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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In figure 1, element 134 is depicted as a Dynamic Object Detector, however this element is not featured in the specification.
In figure 10B, element 1042 is labeled but not disclosed in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0039], line 2, [0040], line 1, and [0049], lines 8-9, “sensor control architecture 100” should likely read “architecture of imaging system 100”.
In paragraph [0067], line 8, “lidar system 302” should likely read “lidar system 200”.
In paragraph [0104], line 5, “imaging system 110” should likely read “imaging system 100”.
In paragraph [0113], line 6, “horizontal elevation angle 1420” should likely read “horizontal elevation angle 1425”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klepsvik et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20160025489 A1), hereinafter Klepsvik.
Regarding claim 1, Klepsvik teaches a method for controlling a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) system of a vehicle, the lidar system configured to sense an environment through which the vehicle is moving ([0019] Also provided is a laser radar positioning and tracking sensor; [0022] The position reference system and method for positioning and tracking one or more objects is based on a transceiver unit arranged for being fixed to a sensor platform, such as an object, vessel or similar...The disclosed embodiments are especially suitable for local, short range and accurate positioning of offshore objects/targets for DP operation of supply vessels and FPSO facilities, i.e. for ranges up to a few km.), the method comprising:
receiving lidar system data generated by the lidar system of the vehicle as the vehicle moves through the environment ([0041] Search and identification Mode; where the transceiver unit scans the total field of regard (FOR), 360° in azimuth and preferably min. 60° in elevation, in order to detect, identify (automatic or manually) and position all objects within FOR equipped with an active or passive retroreflector.);
receiving a pitch rate of the vehicle generated by a pitch-rate sensor associated with the vehicle ([0043] The system is further arranged for communication with external sensor means for receiving motion data/information of the sensor platform, such as roll, pitch, yaw, surge, sway and/or heave, the transceiver unit is arranged on; [0068] The stationary part 20 also includes a two-axis inclinometer 26 which will be used for controlling a mirror 34 in the rotating part 30; [0087] Based on input from sensors monitoring the movements of the sensor platform, such as an object, vessel or similar, and the two axis inclinometer 26, and input from the control unit 21, such as range, azimuth and tilt angles,);
determining, by one or more processors, an angle of the lidar system relative to the environment through which the vehicle is moving, the lidar-system angle determined based at least in part on the lidar system data and the pitch rate of the vehicle ([0102] The signal processing unit 31 of the rotating part 30 receives the PRF-clock signal from the control unit 21 of the stationary part 20 together with azimuth 0° information. For every positive edge on the PRF-clock the laser source 32 emits a pulse. So, for every laser pulse, the control unit 31 has knowledge of the azimuth position.); and
causing the lidar system to be adjusted in accordance with the determined angle of the lidar system ([0088] The mirror position is preferably continuously controlled to compensate for the movement of the sensor platform as well as settings related to tracking and positioning of retroreflectors at different elevation angles.).
Regarding claim 2, Klepsvik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the lidar-system angle comprises: determining an initial lidar-system angle based on the lidar system data; and updating the initial lidar-system angle based on the pitch rate of the vehicle to determine the lidar-system angle ([0102] The signal processing unit 31 of the rotating part 30 receives the PRF-clock signal from the control unit 21 of the stationary part 20 together with azimuth 0° information. For every positive edge on the PRF-clock the laser source 32 emits a pulse. So, for every laser pulse, the control unit 31 has knowledge of the azimuth position.).
Regarding claim 5, Klepsvik teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, (i) a lower bound for a vertical region of interest (VROI) within a vertical field of regard of the lidar system, and (ii) an upper bound for the VROI within the vertical field of regard of the lidar system ([0078] The controllable mirror 34 is arranged to achieve a preferred Vertical Field of Regard of −10° to +60°, which mirror 34 is arranged to be controllable about its horizontal axis.), and
basing, in part, the lower bound and the upper bound on the pitch rate ([0087] Reference is now made to FIG. 5 which shows how the mirror 34 is controlled by means of the signal processing unit 31. Based on input from sensors monitoring the movements of the sensor platform, such as an object, vessel or similar, and the two axis inclinometer 26, and input from the control unit 21, such as range, azimuth and tilt angles, the position of the mirror 34 is calculated and settings provided to the electrical mirror motor 35 which performs the positioning of the mirror 34.).
Regarding claim 11, Klepsvik teaches a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) system implemented in a vehicle ([0019] Also provided is a laser radar positioning and tracking sensor; [0022] The position reference system and method for positioning and tracking one or more objects is based on a transceiver unit arranged for being fixed to a sensor platform, such as an object, vessel or similar...The disclosed embodiments are especially suitable for local, short range and accurate positioning of offshore objects/targets for DP operation of supply vessels and FPSO facilities, i.e. for ranges up to a few km.), the lidar system comprising:
a lidar system configured to generate lidar data as the vehicle moves through an environment ([0041] Search and identification Mode; where the transceiver unit scans the total field of regard (FOR), 360° in azimuth and preferably min. 60° in elevation, in order to detect, identify (automatic or manually) and position all objects within FOR equipped with an active or passive retroreflector.);
a pitch-rate sensor associated with the vehicle ([0068] The stationary part 20 also includes a two-axis inclinometer 26); and
a controller ([0068] a control unit 21) configured to:
receive the lidar data ([0102] So, for every laser pulse, the control unit 31 has knowledge of the azimuth position.);
receive a pitch rate of the vehicle generated by the pitch-rate sensor ([0043] The system is further arranged for communication with external sensor means for receiving motion data/information of the sensor platform, such as roll, pitch, yaw, surge, sway and/or heave, the transceiver unit is arranged on; [0068] The stationary part 20 also includes a two-axis inclinometer 26 which will be used for controlling a mirror 34 in the rotating part 30; [0087] Based on input from sensors monitoring the movements of the sensor platform, such as an object, vessel or similar, and the two axis inclinometer 26, and input from the control unit 21, such as range, azimuth and tilt angles,);
determine an angle of the lidar system relative to the environment through which the vehicle is moving, the lidar-system angle determined based at least in part on the lidar system data and the pitch rate of the vehicle ([0102] The signal processing unit 31 of the rotating part 30 receives the PRF-clock signal from the control unit 21 of the stationary part 20 together with azimuth 0° information. For every positive edge on the PRF-clock the laser source 32 emits a pulse. So, for every laser pulse, the control unit 31 has knowledge of the azimuth position.); and
cause the lidar system to be adjusted in accordance with the determined angle of the lidar system ([0088] The mirror position is preferably continuously controlled to compensate for the movement of the sensor platform as well as settings related to tracking and positioning of retroreflectors at different elevation angles.).
Regarding claim 12, Klepsvik teaches the lidar system of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine an initial lidar-system angle based on the lidar system data; and update the initial lidar-system angle based on the pitch rate of the vehicle to determine the lidar-system angle ([0102] The signal processing unit 31 of the rotating part 30 receives the PRF-clock signal from the control unit 21 of the stationary part 20 together with azimuth 0° information. For every positive edge on the PRF-clock the laser source 32 emits a pulse. So, for every laser pulse, the control unit 31 has knowledge of the azimuth position.).
Regarding claim 15, Klepsvik teaches the lidar system of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to determine, (i) a lower bound for a vertical region of interest (VROI) within a vertical field of regard of the lidar system, and (ii) an upper bound for the VROI within the vertical field of regard of the lidar system ([0078] The controllable mirror 34 is arranged to achieve a preferred Vertical Field of Regard of −10° to +60°, which mirror 34 is arranged to be controllable about its horizontal axis.), and
base, in part, the lower bound and the upper bound on the pitch rate ([0087] Reference is now made to FIG. 5 which shows how the mirror 34 is controlled by means of the signal processing unit 31. Based on input from sensors monitoring the movements of the sensor platform, such as an object, vessel or similar, and the two axis inclinometer 26, and input from the control unit 21, such as range, azimuth and tilt angles, the position of the mirror 34 is calculated and settings provided to the electrical mirror motor 35 which performs the positioning of the mirror 34.).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepsvik in view of Englard et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20190179024 A1), hereinafter Englard
Regarding claim 3, Klepsvik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the lidar system to be adjusted comprises: determining a location of a horizon based on the angle of the lidar system relative to the environment ([0030] It is important to compensate for the angular movements of the sensor platform to prevent gaps (loss of coverage) in the field of regard due to the movements, and to be able to measure elevation of objects relative to the horizon which will be described in more detail below.; [0087] Accordingly, the two axis inclinometer 26 will together with the electrical mirror motor 35 ensure stabilization of the fan-shaped beam and the IFOV of the receiver relative to the horizontal plane as well as overlapping Instantaneous Field-of-View of the receiver relative to the horizontal plane.);
Klepsvik fails to teach the method of adjusting a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system so that a peak density of the scan lines coincides with the location of the horizon,
However, Englard teaches the method of adjusting a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system so that a peak density of the scan lines coincides with the location of the horizon ([Fig. 8D]; [0121] As seen in FIG. 8D, the scan pattern 580 provides a scan line density ratio of 2:4:1 in the regions 582, 584 and 586, respectively. The regions 582, 584 and 586 may correspond to areas in which road (ahead of the vehicle), the horizon (e.g., including a predetermined distance that includes the average horizon elevation) and the sky, respectively,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the adjustment of the density of scan points to coincide with the horizon similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of readjusting the known reference point needed to maintain a correct pitch setting of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Klepsvik teaches the lidar system of claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a location of a horizon based on the angle of the lidar system relative to the environment;
Klepsvik fails to teach the system configured to adjust a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system so that a peak density of the scan lines coincides with the location of the horizon
However, Englard teaches the system configured to of adjust a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system so that a peak density of the scan lines coincides with the location of the horizon ([Fig. 8D]; [0121] As seen in FIG. 8D, the scan pattern 580 provides a scan line density ratio of 2:4:1 in the regions 582, 584 and 586, respectively. The regions 582, 584 and 586 may correspond to areas in which road (ahead of the vehicle), the horizon (e.g., including a predetermined distance that includes the average horizon elevation) and the sky, respectively,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the adjustment of the density of scan points to coincide with the horizon similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of readjusting the known reference point needed to maintain a correct pitch setting of the vehicle.
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepsvik in view of Wiegman (United States Patent No. 11440678 B1), hereinafter Wiegman.
Regarding claim 4, Klepsvik teaches the method of claim 1,
Klepsvik fails to teach the method wherein the pitch-rate sensor is a gyroscope
However, Wiegman teaches the method wherein the pitch-rate sensor is a gyroscope ([Col.4, lines 17-18, 31-35] Sensor 104 may include, but not limited to, torque sensor, gyroscope...Outside parameter may include velocity and/or speed in a plurality of ranges and direction such as vertical speed, horizontal speed, changes in angle or rates of change in angles like pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate, or a combination thereof)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the gyroscope similar to Wiegman, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known technology as a method of determining the vehicle’s pitch and other angled orientations.
Regarding claim 6, Klepsvik teaches the method of claim 1,
Klepsvik fails to teach the method wherein determining the lidar-system angle comprises combining the lidar system data and the pitch rate using a Bayesian filter.
However, Wiegman teaches the method wherein determining the lidar-system angle comprises combining the lidar system data and the pitch rate using a Bayesian filter ([Col. 45, line 41-47] machine-learning processes as described in this disclosure may be used to generate machine-learning models 924. A “machine-learning model,” as used in this disclosure, is a mathematical and/or algorithmic representation of a relationship between inputs and outputs, as generated using any machine-learning process including without limitation any process as described above; [Col. 46, line 42-45, 64-67] machine-learning module 900 may be designed and configured to create a machine-learning model 924 using techniques for development of linear regression models...Linear regression models may include the elastic net model, a multi-task elastic net model, a least angle regression model, a LARS lasso model, an orthogonal matching pursuit model, a Bayesian regression model,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the Bayesian filter similar to Wiegman, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known filtering system to make real-time adjustments to the data set to maintain an accurate depiction of the real world environment.
Regarding claim 7, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 6,
Klepsvik fails to teach the method wherein determining the lidar-system angle further comprises predicting, using the Bayesian filter, the lidar-system angle for an upcoming scan to be performed by the lidar system.
However, Wiegman teaches the method wherein determining the lidar-system angle further comprises predicting, using the Bayesian filter, the lidar-system angle for an upcoming scan to be performed by the lidar system ([Col. 46, line 42-45, 64-67] machine-learning module 900 may be designed and configured to create a machine-learning model 924 using techniques for development of linear regression models...Linear regression models may include the elastic net model, a multi-task elastic net model, a least angle regression model, a LARS lasso model, an orthogonal matching pursuit model, a Bayesian regression model,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the use of Bayesian filter to predict a lidar system angle similar to Wiegman, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known filtering system to make real-time adjustments to the data set to maintain an accurate depiction of the real world environment.
Regarding claim 14, Klepsvik teaches the lidar system of claim 11,
Klepsvik fails to teach the system wherein the pitch-rate sensor is a gyroscope
However, Wiegman teaches the system wherein the pitch-rate sensor is a gyroscope ([Col.4, lines 17-18, 31-35] Sensor 104 may include, but not limited to, torque sensor, gyroscope...Outside parameter may include velocity and/or speed in a plurality of ranges and direction such as vertical speed, horizontal speed, changes in angle or rates of change in angles like pitch rate, roll rate, yaw rate, or a combination thereof)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the gyroscope similar to Wiegman, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known technology as a method of determining the vehicle’s pitch and other angled orientations.
Regarding claim 16, Klepsvik teaches the lidar system of claim 11,
Klepsvik fails to teach the system wherein the controller is configured to determine the lidar-system angle by combining the lidar system data and the pitch rate using a Bayesian filter
However, Wiegman teaches the system wherein the controller is configured to determine the lidar-system angle by combining the lidar system data and the pitch rate using a Bayesian filter ([Col. 45, line 41-47] machine-learning processes as described in this disclosure may be used to generate machine-learning models 924. A “machine-learning model,” as used in this disclosure, is a mathematical and/or algorithmic representation of a relationship between inputs and outputs, as generated using any machine-learning process including without limitation any process as described above; [Col. 46, line 42-45, 64-67] machine-learning module 900 may be designed and configured to create a machine-learning model 924 using techniques for development of linear regression models...Linear regression models may include the elastic net model, a multi-task elastic net model, a least angle regression model, a LARS lasso model, an orthogonal matching pursuit model, a Bayesian regression model,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the Bayesian filter similar to Wiegman, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known filtering system to make real-time adjustments to the data set to maintain an accurate depiction of the real world environment.
Regarding claim 17, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the lidar system of claim 16,
Klepsvik fails to teach the system wherein the controller is further configured to predict, using the Bayesian filter, the lidar-system angle for an upcoming scan to be performed by the lidar system
However, Wiegman teaches the system wherein the controller is further configured to predict, using the Bayesian filter, the lidar-system angle for an upcoming scan to be performed by the lidar system ([Col. 46, line 42-45, 64-67] machine-learning module 900 may be designed and configured to create a machine-learning model 924 using techniques for development of linear regression models...Linear regression models may include the elastic net model, a multi-task elastic net model, a least angle regression model, a LARS lasso model, an orthogonal matching pursuit model, a Bayesian regression model,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the use of Bayesian filter to predict a lidar system angle similar to Wiegman, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known filtering system to make real-time adjustments to the data set to maintain an accurate depiction of the real world environment.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepsvik in view of Englard, further in view of Wiegman
Regarding claim 8, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 7,
Klepsvik fails to teach the method further comprising: predicting a location of a horizon for the upcoming scan based on the predicted lidar-system angle for the upcoming scan.
However, Englard teaches the method further comprising: predicting a location of a horizon for the upcoming scan based on the predicted lidar-system angle for the upcoming scan ([0058] The perception signals 106 and (in some embodiments) prediction signals 122 are input to a sensor control component 130,; [0067] As another example of a heuristic technique, the sensor control component 130 may process the perception signals 106 to determine a position of the horizon relative to the vehicle,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the prediction of the horizon similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of maintaining a real-time reference level for a changing environment around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8,
Klepsvik fails to teach the method further comprising adjusting a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system for the upcoming scan so that a peak density of the scan lines in the upcoming scan coincides with the predicted location of the horizon for the upcoming scan
However, Englard teaches the method further comprising adjusting a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system for the upcoming scan so that a peak density of the scan lines in the upcoming scan coincides with the predicted location of the horizon for the upcoming scan ([0121] FIG. 8D illustrates an example scan pattern 580 in which the SLD controller 534 causes the scan lines 554 to be arranged according to an arbitrary distribution (i.e., with desired densities at different elevations, without necessarily sampling any sort of continuous mathematical distribution). As seen in FIG. 8D, the scan pattern 580 provides a scan line density ratio of 2:4:1 in the regions 582, 584 and 586, respectively. The regions 582, 584 and 586 may correspond to areas in which road (ahead of the vehicle), the horizon (e.g., including a predetermined distance that includes the average horizon elevation) and the sky, respectively,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the adjustment of the density of scan lines to coincide with the horizon similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of maintaining a real-time reference level for a changing environment around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining, (i) a lower bound for a vertical region of interest (VROI) within a vertical field of regard of the lidar system, and (ii) an upper bound for the VROI within the vertical field of regard of the lidar system ([0078] The controllable mirror 34 is arranged to achieve a preferred Vertical Field of Regard of −10° to +60°, which mirror 34 is arranged to be controllable about its horizontal axis.), and
Klepsvik fails to teach the method basing, in part, the lower bound and the upper bound on the predicted lidar system angle for the upcoming scan
However, Englard teaches the method basing, in part, the lower bound and the upper bound on the predicted lidar system angle for the upcoming scan ([0062] The parameter adjustment module 136 may determine a desired area of focus for a controlled sensor based on current positions of one or more dynamic objects (e.g., using the perception signals 106), and/or based on predicted/expected positions of the dynamic object(s) (e.g., using the prediction signals 122). For example, the parameter adjustment module 136 may set lidar device parameters such that the field of regard of the lidar device is centered on the current position of a dynamic object, and possibly also “zoomed in” on that object (e.g., by reducing the horizontal and vertical field of regard without necessarily reducing the number of points in each point cloud frame).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the boundaries based on the predictive lidar system similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of limiting the field of regard to the necessary region only, maintained in real-time from the surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 18, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the lidar system of claim 17,
Klepsvik fails to teach the system wherein the controller is further configured to further to predict a location of a horizon for the upcoming scan based on the predicted lidar-system angle for the upcoming scan
However, Englard teaches the system wherein the controller is further configured to further to predict a location of a horizon for the upcoming scan based on the predicted lidar-system angle for the upcoming scan ([0058] The perception signals 106 and (in some embodiments) prediction signals 122 are input to a sensor control component 130,; [0067] As another example of a heuristic technique, the sensor control component 130 may process the perception signals 106 to determine a position of the horizon relative to the vehicle,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the prediction of the horizon similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of maintaining a real-time reference level for a changing environment around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the lidar system of claim 18,
Klepsvik fails to teach the system wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system for the upcoming scan so that a peak density of the scan lines in the upcoming scan coincides with the predicted location of the horizon for the upcoming scan
However, Englard teaches the system wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a density of scan lines produced by the lidar system for the upcoming scan so that a peak density of the scan lines in the upcoming scan coincides with the predicted location of the horizon for the upcoming scan ([0121] FIG. 8D illustrates an example scan pattern 580 in which the SLD controller 534 causes the scan lines 554 to be arranged according to an arbitrary distribution (i.e., with desired densities at different elevations, without necessarily sampling any sort of continuous mathematical distribution). As seen in FIG. 8D, the scan pattern 580 provides a scan line density ratio of 2:4:1 in the regions 582, 584 and 586, respectively. The regions 582, 584 and 586 may correspond to areas in which road (ahead of the vehicle), the horizon (e.g., including a predetermined distance that includes the average horizon elevation) and the sky, respectively,)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the adjustment of the density of scan lines to coincide with the horizon similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of maintaining a real-time reference level for a changing environment around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, Klepsvik, as modified, teaches the lidar system of claim 17, wherein the controller is further configured to determine, (i) a lower bound for a vertical region of interest (VROI) within a vertical field of regard of the lidar system, and (ii) an upper bound for the VROI within the vertical field of regard of the lidar system ([0078] The controllable mirror 34 is arranged to achieve a preferred Vertical Field of Regard of −10° to +60°, which mirror 34 is arranged to be controllable about its horizontal axis.),
Klepsvik fails to teach the system that bases, in part, the lower bound and the upper bound on the predicted lidar system angle for the upcoming scan
However, Englard teaches the system that bases, in part, the lower bound and the upper bound on the predicted lidar system angle for the upcoming scan ([0062] The parameter adjustment module 136 may determine a desired area of focus for a controlled sensor based on current positions of one or more dynamic objects (e.g., using the perception signals 106), and/or based on predicted/expected positions of the dynamic object(s) (e.g., using the prediction signals 122). For example, the parameter adjustment module 136 may set lidar device parameters such that the field of regard of the lidar device is centered on the current position of a dynamic object, and possibly also “zoomed in” on that object (e.g., by reducing the horizontal and vertical field of regard without necessarily reducing the number of points in each point cloud frame).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Klepsvik to comprise the boundaries based on the predictive lidar system similar to Englard, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of limiting the field of regard to the necessary region only, maintained in real-time from the surrounding environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 8:00-5:00 PST.
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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645