows are configured to facilitate scanning the plurality of light beams by the scanning- based LiDAR assembly to illuminate the first FOV. However, Keilaf teaches, ([0079]: “FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a monostatic configuration of LIDAR system 100 including a plurality projecting units 102. The term “monostatic configuration” broadly refers to LIDAR systems configurations in which the projected light exiting from the LIDAR system and the reflected light entering the LIDAR system pass through at least a partially shared optical path”. “In another example, the outbound light radiation may pass through an optical window (not shown) and the inbound light radiation may pass through the same optical window”. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include one or more windows to illuminate the FOV since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, LiDAR systems, like any optical system, are prone to degradation due to dirt, dust, or any other environmental contaminant which can corrupt components. This is especially true for systems mounted externally on a vehicle, where exposure to wind, rain, ice, salt, or the myriad of environmental factors a vehicle is necessarily expected to endure on a daily basis, can damage such delicate systems without a proper enclosure.
21. Regarding Claim 19:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the one or more windows are configured to: facilitate passing the plurality of light beams scanned by the scanning-based LiDAR assembly to illuminate the first FOV, and facilitate passing the laser light transmitted by the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly to illuminate the second FOV. However, Keilaf teaches ([0079]: “FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a monostatic configuration of LIDAR system 100 including a plurality projecting units 102. The term “monostatic configuration” broadly refers to LIDAR systems configurations in which the projected light exiting from the LIDAR system and the reflected light entering the LIDAR system pass through at least a partially shared optical path”. “In another example, the outbound light radiation may pass through an optical window (not shown) and the inbound light radiation may pass through the same optical window”). Keilaf further teaches, ([0268]: As aforementioned, there may be cases where a LIDAR FOV scan may not include a moving light deflector to collect reflected light sequentially from different sub-regions of the LIDAR FOV. In some embodiments, the sensor of the LIDAR system may be used to image an entire LIDAR FOV during a single operation. For example, in flash -type LIDAR systems). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include one or more windows to illuminate the first FOV, as well as the second FOV, since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, LiDAR systems, like any optical system, is prone to degradation due to dirt, dust, or any other environmental contaminant which can corrupt components. This is especially true for systems mounted externally on a vehicle, where exposure to wind, rain, ice, salt, or the myriad of environmental factors a vehicle is necessarily expected to endure on a daily basis, can damage such delicate systems without a proper enclosure.
22. Regarding Claim 20:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly is configured to transmit a diverging laser light with an angular range sufficient to illuminate the entire second FOV in a single pulse. However, Keilaf teaches ([0268]: For example, in flash-type LIDAR systems, one or more light pulses may be emitted to the FOV of the LIDAR system. In such embodiments, the sensor may collect reflected light from substantially the entire FOV of the LIDAR system). Keilaf further teaches, ([0102]: FIG. 4B is a diagram illustrating monostatic scanning using a two-dimensional sensor). Fig. 4B depicts diverging laser light exiting source 112 with a slightly larger footprint on scanning mirror 114 and a much larger illumination footprint on second FOV 414, thus clearly indicating diverging laser light. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include diverging laser light with an angular range sufficient to illuminate the entire second FOV since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, illuminating the entire FOV simultaneously with a single source, or array of sources, in a single shot provides many notable benefits to the system. A divergent laser can be eye safe at higher optical powers, especially as distance from the source increases, than a highly collimated beam. A diverging laser can allow for a more compact system. In addition, a single shot acquisition, maximizes exposure time, reducing noise and increasing signal, while simultaneously eliminating the need for additional scanners.
23. Regarding Claims 21 & 26:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, a first sensor array configured to generate signals representing a mapping of the first FOV; and wherein the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a second sensor array configured to generate signals representing a mapping of the second FOV. However, Keilaf teaches ([0080]: In the embodiment of FIG. 2B, LIDAR system 100 includes three projecting units 102 each with a single of light source 112 aimed at a common light deflector 114. In one embodiment, the plurality of light sources 112 (including two or more light sources) may project light with substantially the same wavelength and each light source 112 is generally associated with a differing area of the field of view (denoted in the figure as 120A, 120B, and 120C). This enables scanning of a broader field of view than can be achieved with a light source 112). Keilaf further teaches, ([0268]: As aforementioned, there may be cases where a LIDAR FOV scan may not include a moving light deflector to collect reflected light sequentially from different sub-regions of the LIDAR FOV. In some embodiments, the sensor of the LIDAR system may be used to image an entire LIDAR FOV during a single operation. For example, in flash-type LIDAR systems). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf to include a first sensor array configured to generate signals representing a mapping of the first FOV; and wherein the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a second sensor array configured to generate signals representing a mapping of the second FOV since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Keilaf since, employing multiple LiDAR systems to map a given FOV allows for greater imaging resolution, or acquisition speed, or both. In addition, employing both scanning and non-scanning based LiDAR systems allows mixing of tailored range resolutions and can provide higher speed acquisitions in defined regions of interest.
24. Claims 22 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway, further in view of Hughes et al. (US 20190154816 A1), hereinafter Hughes, further in view of Keilaf et al. (US 20190271767 A1), hereinafter Keilaf.
25. Regarding Claims 22 & 27:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, a processing circuitry configured to generate a unified point cloud representing both the first FOV and the second FOV based on the signals representing the mapping of the first FOV and the signals representing the mapping of the second FOV, wherein the first FOV and the second FOV at least partially overlap. However, Hughes teaches ([0166]: The lidar sensor units 10 may be oriented so that adjacent FORs have an amount of spatial or angular overlap to allow data from the multiple lidar sensor units 10 to be combined or stitched together to form a single or continuous 360-degree point cloud). Hughes further teaches, ([0176]: the laser 353 may include a controller or processor that receives data from each of the sensor heads 352 (e.g., via a corresponding electrical link 370) and processes the received data to construct a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal view around a vehicle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hughes with to include processing circuitry to generate a unified point cloud representing multiple FOVs since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hughes to produce a point cloud representing a larger FOV or the entire surrounding environment, providing more complete data sets to an autonomous vehicle for object detection. Welford as modified by Galloway, in view of Hughes, does not teach, The LiDAR system of Claim 21 or the method of Claim 26. However, Keilaf teaches ([0268]: As aforementioned, there may be cases where a LIDAR FOV scan may not include a moving light deflector to collect reflected light sequentially from different sub-regions of the LIDAR FOV. In some embodiments, the sensor of the LIDAR system may be used to image an entire LIDAR FOV during a single operation. For example, in flash-type LIDAR systems). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway, further in view of Hughes, with Keilaf to include processing circuitry to generate a unified point cloud representing multiple FOVs, including both scanning and non-scanning LiDAR since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway, further in view of Hughes, with Keilaf to include both scanning and non-scanning LiDAR since, employing both scanning and non-scanning based LiDAR systems allows mixing of tailored range resolutions and can provide higher speed acquisitions in defined regions of interest.
26. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway, further in view of Wang et al. (US 11977185 B1), hereinafter Wang.
27. Regarding Claim 6:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the multi-facet polygon is a variable angle multi- facet polygon (VAMFP), the VAMFP comprising a plurality of facets each having a facet angle, the facet angle of each facet corresponding to a vertical range of scanning, wherein the vertical range of at least one facet is different from the vertical ranges of other facets. However, Wang teaches ([Col. 1, Lines 60-67]: In one embodiment, a LiDAR system is provided that can include a laser subsystem operative to emit an array of light beams, and a variable angle multi-facet polygon (VAMFP) operative to redirect the array of light beams to a field of view (FOV), the VAMFP comprising a plurality of facets each having a facet angle, wherein the facet angle of each of the plurality of facets corresponds to a different band within the FOV). Wang further teaches, ([Col. 4, Lines 10-11]: The facet angle is responsible for controlling the projection of light pulses in the vertical FOV). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang to include a VAMFP having a particular facet angle required to fill a desired vertical range since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang, since the VAMFP field of view parameters are highly adjustable and are capable of achieving a wide array of desired fields in both the horizontal and vertical directions, in addition the use of a VAMFP allows for a single scanner to move beams both horizontally and vertically, reducing system complexity.
28. Regarding Claim 7:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the VAMFP comprises four facets having facet angles of about 9 degrees apart, wherein the facet angles of the four facets are configured such that a total vertical range of scanning of all the four facets is about 72 degrees. However, Wang teaches ([Col. 4, Lines 1-5]: Each facet has an area defined by a width and a length and each facet has a facet angle. The number of facets may define the bounds of the FOV along a first axis (e.g., the horizontal axis). For example, if there are five facets, the horizontal FOV is 144 degrees. If there are six facets, the horizontal FOV is 120 degrees). Wang further teaches, ([Col. 6, Lines 7-14]: In some embodiments, the VAMFP may be machined to produce a desired number of mirrored facets at the desired facet angles. In other embodiments, such as that illustrated by FIG. 5, a standard polygon may be converted to a VAMFP by attaching wedge members to a multi-sided polygon. These wedge members may have facet angles designed to produce desired FOV and FOV resolution distribution).
([Col. 4, Lines 8-11]: In other embodiments, the length of each facet may vary, depending on the facet angle. The facet angle is responsible for controlling the projection of light pulses in the vertical FOV). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang to include a VAMFP having a particular facet angle required to fill a desired vertical range in the course of routine optimization. See, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). Also see, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. i.e., The desired FOV, of a particular sensor, depends on the vehicle type and size as well as other sensors employed and their respective FOVs to realize the desired coverage of 3D data to sufficiently analyze the surrounding environment. Thus, the claimed range is clearly a design need with no support in the immediate application to show the range is critical. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang, since the VAMFP field of view parameters are highly adjustable and are capable of achieving a wide array of desired fields in both the horizontal and vertical directions, in addition the use of a VAMFP allows for a single scanner to move beams both horizontally and vertically, reducing system complexity.
29. Regarding Claim 8:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the plurality of vertical ranges of all the facets are non-overlapping vertical ranges. However, Wang teaches ([Col. 2, Lines 4-5]: In one embodiment, the plurality of different bands are non-overlapping and contiguous). Wang further teaches, ([Col. 4, Lines 10-11]: The facet angle is responsible for controlling the projection of light pulses in the vertical FOV). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang to include non-overlapping vertical ranges since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang, since non-overlapping vertical ranges would reduce the number of facets required to fill the vertical range, thus maximizing the horizontal range, (Wang: [Col. 4, Lines 1-5]: Each facet has an area defined by a width and a length and each facet has a facet angle. The number of facets may define the bounds of the FOV along a first axis (e.g., the horizontal axis). For example, if there are five facets, the horizontal FOV is 144 degrees. If there are six facets, the horizontal FOV is 120 degrees).
30. Regarding Claim 9:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, at least two vertical ranges of the plurality of facets are overlapping vertical ranges. However, Wang teaches ([Col. 2, Lines 8-9]: In one embodiment, at least two of the plurality of different bands overlap each other). Wang further teaches, ([Col. 4, Lines 10-11]: The facet angle is responsible for controlling the projection of light pulses in the vertical FOV). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang to include at least two overlapping vertical ranges since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Wang, since overlapping fields enable the generation of a continuous point cloud, (Keilaf: [0166]: The lidar sensor units 10 may be oriented so that adjacent FORs have an amount of spatial or angular overlap to allow data from the multiple lidar sensor units 10 to be combined or stitched together to form a single or continuous 360-degree point cloud).
31. Claims 12 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway, further in view of Hall et al. (US 10627490 B2), hereinafter Hall.
32. Regarding Claim 12:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, a light source can be a VCSEL ([Col. 4, Lines 23-27]: In particular embodiments, light source 110 may include a laser diode, such as for example, a Fabry-Perot laser diode, a quantum well laser, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)). Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the first light source comprises a plurality of vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) arrays, each VCSEL array having a plurality of VCSEL emitting zones. However, Hall teaches ([Col. 6, Lines 8-9]: Light emission/collection engine 112 includes an array of light emitting elements 114). Hall further teaches, ([Col. 6, Lines 19-21]: In addition, any number of light emitting elements can be arranged to sequentially emit any number of light beams from 3-D LIDAR system 100). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hall to include a first light source comprises a plurality of vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) arrays since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hall, since VCSELs offer low power consumption, high beam quality, and wafer level manufacturing.
33. Regarding Claim 13:
Welford as modified by Galloway teaches, a light source can be a VCSEL ([Col. 4, Lines 23-27]: In particular embodiments, light source 110 may include a laser diode, such as for example, a Fabry-Perot laser diode, a quantum well laser, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)). Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the light detector comprises a plurality of sensor arrays, each sensor array having a plurality of sensor cells, wherein a total number of the sensor cells is substantially equal to a total number of the VCSEL emitting zones. However, Hall teaches ([Col. 6, Lines 8-10]: FIG. 3, light emission/collection engine 112 includes an array of light emitting elements 114 and an array of light detecting elements 113). Hall further teaches, ([Col. 6, Lines 19-21]: To maximize imaging resolution, it is desirable to trigger as many channels as possible, simultaneously, so that time of flight measurements are obtained from many channels at the same time, rather than sequentially). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand that to maximize imaging resolution and minimize acquisition time, having a number of emitters equal to the number of detectors is optimal.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hall to include a plurality of sensor arrays, each sensor array having a plurality of sensor cells, wherein a total number of the sensor cells is substantially equal to a total number of the VCSEL emitting zones since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hall, since imaging resolution and speed are two of the most important parameters relative to any detection system, especially when considering control of an autonomous vehicle.
34. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway, further in view of Trepagnier et al (CA 2739989 A1), hereinafter Trepagnier.
35. Regarding Claim 17:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, The LiDAR system of claim 5, wherein the combining mirror comprises: a first portion configured to allow passing of the collected return light to the light detector; and a second portion configured to redirect the plurality of light beams from the first light source. However, Trepagnier teaches ([Fig. 2]: Depicts combining mirror 15a between collimation and collection optics with a first portion configured to allow passing of the collected return light to the light detector; and a second portion configured to redirect the plurality of light beams from the first light source). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Trepagnier to include, a combining mirror with a first portion configured to allow passing of the collected return light to the light detector; and a second portion configured to redirect the plurality of light beams from the first light source, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Trepagnier, to provide more design options to optimize for space constraints along any axis or orientation of the LiDAR system. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019. The immediate application discloses no criticality for the arrangement of these parts.
36. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welford et al (US 9810786 B1), hereinafter Welford, in view of Galloway et al (US 20200217936 A1), hereinafter Galloway, further in view of Hughes et al (US 20190154816 A1), hereinafter Hughes, further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020132535 A1), hereinafter Kim.
37. Regarding Claim 23:
Welford as modified by Galloway does not teach, the LiDAR system is installable in at least one of a vehicle's side-view mirror or a support structure thereof, or a vehicle's fender. However, Hughes teaches ([0179]: As another example, FIG. 33 illustrates a vehicle 400 in which a laser 404 is optically coupled to six sensor heads 402, each of which can be implemented as the lidar sensor unit 10. The sensor heads 402A and 402G are disposed at the front of the vehicle 400, the sensor heads 402B and 402F are disposed in the side view mirrors, and the sensor heads 402C-E are disposed on the trunk). Hughes further teaches,
([0174]: Each of the sensor heads 352 may be attached to or incorporated into a bumper, fender, grill, side panel, spoiler, roof, headlight assembly, taillight assembly, rear-view mirror assembly, hood, trunk, window, or any other suitable part of the vehicle). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hughes to configure the LiDAR system to be installable on a vehicle’s side-view mirror or fender since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway with Hughes to allow for a wider range of placement for the LiDAR system on a vehicle to collect data encompassing more of the surrounding environment. Welford as modified by Galloway, in view of Hughes, does not teach, a height of the LiDAR system is equal to or less than about 50 mm. However, Kim teaches ([P. 16]: For example, the sensor 104 has 50 mm of height). Kim further teaches, ([P. 11]: The at least one sensor 104 may be an image sensor (e.g., camera) that collects image information of a warehouse. Various sensors can be configured to receive image and video data, such as stereo cameras, depth sensors, LIDARs, Radars, and/or infrared sensors, among other possibilities). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Welford in view of Galloway, further in view of Hughes with Kim to configure the LiDAR system to have a height equal to or less than 50 mm since, it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Welford in view of Galloway, further in view of Hughes with Kim to allow for a wider range of placement for the LiDAR system on a vehicle to collect data encompassing more of the surrounding environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9869754 B1: Discloses multiple LiDAR systems in the same enclosure with overlapping scan patterns which produce unified point clouds.
US 20200150247 A1: Discloses LiDAR systems using a rotating polygon to scan a field of view, producing point clouds with reduced curvature.
US 20050195383 A1: Discloses a method, employing LiDAR systems to detect objects in a vehicles blind spot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES W NAPIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.W.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645