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 .
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)(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 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pacala (US 2022/0291387 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Pacala teaches a LIDAR system ([0005] systems and methods for analyzing lidar data), comprising: a detector comprising a plurality of detector pixels configured to detect a light signal, wherein the detector pixels are arranged in a two-dimensional array ([0122]-[0123] each lidar sensor 1002 is associated with a “row” 1004 of sensor array 1000… Each row can include a complete set of sensors for generating a multi spectral pixel… Other examples can have a complete set of sensors in a 2D array as opposed to being a single row), wherein the detector is arranged such that within a detection period associated with a detection of a direct reflection of an emitted light signal ([0060] The optical receiver system detects background light 330 initially and after some time detects the laser pulse reflection 320… The detection threshold can distinguish the background light 330 from light corresponding to the laser pulse reflection 320), the detector pixels arranged in the two- dimensional array at a position different from an expected arrival position of the direct reflection of the emitted light signal are active to detect one or more external light signals not associated with the direct reflection of the emitted light signal ([0122] & Fig. 10. In addition to a lidar sensor 1002, each row of sensor array 1000 includes one or more ambient-light sensors 1006. In this example, ambient-light sensors 1006R detect red light, ambient-light sensors 1006G detect green light, and ambient-light sensors 1006B detect blue light).
Regarding Claim 21, Pacala teaches a method for operating a LIDAR system ([0005] systems and methods for analyzing lidar data), the method comprising: detecting a first light signal and a second light signal; associating the first detected light signal with a direct reflection of a light signal emitted by the LIDAR system; and assigning the second detected light signal to a light signal other than the direct reflection of the light signal emitted by the LIDAR system ([0060] The optical receiver system detects background light 330 initially and after some time detects the laser pulse reflection 320… The detection threshold can distinguish the background light 330 from light corresponding to the laser pulse reflection 320).
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 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (US 2022/0291387 A1) in view of Jo (US 2022/0268930 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Pacala teaches a LIDAR system ([0041] the scanning LIDAR system) comprising:
a detector comprising a plurality of detector pixels configured to detect a light signal, wherein the detector pixels are arranged in a two-dimensional array ([0122]-[0123] each lidar sensor 1002 is associated with a “row” 1004 of sensor array 1000… Each row can include a complete set of sensors for generating a multi spectral pixel… Other examples can have a complete set of sensors in a 2D array as opposed to being a single row);
a light emission system configured to emit a light signal into a field of view of the LIDAR system ([0041] the output beams(s) of one or more light sources… located in the LIDAR system 101 can be scanned… to illuminate a scene around the vehicle); and
one or more processors configured to associate a first detected light signal provided by a first set of detector pixels of the plurality of detector pixels with a direct reflection of the emitted light signal ([0121] & Fig. 10. Sensor array 1000 can include a number of lidar sensor 1002); and associate a second detected light signal provided by a second different set of detector pixels of the plurality of detector pixels with a light signal other than the direct reflection of the emitted light signal ([0122] & Fig. 10. In addition to a lidar sensor 1002, each row of sensor array 1000 includes one or more ambient-light sensors 1006. In this example, ambient-light sensors 1006R detect red light, ambient-light sensors 1006G detect green light, and ambient-light sensors 1006B detect blue light).
Pacala is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more processors are configured to associate the second detected light signal with a light signal from an external emitter located outside the LIDAR system.
However, Jo teaches that the one or more processors are configured to associate the second detected light signal with a light signal from an external emitter located outside the LIDAR system ([0285] the signal processing section 53 supplies, the light source position detected by the external modulated light source detection section).
Pacala and Jo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi light source detecting pixel arrays and LiDAR sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pixel array and processing system of Pacala to include the features of the pixel array and processing system of Jo with a reasonable expectation of success because both pixel arrays are designed for capturing light from multiple sources and both processing systems interpret this data. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to expand the detection capabilities of the LiDAR system to include signals from sources beyond its own emitters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that integrating Jo’s teaching of a signal processor that supplies a “light source position detected by the external modulated light source detection section” into Pacala’s multi-spectral sensor framework would yield the predictable result of a system where one or more processors are configured to associate a second detected light signal with a light signal from an external emitter located outside the LiDAR system.
Regarding Claim 12, Pacala teaches that the detector is configured to detect light signals having different wavelength, and wherein the second detected light signal comprises a wavelength different from a wavelength of the detected first light signal ([0122] & Fig. 10. In addition to a lidar sensor 1002, each row of sensor array 1000 includes one or more ambient-light sensors 1006. In this example, ambient-light sensors 1006R detect red light, ambient-light sensors 1006G detect green light, and ambient-light sensors 1006B detect blue light Examiner Note: Pacala teaches the “second detected light signal” as having 3 distinct wavelengths (RGB), therefore it is guaranteed that at least one of the three is different that the wavelength of the first light signal).
Regarding Claim 13 Pacala is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more processors are configured to determine a position of the external emitter within the field of view, using a position of the detector pixels of a second set of detector pixels within the two-dimensional array.
However, Jo teaches that the one or more processors are configured to determine a position of the external emitter within the field of view, using a position of the detector pixels of a second set of detector pixels within the two-dimensional array ([0346] a pixel position to which the point D on the object 301 is projected, Obs (u.sub.D, E.sub.1) represents a distance observed in the pixel position u.sub.D of the pixel array of the ranging unit 302 when the light source a in the position E.sub.1 emits light, Obs (u.sub.D, E.sub.2) represents a distance observed in the pixel position u.sub.D of the pixel array of the ranging unit 302 when the light source b in the position E.sub.2 emits light, Obs (u.sub.D, E.sub.3) represents a distance observed in the pixel position u.sub.D when the light source c in the position E.sub.3 emits light, |OD| represents the magnitude (distance) of a vector connecting the ranging unit 302 to the object 301).
Pacala and Jo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi light source detecting pixel arrays and LiDAR sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pixel array and processing system of Pacala to include the features of the pixel array and processing system of Jo with a reasonable expectation of success because both pixel arrays are designed for capturing light from multiple sources and both processing systems interpret this data. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enhance the spatial awareness of the sensing system by determining the precise location of external emitters within a field of view. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that integrating Jo’s teaching of mapping projected points on an object to specific pixel positions within a 2D array into Pacala’s multi-wavelength detector framework would yield the predictable result of a system configured to determine a position of an external emitter using the specific position of detector pixels within the two-dimensional array.
Regarding Claim 17, Pacala teaches that the one or more processors are configured to associate the first detected light signal with the direct reflection of the emitted light signal and the second detected light signal with the light signal other than the direct reflection of the emitted light signal during the same detection period ([0060] The optical receiver system detects background light 330 initially and after some time detects the laser pulse reflection 320… The detection threshold can distinguish the background light 330 from light corresponding to the laser pulse reflection 320).
Regarding Claim 18, Pacala teaches that one or more processors are configured to associate the second detected light signal with the light signal other than the direct reflection of the emitted light signal using a distance between a position of the detector pixels of the first set of detector pixels within the two-dimensional array and a position of the detector pixels of a second set of detector pixels within the two-dimensional array ([0124 the ambient-light sensors can be assigned to color images, and the lidar sensors assigned to lidar images. Thus, a color pixel can be correlated to a lidar pixel based on the sensors being in a same row or using a mapping table).
Regarding Claim 19, Pacala teaches that the one or more processors are configured to generate a coded signal sequence and to control the light emitting system such that the light emission system emits the light signal in accordance with the coded signal sequence ([0032] A “measurement” may include N multiple pulse trains that are emitted and detected… [0083] Ranging may also be accomplished by using a pulse train… within a pulse train, the number of pulses, the widths of the pulses, and time duration between pulses… can be chosen).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (US 2022/0291387 A1) in view of Jo (US 2022/0268930 A1) and in further view of Zoltán Tӧrӧk et al. (US 2020/0249017 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Pacala is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more processors are configured to determine one or more characteristics of the external emitter, using a change in position of the second detected light signal within the two-dimensional array, and wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a trajectory and/or a velocity and/or an acceleration of the external emitter.
However, Zoltán Tӧrӧk teaches that that the one or more processors are configured to determine one or more characteristics of the external emitter, using a change in position of the second detected light signal within the two-dimensional array ([0039] position-sensitive sensor comprising a pixel array, detecting events as changes in received light intensity, said changes in particular exceeding a defined threshold value, by means of the pixel array, identifying the target on the basis of events which correspond to light intensity changes caused by the predefined movement pattern of the target, and determining the direction to the target by means of ascertaining a position of the detected movement pattern events on the pixel array), and
wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a trajectory and/or a velocity and/or an acceleration of the external emitter ([0037] by means of constantly ascertaining the direction, target tracking of a moving target and altering an orientation of the event-based camera on the basis of the ascertained direction, in particular wherein estimating the velocity of the target is carried out in the context of the target tracking).
Pacala, Jo, and Zoltán Tӧrӧk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensing, target tracking, and multi-light source detection using pixel arrays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system of Pacala and Jo to include the event-based processing features of Zoltán Tӧrӧk. This modification would have been motivated by a desire to improve the efficiency and latency of tracking external emitters. Specifically, by adopting Zoltán Tӧrӧk’s method of detecting events as changes in light intensity at the pixel level rather than processing full image frames, the system can more rapidly determine characteristics like velocity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating Zoltán Tӧrӧk’s “position-sensitive sensor” techniques into Pacala’s “pixel array” would yield the predictable result of a system capable of real0time target tracking and characteristic determination (such as velocity) for an external emitter based on its movement pattern across the two-dimensional array.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (US 2022/0291387 A1) in view of Jo (US 2022/0268930 A1) and in further view of Niu et al. (US 2021/0164631 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Pacala is not relied upon as teaching that one or more processors are configured to control the light emitting system in accordance with the determined position of the external emitter, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to control the light emitting system such that the light emitting system does not emit a light signal towards the position of the external emitter.
However, Niu teaches that one or more processors are configured to control the light emitting system in accordance with the determined position of the external emitter, and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to control the light emitting system such that the light emitting system does not emit a light signal towards the position of the external emitter ([0055] when the vehicle equipped with the lighting system detects that other participants on the road are in a certain pixel interval of the headlamp lighting, the lighting system intelligently adjusts the lighting brightness of the pixel interval to avoid dangerous dazzling to the illuminated people, while maintaining high brightness in the space without other participants on the road).
Pacala, Jo, and Niu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of sending light signals into a scene. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system of Pacala and Jo to include the pixel-based illumination system of Niu. This modification would have been motivated by a desire to avoid sending light into certain regions of the scene. Specifically, by adopting Niu’s method of ensuring light doesn’t shoot at light emitting elements in the scene, like avoiding shooting high beams at other cars on the road, the LiDAR emitter of Pacala could be modified to avoid other LiDAR systems in the scene. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating Niu’s pixelated light source techniques into Pacala’s emitter system would yield the predictable result of avoiding interference with other LIDAR systems.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (US 2022/0291387 A1) in view of Jo (US 2022/0268930 A1) and in further view of Hilliard et al. (US 2022/0342073 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Pacala is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more processors are configured to control the light emitting system in accordance with the determined position of the external emitter, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to control the light emission system such that the light emission system emits the light signal in a direction of the position of the external emitter.
However, Hilliard teaches that the one or more processors are configured to control the light emitting system in accordance with the determined position of the external emitter ([0017] beam director 230 includes on or more mirrors… configured to move in response to control inputs), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to control the light emission system such that the light emission system emits the light signal in a direction of the position of the external emitter ([0017] a beam director 230 can direct an emitted optical signal (e.g., beam) from an optical emitter 210 to an external location… the optical signal can additionally or alternatively be reflected to another beam director… each beam director can direct one or more emitted signal and one or more reflected signals, and can direct the signals between one or more optical emitters 210, external locations 30, and/or optical detectors).
Pacala, Jo, and Hilliard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR systems and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system of Pacala and Jo to include the beam director features of Hilliard. This modification would have been motivated by a desire to enable active interaction or high-resolution tracking of specific external targets identified by the sensor array. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that integrating Hilliard’s teaching of a beam director that moves in response to control inputs to target an external location into the multi-source detection framework of Pacala and Jo would yield the predictable result of a system capable of dynamically steering its own light emission towards the precisely determined position of an identified external emitter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645