DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230341526 A1 (Pulikkaseril et al.).
Claim 1 and 16 (mutatis mutandis). Pulikkaseril teaches a method for controlling an image sensor of a vehicle comprising:
establishing a first image density pattern for a field of regard of the image sensor (para 79);
establishing a second image density pattern for the field of regard for the image sensor (para 79);
and determining whether to scan with the first image density pattern or the second image density pattern based on an analysis of an image returned by the image sensor (para 136,139 note the processing unit may analyse the environment (based on the input received from the light receiver 104) and may determine a set of candidate foveation scan profiles for selection to apply to one or more subsequent scans.).
Claim 2 and 17 (mutatis mutandis). Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first image density pattern includes first horizontal scan lines having a distribution along a vertical axis that is dynamically adjusted based on a location of a horizon (para 144 note horizon and increased point density ,para 184 note non-uniform figure 17-18);
and the second image density pattern includes second horizontal scan lines having a fixed distribution along the vertical axis (para 184 note uniform), wherein, about a vertical angle corresponding to the horizon, a density of the first horizontal scan lines is greater than a density of the second horizontal scan lines (para 79 , para 144 note horizon and increased point density , para 184 note uniform and non-uniform and also see figure 17-18).
Claim 3. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising, in response to a movement of the horizon to a new location along the vertical axis, adjusting the distribution of the first horizontal scan lines along the vertical axis so that a peak density of the first horizontal scan lines coincides with the new location of the horizon (para 144).
Claim 4. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the peak density of the first horizontal scan lines increases as a distance from the vehicle to the horizon increases (para 144-145 ).
Claim 5. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first image density pattern includes first horizontal scan lines having a distribution along a vertical axis that is dynamically adjusted based on a speed of the vehicle (para 147 note speed or velocity).
Claim 6 and 18 (mutatis mutandis). Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analysis is based in part on a first observable distance to a first obstruction or a second observable distance to a road marking associated with a lane of travel of the vehicle (para 148 note point density increased or decreased based on distance of objects from vehicle).
Claim 7 and 19 (mutatis mutandis). Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the first obstruction is at least partially in a lane of travel of the vehicle (para 148).
Claim 8 and 20 (mutatis mutandis). Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: scanning with the first image density pattern on a condition that a) the first observable distance to the first obstruction is greater than a predetermined obstruction threshold and a horizon tracking estimation is valid (para 204) or b) the second observable distance to the road marking associated with a lane of travel of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined marking threshold and the horizon tracking estimation is valid (the first condition is met).
Claim 9. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: changing from scanning with the first image density pattern to the second image density pattern or from scanning with the second image density pattern to the first image density pattern (para 151, 156-159 note increase the point density in regions identified as low confidence regions and decrease the point density in regions identified as high confidence regions).
Claim 10. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 9, wherein changing from scanning with the first image density pattern to the second image density pattern is performed when a second vehicle obscures a portion of the field of regard (para 151-152 note point density increased when another vehicle is detected).
Claim 12. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the changing from scanning with the first image density pattern to the second image density pattern requires a first threshold condition to be met and the changing from the second image density pattern to the first image density pattern requires a second threshold condition to be met (para 156-159 note based on confidence levels the scan density pattern is changed).
Claim 13. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first threshold is acquisition of a first predetermined number lidar frames with a portion of the field of regard partially obscured and the second threshold is acquisition of a second predetermined number of lidar frames wherein the field of regard is not obscured (156-159).
Claim 14. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the image sensor is a lidar system configured to obtain a plurality of horizontal scans of the field of regard (para 176-190 note lidar and horizontal);
and the first image density pattern has a greater concentration of horizontal scans about a first vertical angle relative to a virtual horizon than the second image density pattern (para 79 and para 176-190 note lidar and horizontal).
Claim 15. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising dynamically adjusting the first image density pattern based on a determination of an elevation angle of a virtual horizon in the field of regard (para 201-211 note horizon and elevation angle and para 144 ).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230341526 A1 (Pulikkaseril et al.) in view of US 20180113200 A1 (Steinberg et al.).
Claim 11. Pulikkaseril teaches the method of claim 9. Pulikkaseril fails to explicitly teach but Steinberg teaches wherein changing from scanning with the first image density pattern to the second image density pattern is performed when an environmental condition obscures a portion of the field of regard (para 674 note in the rain, a LIDAR system consistent with embodiments of the present disclosure may scan a field of view with a higher frame rate (e.g., 25 frames per second (FPS)) and higher spatial and/or temporal resolution to accommodate for the greater noise and distorted detail in each frame) .
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Pulikkaseril and Steinberg and modify the method such that the device can change scanning with the first image density pattern to the second image density pattern when an environmental condition obscures a portion of the field of regard. The motivation to do so would be to accommodate for the greater noise and distorted detail in each frame (Steinberg para 674).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645