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 .
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 2, 5 and 7 are 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.
With regard to claim 2, the limitation “a reflectivity of a surface of the target is greater than that of other components in the Lidar” is unclear in scope, because other elements of the Lidar have not been listed. The claim could be interpreted as “a reflectivity of a surface of the target is greater than that of all other components in the Lidar”; Examiner has interpreted the claim accordingly.
With regard to claims 5 and 7, the formulas recited from the reflectivity of the target to the laser beam seem to be inconsistent. Reflectivity on the left side of each equation is conventionally a number between 0 and 1, without units, while the right side of the equation multiples quantities with units of power (PE), frequency (K1), and another frequency (K2) (all other factors multiplied together are dimensionless). Therefore a conversion factor between the left and right sides is required for consistency, or the quantity PR must represent something other than a reflectivity.
Clarification and correction of the claims are 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao et al. (US 2020/0191926). Hao discloses a LIDAR (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0015-0016]) comprising a laser transmitter (20), a laser detector (26), a target (36), and a housing (14), wherein the laser transmitter, the laser detector, and the target are all provided in the housing, and the target is configured to receive a laser beam transmitted by the laser transmitter and to reflect the laser beam to the laser detector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwangbo et al. (US 2020/022533), and further in view of Zhang et al. "Radiometric Calibration for Incidence Angle, Range and Sub-Footprint Effects on Hyperspectral LiDAR Backscatter Intensity" Remote Sensing, 2020, vol. 12, 2855. With regard to claim 2, Hao does not disclose, but Hwangbo et al. teach (Fig. 6, paras. [0021] & [0079]), that a LIDAR has a mirror plane (reflector 130a) arranged on a side surface of the housing (180); wherein a laser (110), a detector (120) are arranged within the housing (180). The configuration taught by Hwangbo et al. , specifically the mirror plane arranged on a side surface of the housing, serves to reflect the light beam reflected or scattered by an object to be detected, toward the lower portion of the housing where the detector is located. Therefore, including the configuration of mirror plane taught by Hwangbo in the LIDAR of Hao, would have been an obvious design choice depending only on positions of detectors and windows in the housing, and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the filing date of the application. Neither Hao nor Hwangbo disclose, a reflectivity of a surface of the target is greater than that of other components in the LIDAR. However, Zhang teaches in the same field of endeavor, a LIDAR system for calibrating point cloud data, using a target with a reflectance of 99% (standard reflectance panel, section 2.2.2, 3rd para.). It was typical of the art that other LIDAR components have a lower reflectance than 99%; the Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact. The high reflectance of the target enables comparison of backscattered signals at different wavelengths and angles. Therefore, one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, would reasonably want a high target reflectance such as taught by Zhang, for the target in the LIDAR of Hao as modified by Hwangbo.
With regard to claim 3, the target (36) in the LIDAR of Hao is provided at an edge of a field angle at a preset position of an inner wall (window 30) of the housing (14).
With regard to claims 4 and 6, neither Hao nor Hwangbo disclose teaches a method or a system for evaluating a point cloud quality of a LIDAR including the limitations of these claims. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches a method for evaluating point cloud quality of a LIDAR system. Specifically, the method comprises the following steps: determining an evaluation parameter based on coordinate information of the laser transmitter, a difference between a time at which the laser transmitter transmits a laser beam and a time which a laser detector receives the laser beam reflected by a target, and a reflectivity of a surface of the target (radar equation which relates a parameter (received laser power ) reflected by a target, to range and position of the target determined by time of flight (3D point cloud) and reflectance of the target, (section 2.2.1 Radar equation);
Determining a number of point clouds based on the laser beam received by the laser detector and reflected by the target (point clouds for different targets, and/or at different wavelengths) ; and
Comparing the evaluation parameter and the number of point clouds respectively with a preset evaluation parameter and a preset number of point clouds to obtain an evaluation result (evaluation parameter obtained from point cloud using a standard reference panel as target, para. 2.2.2).
The method for evaluating point cloud quality of Zhang, would have been obvious to apply to operation of the LIDAR or Hao as modified by Hwangbo, for the purpose of calibrating the target and/or LIDAR system (laser transmitter and detector); therefore one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to perform the method of Zhang with the LIDAR system of Hao as modified by Hwangbo.
With regard to claim 6, the LIDAR of Hao includes one or more processors such as microprocessor or control circuitry for processing the (point cloud) data (para. [0020]). Zhang teaches the method for evaluating point cloud quality as described above regarding claim 4. Therefore, the obtaining module, determination module and evaluation module are merely instances of the processors in Hao, programmed or designed to carry out the method of Zhang, and would have been merely routine in the art to include.
With regard to claims 5 and 7, Zhang et al. teach the limitation,
Prλ = PtλD2ρλ cos θλ 4R 2 λ ηsysλ ηatmλ (Equation 2)
wherein Pr is the received laser power, Pt is the transmitted power, D is the receiver aperture diameter, R is the range from the LIDAR system to the target, ηsysλ is the system losses, ηatmλ is the atmospherics losses. This equation corresponds to Applicant’s limitations, wherein the range is determined from the time of flight to the target, and would have been obvious to apply before the effective filing date of the application, to relate the transmitted laser power, received laser power after light is reflected from the target, and reflectivity of the target, in the method or system taught by Zhang performed by the LIDAR of Hao as modified by Hwangbo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wustefeld et al. disclose a LIDAR calibration method and system with a target in a housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645