DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3,6,8-21 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objection from the previously filed Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previously filed Office Action. Applicant’s amendment introduces new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, please see the rejections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks:
“Applicant submits that Adams fails to anticipate the features of claim 1 and also that Adams in view of Peterson fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the features of claim 1. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the features of claim 7 among other features.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Adams indeed discloses the claimed amended limitations. As noted in annotated Fig. 2 below, Adams discloses a vehicle body with attachment mechanisms at each corner of the vehicle for each sensor pod (i.e. 102A1, 102A3, 102B2 and 102B4) to attach the sensor pod to the vehicle. Each sensor pod here is a sensor module which include a plurality of sensors. Each sensor module (i.e. 102A1, 102A3, 102B2 and 102B4) provides “free sight” around the corner at which the sensor module is mounted. Furthermore, as noted by annotated Fig. 2 below, each sensor of the plurality of sensors in each sensor module have a common viewing angle that originates from a common axis wherein the one or more first sensors has a first viewing angle (i.e. viewing angle 228) defining a first axis and the one or more second sensors has a second viewing angle (i.e. viewing angle 224) defining a second axis such that the first axis and the second axis intersect at the common axis.
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claim language of claim 1, the sensor configuration of Adams fulfills the claimed limitations of independent claims 1 and 15. Please see the annotated diagram below for details:
PNG
media_image1.png
594
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module" in “and wherein the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module is arranged to position the first sensor module at least partly outside an occlusion zone limited by extension lines of the long sides and the short sides and wherein the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module is arranged to position the first sensor module such that the first sensor module has a free sight around the first front corner of the vehicle at which the first sensor module is mounted;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “attachment mechanism of the first sensor module” has been introduced. An “attachment mechanism” has been introduced however it is not clear whether this attachment mechanism is the same as “the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the attachment mechanism of the second sensor module" in “and wherein the attachment mechanism of the second sensor module is arranged to position the second sensor module at least partly outside the occlusion zone, and wherein the attachment mechanism of the second sensor module is arranged to position the second sensor module such that the second sensor module has a free sight around the first rear corner of the vehicle at which the second sensor module is mounted”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “attachment mechanism of the second sensor module” has been introduced. An “attachment mechanism” has been introduced however it is not clear whether this attachment mechanism is the same as “the attachment mechanism of the second sensor module".
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module" in “wherein the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module comprises a collapsible member arranged to position the first sensor module in a retracted position inside the occlusion zone or in a protracted position outside the occlusion zone.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “attachment mechanism of the first sensor module” has been introduced. An “attachment mechanism” has been introduced however it is not clear whether this attachment mechanism is the same as “the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module".
Dependent claims 2-13 are also rejected due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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) 1-3,6,8-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (US 20210339685 A1), hereinafter Adams.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses
A vehicle comprising a first sensor module and a second sensor module (see Fig. 2, first sensor module 102A1 and second sensor module 102A3, further see paragraph 0040, “FIG. 2 shows the vehicle 100 of FIG. 1 from a top down view. In the illustrated example, the vehicle 100 includes a first sensor pod assembly 102A1, a second sensor pod assembly 102B2, a third sensor pod assembly 102A3, and a fourth sensor pod assembly 102B4 (collectively “sensor pods 102”) coupled to the body 104.”) each sensor module comprising:
a rigid structure (see Fig. 8 which depicts the structure for each sensor module (i.e. “sensor pod”) where sensors are mounted onto frame 802, further see paragraph 0073, “In examples, the frame 802 may be made from different materials. For example, the frame 802 may be made from a metal (e.g., aluminum, steel, magnesium, or combinations thereof) or composite materials including carbon, Kevlar, resin, glass, or plastics. In examples, the frame 802 is made from cast aluminum or magnesium-aluminum alloy. In examples, the cast frame provides strength, rigidity, repeatability of manufacture, with a lower cost than a frame fully machined from a billet.”),
one or more first sensors of a first sensor type (see Fig. 8, further see paragraph 0069, “In examples, the first sensor 804, the second sensor 808, and the third sensor 812 are of a first type and the fourth sensor 816 and fifth sensor 820 are of a second type. In examples, the first type of sensor is an imaging sensor, for example, a camera. In examples, the second type of sensor is a lidar sensor.”), wherein the one or more first sensors are rigidly mounted at the rigid structure (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 0068, where sensors 804, 808, 812, 816 and 820 are mounted to frame 802, further see paragraph 0073 which discloses that the frame 802 has a rigid aluminum structure to provide “rigidity” and therefore the sensor are “rigidly” mounted onto the rigid frame 802, further see paragraph 0020, “In examples, the cast frame provides a rigid mount for the sensors, and spaces the sensors in the pod slightly away from the vehicle.”) such that they provide a first composed horizontal field of view around each of the first sensor module and the second sensor module (see Fig. 8, further see paragraph 0068, “In examples, the sensor pod 800 includes a first sensor 804 removably mounted to a first location 806 of the frame 802, where the first sensor 804 has a first field of view. In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a second sensor 808 having a second field of view, mounted to a second location 810 of the frame 802, where the second location 810 is orientated relative to the first location 806 to cause at least a portion of the first field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the second field of view. An example of this may be see in FIG. 2.”, where Fig. 2 discloses that the first sensor has a composite horizontal field of view 224),
one or more second sensors of a second sensor type (see Fig. 8, further see paragraph 0069, “In examples, the first sensor 804, the second sensor 808, and the third sensor 812 are of a first type and the fourth sensor 816 and fifth sensor 820 are of a second type. In examples, the first type of sensor is an imaging sensor, for example, a camera. In examples, the second type of sensor is a lidar sensor.”; NOTE: under the BRI of the claim language the “second sensor type” may be the same or a different sensor type), wherein the one or more second sensors are rigidly mounted at the rigid structure (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 0068, where sensors 804, 808, 812, 816 and 820 are mounted to frame 802, further see paragraph 0073 which discloses that the frame 802 has a rigid aluminum structure to provide “rigidity” and therefore the sensor are “rigidly” mounted onto the rigid frame 802, further see paragraph 0020, “In examples, the cast frame provides a rigid mount for the sensors, and spaces the sensors in the pod slightly away from the vehicle.”) such that they provide a second composed horizontal field of view around each of the first sensor module and the second sensor module (see Fig. 8, further see paragraph 0068, “In examples, the sensor pod 800 includes a first sensor 804 removably mounted to a first location 806 of the frame 802, where the first sensor 804 has a first field of view. In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a second sensor 808 having a second field of view, mounted to a second location 810 of the frame 802, where the second location 810 is orientated relative to the first location 806 to cause at least a portion of the first field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the second field of view. An example of this may be see in FIG. 2.”, where Fig. 2 discloses that the second sensor has a composite horizontal field of view 228), wherein a field of view of each of the first sensor module and the second sensor module is composed by the first composed horizontal field of view and the second composed horizontal field of view (see Fig. 2, where the first composite field of view 224 and the second composite field of view 228 form a combined field of view of 236),
an attachment mechanism configured to attach the rigid structure to the vehicle (see paragraph 0068, “In examples, sensor pod 800 includes a frame 802 with a mounting interface (not shown) that may mount the sensor pod 800 to a vehicle (not shown)”),
wherein a sum of the fields of view of the first sensor module and the second sensor module is at least 540 degrees (see Figs. 2 and Fig. 3, where each sensor module (i.e. each sensor pod 102A1, 102A3, 102B2, 103B4) provides at least 270 degrees field of view and therefore the sum of two sensor modules (i.e. first sensor module 102A1 and second sensor module 102A3) is at least 540 degrees, further see paragraph 0023, “In examples, a sensor pod's effective field of view is at least 270 degrees.”, further see paragraph 0055, “In examples, the sensor field of view 300 may be limited to an amount less than 360 degrees for an individual sensor. For example, the sensor field of view may be greater than 270 degrees, approximately 270 degrees, or less than 270 degrees.) and wherein the first sensor module is arranged at a first front corner of the vehicle and wherein the other sensor module is arranged at a first rear corner at an opposite side of the vehicle such that the fields of view of the first sensor module and the second sensor module together cover 360 degrees in relation to a reference point at the vehicle (see Figs. 2 and 3 which depict the arrangement of the different sensor pods 102A1, 102A3, 102B2, 103B4, where 102A1 and 102A3 are at opposite side corners of the vehicle and each provide at least 270 degree field of view coverage which sums to a 360 degree coverage around the vehicle, further see paragraph 0052, “In examples, the overlap is such that the effective system field of view of sensor pods is 360 degrees even with two of the four sensor pods active if the two active sensor pods are on opposite corners or in opposite quadrants of the vehicle.”);
wherein the vehicle comprises two long sides and two short sides (see Figs. 2 and 3 where vehicle 100 includes two long sides and two short sides of vehicle body 104), and wherein the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module (see Fig. 2, where each sensor module includes an attachment mechanism to mount it to the vehicle, further see paragraph 0068) is arranged to position the first sensor module at least partly outside an occlusion zone limited by extension lines of the long sides and the short sides (see Fig. 2, where sensor modules (i.e. sensor pods 102A1, 102A3) are mounted at least partly outside an occlusion zone limited by the extensions lines of the long sides and the short sides of vehicle body 104, further see for support paragraph 0053, “In examples, the sensor pods 102 extend from the body 104. For example, each sensor pod protrudes at least a first distance from a longitudinal end and at least second distance from a lateral side of the body 104 of the vehicle 100. In examples, the first and second distances may be the same or different. In examples, the first and second distance may be zero inches, two inches, six inches, eight inches, ten inches, twelve inches, or greater.”, further see paragraphs 0048-0049) and wherein the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module is arranged to position the first sensor module such that the first sensor module has a free sight around the first front corner of the vehicle at which the first sensor module is mounted (see Figs. 2 and Fig. 3 where sensor modules (i.e. sensor pods 102A1, 102A3) are mounted such that they have free sight around a corner of the vehicle from which the sensor module is mounted, further see for support paragraph 0053, “In examples, the sensor pods 102 extend from the body 104. For example, each sensor pod protrudes at least a first distance from a longitudinal end and at least second distance from a lateral side of the body 104 of the vehicle 100. In examples, the first and second distances may be the same or different. In examples, the first and second distance may be zero inches, two inches, six inches, eight inches, ten inches, twelve inches, or greater.”); and
wherein the attachment mechanism of the second sensor module is arranged to position the second sensor module at least partly outside the occlusion zone (see Fig. 2, where sensor modules (i.e. sensor pods 102A1, 102A3) are mounted at least partly outside an occlusion zone limited by the extensions lines of the long sides and the short sides of vehicle body 104, further see for support paragraph 0053, “In examples, the sensor pods 102 extend from the body 104. For example, each sensor pod protrudes at least a first distance from a longitudinal end and at least second distance from a lateral side of the body 104 of the vehicle 100. In examples, the first and second distances may be the same or different. In examples, the first and second distance may be zero inches, two inches, six inches, eight inches, ten inches, twelve inches, or greater.”, further see paragraphs 0048-0049), and wherein the attachment mechanism of the second sensor module is arranged to position the second sensor module such that the second sensor module has a free sight around the first rear corner of the vehicle at which the second sensor module is mounted (see Figs. 2 and Fig. 3 where sensor modules (i.e. sensor pods 102A1, 102A3) are mounted such that they have free sight around a corner of the vehicle from which the sensor module is mounted, further see for support paragraph 0053, “In examples, the sensor pods 102 extend from the body 104. For example, each sensor pod protrudes at least a first distance from a longitudinal end and at least second distance from a lateral side of the body 104 of the vehicle 100. In examples, the first and second distances may be the same or different. In examples, the first and second distance may be zero inches, two inches, six inches, eight inches, ten inches, twelve inches, or greater.”); and
wherein the one or more first sensors is mounted such that the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors of the first sensor module have a common viewing angle that originate from a common axis (see Fig. 2, where the fields of view 224 and 228 corresponding to the first and second sensors of each sensor pod have a common viewing angle as they have overlapping fields of view and these fields of view originate from “a common axis” (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the one or more first sensors has a first viewing angle defining a first axis and the one or more second sensors has a second viewing angle defining a second axis such that the first axis and the second axis intersect at the common axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below, each sensor of the plurality of sensors in each sensor module have a common viewing angle that originates from the common axis wherein the one or more first sensors has a first viewing angle (i.e. viewing angle 228) defining a first axis and the one or more second sensors has a second viewing angle (i.e. viewing angle 224) defining a second axis such that the first axis and the second axis intersect at the common axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, Adams further discloses
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the field of view of the first sensor module is an overlapping field of view covered by both the first composed horizontal field of view and the second composed horizontal field of view (see Fig 2, where the first sensor field of view 224 and the second sensor field of view 228 have overlapping fields of view and these two fields of view combine to form a combined field of view 236, further see paragraph 0068, “In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a second sensor 808 having a second field of view, mounted to a second location 810 of the frame 802, where the second location 810 is orientated relative to the first location 806 to cause at least a portion of the first field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the second field of view. An example of this may be see in FIG. 2.”).
Regarding claim 3, Adams further discloses
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein for the first sensor module and the second sensor module, the fields of view are between 240 and 300 degrees or between 260 and 280 degrees (see paragraph 0052, “In examples, the effective sensor pod field of view may be 270 degrees or greater”, further see paragraph, 0055, “In examples, the sensor field of view 300 may be limited to an amount less than 360 degrees for an individual sensor. For example, the sensor field of view may be greater than 270 degrees, approximately 270 degrees, or less than 270 degrees.”, further see paragraph 0201).
Regarding claim 6, Adams further discloses
The vehicle of claim 1, comprising a third sensor module, the third sensor module comprising a third sensor of the first sensor type and a fourth sensor of the second sensor type (paragraph 0069, “In examples, the first sensor 804, the second sensor 808, and the third sensor 812 are of a first type and the fourth sensor 816 and fifth sensor 820 are of a second type. In examples, the first type of sensor is an imaging sensor, for example, a camera.”, further see paragraph 0145, “The sensor system(s) 1412 can include multiple instances of each of these or other types of sensors. For instance, the LIDAR sensors (and/or radar sensors) can include individual LIDAR sensors (or radar sensors) located at the corners, front, back, sides, and/or top of the sensor pod platform 1402. As another example, the camera sensors can include multiple cameras disposed at various locations about the exterior and/or interior of the sensor pod platform 1402.”); and wherein the third sensor module is mounted at a third corner of the vehicle, wherein the third corner is a second front corner opposite the first front corner or a second rear corner opposite the first rear corner (see Fig. 2, third senor modules mounted at a third corner of the vehicle), and wherein a field of view of the third sensor module is overlapping the fields of view of the first sensor module and the second sensor module (see fields of view for each sensor pod in Figs. 2 and 3 where a third sensor module (i.e. 102B2) has “a third sensor” and has overlapping fields of view with sensor modules 102A1 and 102A3, further see for support paragraph 0052, “In examples, the effective sensor pod field of view may be 270 degrees or greater. In examples, the effective sensor fields of view of adjacent sensor pod assemblies overlap at a distance from the vehicle. For example, the distance may be five feet, two feet, or one foot. In examples, the distance is zero meaning the sensor fields of view overlap at the vehicle or negative meaning the sensor fields of view overlap on the vehicle. In examples, this creates an effective system field of view of sensor pods of 360 degrees allowing coverage around the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 8, Adams further discloses
The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors are rigidly mounted (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 0068, where sensors 804, 808, 812, 816 and 820 are mounted to frame 802, further see paragraph 0073 which discloses that the frame 802 has a rigid aluminum structure to provide “rigidity” and therefore the sensor are “rigidly” mounted onto the rigid frame 802, further see paragraph 0020, “In examples, the cast frame provides a rigid mount for the sensors, and spaces the sensors in the pod slightly away from the vehicle.”) at predefined positions at the rigid structure (see Fig. 8, where the sensors are mounted “pre-defined positions” on frame 804) with pre-defined accuracy (paragraph 0053, “In examples, the sensor pods 102 extend from the body 104. For example, each sensor pod protrudes at least a first distance from a longitudinal end and at least second distance from a lateral side of the body 104 of the vehicle 100. In examples, the first and second distances may be the same or different. In examples, the first and second distance may be zero inches, two inches, six inches, eight inches, ten inches, twelve inches, or greater.”, where specifying the distance in inches between the lateral side of the body and the sensor pod onto which the sensors are mounted is with a “pre-defined accuracy”).
Regarding claim 9, Adams further discloses
The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more first sensors are mounted to the rigid structure in a rotation symmetric manner in a horizontal plane (see Fig. 8 where the sensors 804 and 808 are mounted to the “rigid frame” 802 in a rotation symmetric manner in a horizontal plane, further see for support paragraph 0073 for the “rigid structure” of frame 802).
Regarding claim 10, Adams further discloses
The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a distance between the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors within the first sensor module or the second sensor module is a fraction of a distance between the first sensor module and the second senor module (see Fig. 2 where the first and second sensors are housed in the same sensor pod and the sensor pods are spaced apart at different corners of the vehicle and therefore the distance between each sensor within a sensor pod is “a fraction of the distance between two sensor pods, further see for support Fig. 8 and paragraph 0042, “In some examples, the sensor pods 102 may be spaced from each other along the first or second transverse axis by a distance 220 of 50 inches, 60 inches, or 70 inches. In some examples, the sensor pods 102 may be spaced from each other along the first or second transverse axis and stay within 2 inches of the exterior of the body 104, within 5 inches of the exterior of the body 104, within 8 inches of the exterior, within 10 inches of the exterior of the body 104, or within 12 inches of the exterior of the body 104.”).
Regarding claim 11, Adams further discloses
The vehicle according to claim 1, where the first sensor module comprises a transparent cover arranged to cover the fields of view of the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors (paragraph 0156, “In examples, the sensing surfaces may be different based on the sensors. For example, the sensing surface may include a lens, a shield, a windscreen, a casing, or a radome. In examples, the sensing surface may be an integral part of the associated sensor or a part separate from the associated sensor, and may include any material and/or medium through which an associated sensor may receive a signal indicative of the environment, and thus, may include, but is not limited to, transparent materials, translucent materials, glass, polymers, polycarbonates, and/or combinations thereof. In examples including sensor types such as RADAR, SONAR, and/or other non-optical sensor types, the sensing surface may be opaque and transmissive to signals transmitted and/or received by the sensor.”).
Regarding claim 12, Adams further discloses
The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more first sensors is mounted such that the one or more first sensors is positioned at least partly on top of the one or more second sensors (see Fig. 8 where sensor 808 is positioned “partly on top of” sensor 806, further see Fig. 1 and configuration of sensor pod 102A for support on the first sensor 106 “partly on top of” the second sensor 108).
Regarding claim 13, Adams further discloses
The vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor type and second sensor type comprise one or more of image sensors, a radar and a lidar (see paragraph 0069, “In examples, the first sensor 804, the second sensor 808, and the third sensor 812 are of a first type and the fourth sensor 816 and fifth sensor 820 are of a second type. In examples, the first type of sensor is an imaging sensor, for example, a camera. In examples, the second type of sensor is a lidar sensor.”).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 13 is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 20210339685 A1) in view of Peterson et al. (US 20160243988 A1), hereinafter Peterson.
Regarding claim 14, Adams discloses [Note: what Adams fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The vehicle according to claim 1,
Peterson discloses,
wherein the attachment mechanism of the first sensor module comprises a collapsible member (see Fig. 11 where the attachment mechanism of mirror 110 comprises “a collapsible member” where arm 122 retracts the sensor back into the mirror assembly) arranged to position the first sensor module in a retracted position inside the occlusion zone or in a protracted position outside the occlusion zone (see paragraph 0038, “For example, and with reference to FIGS. 8-13B, the camera 120 of a mirror assembly 110 extends and retracts via an extendable/retractable arm 122, such as in a similar manner as described above. However, when camera 120 is extended, it is also pivoted or adjusted about a generally vertical pivot axis to adjust its field of view to be more inboard along the side of the vehicle. This is best seen with reference to FIGS. 13A and 13B. As shown in FIG. 13A, when the camera is retracted, the camera is oriented at the mirror assembly such that its field of view is generally outboard away from the side of the vehicle so as to encompass the blind spot region at the side and rear of the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Peterson into the invention of Adams. Both Adams and Peterson are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose sensor modules including a camera sensor mounted onto a vehicle to detect objects around the vehicle. Peterson discloses the feature of using an attachment mechanism which protracts the camera sensor out using an extension arm to detect objects in blind spots (i.e. occluded areas). The combination of Adams and Peterson would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a protractible mounting arm to increase field of view coverage by sensor modules to cover occluded areas (see paragraph 0005 of Peterson).
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 20210339685 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Adams discloses [Note: what ADAMS does not explicitly disclose is strike-through]
The sensor module according to claim 15, further comprising a third sensor that is a third sensor type, wherein the third sensor has a third viewing angle defining a third axis (see Fig. 8, further see paragraph 0068, “FIG. 8 shows a sensor pod 800 without an outer shell or trim. In examples, sensor pod 800 includes a frame 802 with a mounting interface (not shown) that may mount the sensor pod 800 to a vehicle (not shown). In examples, the sensor pod 800 includes a first sensor 804 removably mounted to a first location 806 of the frame 802, where the first sensor 804 has a first field of view. In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a second sensor 808 having a second field of view, mounted to a second location 810 of the frame 802, where the second location 810 is orientated relative to the first location 806 to cause at least a portion of the first field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the second field of view. An example of this may be see in FIG. 2. In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a third sensor 812 having a third field of view, mounted to a third location 814 of the frame 802, where the third location 814 is orientated relative to the first location 806 and the second location 810 to cause at least a portion of the second field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the third field of view.”); and wherein the first sensor type is a lidar sensor, the second sensor type is an image sensor (see paragraph 0069, “In examples, the first sensor 804, the second sensor 808, and the third sensor 812 are of a first type and the fourth sensor 816 and fifth sensor 820 are of a second type. In examples, the first type of sensor is an imaging sensor, for example, a camera. In examples, the second type of sensor is a lidar sensor. In examples, the fields of view for a type of sensor may be the same or may be different. For example, the field of view of the first sensor 804 may be different from the field of view of the third sensor 812. In examples, the field of view of the third sensor 812 is the same as the field of view of the first sensor 804 rotated ninety degrees.”),
Adams further discloses,
a third sensor of a third sensor type including a radar sensor (see paragraph 0145, “The sensor system(s) 1412 can include multiple instances of each of these or other types of sensors. For instance, the LIDAR sensors (and/or radar sensors) can include individual LIDAR sensors (or radar sensors) located at the corners, front, back, sides, and/or top of the sensor pod platform 1402. As another example, the camera sensors can include multiple cameras disposed at various locations about the exterior and/or interior of the sensor pod platform 1402.”, further see for support paragraph 0019, “In examples, the sensor pod may include multiple sensors mounted to locations on the frame where each location provides the respective sensor a field of view that complements the fields of view of the other sensors in the sensor pod to create an effective field of view for each sensor pod. In examples, the sensor pod may have multiple sensor types. For example, several of the sensors may be imaging sensors, for example, cameras (e.g., RGB-cameras, monochrome cameras, intensity (grey scale) cameras, infrared cameras, ultraviolet cameras, depth cameras, stereo cameras, time-of flight (TOF) sensors, and the like), while other sensors may be ranging or distancing sensors, for example, a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, one or more ultrasonic transducers, such as a sound navigation and ranging (SONAR) sensor, or another known sensor type. Other types of sensors, such as inertial measurement sensors, and the like may additionally or alternatively be included in the sensor pods. In examples, the sensors of the same type within the sensor pod may have different and/or overlapping fields of view to provide coverage for a portion of the environment surrounding the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adams so that each sensor pod includes all three sensor types of lidar, camera and radar. Adams already discloses the feature of utilizing a sensor pod with multiple different sensors and multiple sensor types (see Fig. 8). Adams further discloses that the sensor types can include multiple different types including lidar, camera and radar with each sensor having a specified field of view. It would have been obvious to configure the sensor pod of Adams to include each of all three types of the sensor types of radar, lidar and camera as MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance the finite number of solutions are the combinations of the listed sensor modalities that can be used in the senor pod design of Adams. It would be obvious to try to incorporate a radar sensor in place of one of the multiple lidar sensors as noted in Fig. 8 and paragraph 0145 so that all three sensor modalities are stacked onto the sensor pod. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide data across multiple sensor modalities across multiple fields of view in all environmental conditions for accurate data detection.
Regarding claim 19, Adams discloses
The sensor module according to claim 18, wherein the second sensor is mounted such that the first sensor is positioned at least partly on top of the third sensor (see Fig. 8 and paragraphs 0068-0069, where sensors of different types are mounted on each sensor pod 800; where it would be obvious to arrange the sensor stack combinations so that camera is mounted on top of radar sensor, furth see paragraph 0019 for support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adams so that each sensor pod includes all three sensor types of lidar, camera and radar. Adams already discloses the feature of utilizing a sensor pod with multiple different sensors and multiple sensor types (see Fig. 8). Adams further discloses that the sensor types can include multiple different types including lidar, camera and radar with each sensor having a specified field of view. It would have been obvious to configure the sensor pod of Adams to include each of all three types of the sensor types of radar, lidar and camera as MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance the finite number of solutions are the combinations of the listed sensor modalities that can be used in the senor pod design of Adams. It would be obvious to try to incorporate a radar sensor in place of one of the multiple lidar sensors as noted in Fig. 8 and paragraph 0145 so that all three sensor modalities are stacked onto the sensor pod with the camera being mounted on top of the radar sensor. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide data across multiple sensor modalities across multiple fields of view in all environmental conditions for accurate data detection.
Regarding claim 20, Adams further discloses
The sensor module according to claim 18, wherein the second viewing angle and the third viewing angle are the same viewing angle (see paragraph 0069, “In examples, the first sensor 804, the second sensor 808, and the third sensor 812 are of a first type and the fourth sensor 816 and fifth sensor 820 are of a second type. In examples, the first type of sensor is an imaging sensor, for example, a camera. In examples, the second type of sensor is a lidar sensor. In examples, the fields of view for a type of sensor may be the same or may be different. For example, the field of view of the first sensor 804 may be different from the field of view of the third sensor 812. In examples, the field of view of the third sensor 812 is the same as the field of view of the first sensor 804 rotated ninety degrees.”).
Regarding claim 21, Adams discloses [Note: what ADAMS does not explicitly disclose is strike-through]
The sensor module according to claim 18, further comprising a fourth sensor that is the second sensor type and a fifth sensor (see Fig. 8, further see paragraph 0068, “In examples, the sensor pod 800 includes a first sensor 804 removably mounted to a first location 806 of the frame 802, where the first sensor 804 has a first field of view. In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a second sensor 808 having a second field of view, mounted to a second location 810 of the frame 802, where the second location 810 is orientated relative to the first location 806 to cause at least a portion of the first field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the second field of view. An example of this may be see in FIG. 2. In examples, the sensor pod 800 also includes a third sensor 812 having a third field of view, mounted to a third location 814 of the frame 802, where the third location 814 is orientated relative to the first location 806 and the second location 810 to cause at least a portion of the second field of view to overlap with at least a portion of the third field of view.”); and wherein the fourth sensor has a fourth viewing angle defining a fourth axis and the fifth sensor has a fifth viewing angle defining a fifth axis such that the fourth axis and the fifth axis intersect at the common axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below where each sensor of the plurality of sensors in each sensor module have a common viewing angle that originates from the common axis wherein the one or more first sensors has a first viewing angle (i.e. viewing angle 228) defining a first axis and the one or more second sensors has a second viewing angle (i.e. viewing angle 224) and these fields of view correspond to specific sensor types of the sensor pod, further see paragraphs 0068-0069 for support).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Adams further discloses,
a fifth sensor of a third sensor type including a radar sensor (see paragraph 0145, “The sensor system(s) 1412 can include multiple instances of each of these or other types of sensors. For instance, the LIDAR sensors (and/or radar sensors) can include individual LIDAR sensors (or radar sensors) located at the corners, front, back, sides, and/or top of the sensor pod platform 1402. As another example, the camera sensors can include multiple cameras disposed at various locations about the exterior and/or interior of the sensor pod platform 1402.”, further see for support paragraph 0019, “In examples, the sensor pod may include multiple sensors mounted to locations on the frame where each location provides the respective sensor a field of view that complements the fields of view of the other sensors in the sensor pod to create an effective field of view for each sensor pod. In examples, the sensor pod may have multiple sensor types. For example, several of the sensors may be imaging sensors, for example, cameras (e.g., RGB-cameras, monochrome cameras, intensity (grey scale) cameras, infrared cameras, ultraviolet cameras, depth cameras, stereo cameras, time-of flight (TOF) sensors, and the like), while other sensors may be ranging or distancing sensors, for example, a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, one or more ultrasonic transducers, such as a sound navigation and ranging (SONAR) sensor, or another known sensor type. Other types of sensors, such as inertial measurement sensors, and the like may additionally or alternatively be included in the sensor pods. In examples, the sensors of the same type within the sensor pod may have different and/or overlapping fields of view to provide coverage for a portion of the environment surrounding the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adams so that each sensor pod includes all three sensor types of lidar, camera and radar. Adams already discloses the feature of utilizing a sensor pod with multiple different sensors and multiple sensor types (see Fig. 8). Adams further discloses that the sensor types can include multiple different types including lidar, camera and radar with each sensor having a specified field of view. It would have been obvious to configure the sensor pod of Adams to include each of all three types of the sensor types of radar, lidar and camera as MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance the finite number of solutions are the combinations of the listed sensor modalities that can be used in the senor pod design of Adams. It would be obvious to try to incorporate a radar sensor in place of one of the multiple lidar sensors as noted in Fig. 8 and paragraph 0145 so that all three sensor modalities are stacked onto the sensor pod. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide data across multiple sensor modalities across multiple fields of view in all environmental conditions for accurate data detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648