DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1 – 28 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1- 9, 13 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US9383753 (hereinafter Templeton).
Regarding Claim 1, Templeton teaches a method of using lidar, the method comprising:
using a lidar device on a vehicle to collect point cloud data for a surrounding environment (FIG. 5A and Col 20 lines 7 - 11 describe a LIDAR device scanning at a first rate under a pulse rate limit to generate a 3-D point cloud) ;
determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained for a region of interest (ROI) in the environment (Col 20 lines 11-14 describes that a processor-based perception system identifies region(s) for enhanced resolution examination); and
in response to the determination, collecting enhanced point cloud data by at least one of:
increasing a density of point cloud measurements within the ROI (Col 20 lines 14 - 16 describe increasing the pulse rate above the maximum sustained pulse rate while scanning the identified regions); or
moving a field of view (FOV) for the lidar device according to the ROI.
Regarding Claim 2, Templeton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises: detecting an object in the surrounding environment based on the point cloud data (Col 30 lines 1-4 describes selecting regions of a scanning zone for enhanced resolution scanning based on the indication of unidentified reflective features); and
determining that the point cloud data is insufficient to characterize or classify the object, and wherein the method further comprises using the enhanced point cloud data to characterize or classify the object (Col 30 lines 4 - 7 describe performing enhanced resolution scans to identify the unidentified reflective features).
Regarding Claim 3, Templeton teaches the method of claim 2, wherein detecting the object comprises detecting a presence of the object without identifying the object (Col 30 lines 1-4 describes detecting unidentified reflective features).
Regarding Claim 4, Templeton teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the point cloud data is insufficient comprises determining that the object is unidentified (Col 30 lines 1-4 describes selecting regions of a scanning zone for enhanced resolution scanning based on the indication of unidentified reflective features).
Regarding Claim 5, Templeton teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the point cloud data is insufficient comprises determining that the point cloud data is insufficient to determine at least one of a boundary of the object, a velocity of the object, or an orientation of the object (Col 17 lines 40 describes how object identification is required to identifying a bounding box associated with an object).
Regarding Claim 6, Templeton teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the point cloud data is insufficient comprises determining that the object is unable to be classified to a threshold level of confidence (Col 17 lines 36-39 describes an object detector that uses confidence thresholds for classifying suspected objects… in the context of the specification a failure to reach a threshold level of confidence would leave the object unable to be classified).
Regarding Claim 7, Templeton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises increasing the density of point cloud measurements within the ROI, and wherein increasing the density of point cloud measurements comprises increasing a rate at which a transmitter in the lidar device emits optical signals toward the ROI (Col 20 lines 14 - 16 describe increasing the pulse rate above the maximum sustained pulse rate while scanning the identified regions. Identified regions correspond to the ROI).
Regarding Claim 8, Templeton teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the increased rate is limited to the ROI (Col 20 lines 14-18 describing how the pulse rate of the LIDAR device is temporarily increased beyond its maximum sustained pulse rate while the LIDAR device scans the identified regions and then decreased outside the identified regions to allow the LIDAR device to thermally regulate).
Regarding Claim 9, Templeton teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the FOV comprises a width and a height, and wherein the increased rate is limited to a portion of the width and a portion of the height (Col 20 lines 14-18 describing how the pulse rate of the LIDAR device is temporarily increased beyond its maximum sustained pulse rate while the LIDAR device scans the identified regions and then decreased outside the identified regions to allow the LIDAR device to thermally regulate).
Regarding Claim 13, Templeton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein collecting enhanced point cloud data for the object comprises selecting an operating mode for the lidar device based on at least one of: a preferred point cloud resolution for the ROI, a preferred point cloud resolution for regions outside the ROI, a distance between the lidar device and the object (Col 27 line 66 to Col 28 line 2 describes transitioning to enhanced angular resolutions when detecting features beyond a threshold distance), a preferred FOV size, a preferred FOV height, a preferred FOV width, a preferred FOV position, a determination that at least a portion of the ROI falls outside the FOV, a determination that the FOV encompasses regions that are not of interest, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claims 25-26, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-2.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of US20180284276 (hereinafter Campbell1).
Regarding Claim 10, Templeton teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the method comprises moving the field of view (FOV) for the lidar device according to the ROI.
However, Campbell1 teaches wherein the method comprises moving the field of view (FOV) for the lidar device according to the ROI ([0129] describes applying an equal offset to the minimum and maximum horizontal scan angles to effectively shift the field of regard of the lidar system to the left or right, [0130] explains that the field of regard is modified only temporarily before returning to an original scan pattern).
Templeton and Campbell1 are analogous art as both relate to modifying LIDAR scan patterns to provide additional detail regarding a detected object of interest. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of Carlton with Templeton by improving the design of Templeton by allowing for shifting of the sensors scan patterns to cover a greater area around the vehicle and thereby improve safety.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Templeton and Campbell1 teaches the method of claim 10, wherein moving the FOV comprises translating a center of the FOV toward the ROI ([0130] of Campbell1 describes how a scan pattern emitted by a vehicle going up an incline would shift the field of regard up, which would shift a center of the scan toward the ROI).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Templeton and Campbell1 teaches the method of claim 10, wherein moving the FOV comprises translating the FOV up or down ([0130] of Campbell1 describes how the scan pattern can be shifted upward so that the vehicle can “look” up).
Regarding Claim 27, it is rejected for the same reason as Claim 10.
Claims 14-18, 20, 22 - 23 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of US9869754 (hereinafter Campbell2).
Regarding Claim 14, Templeton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises increasing the density of point cloud measurements within the ROI (Col 20 lines 14 - 16 describe increasing the pulse rate above the maximum sustained pulse rate while scanning the identified regions), but fails to teach wherein increasing the density of point cloud measurements comprises decreasing the FOV for the lidar device.
However, Campbell2 teaches wherein increasing the density of point cloud measurements comprises decreasing the FOV for the lidar device (see FIG 10 below and Col 22, lines 54 - 60 describing a scan 200 with lower density pixels followed by a scan 800 with higher density pixels and a smaller field of view).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Templeton and Campbell2 are analogous art as the both relate to modifying LIDAR scan patterns to provide additional detail regarding a detected object of interest. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve Templeton with the teachings of Campbell2 by implementing sequential full and narrower field of view targeted scans in order to further reduce the thermal loading issues identified in Templeton (Col 6 lines 1-5 describe a LIDAR having a maximum sustained pulse rate to maintain thermally stable device operations).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teach the method of claim 14, wherein the determination that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained is based on at least one of a velocity or a location for the vehicle (Col. 6 lines 46 – 54 of Templeton describe increasing refresh rate at high rates of speed and Col 27 line 66 to Col 28 line 2 of Templeton describes transitioning to enhanced angular resolutions when detecting features beyond a threshold distance).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teach the method of claim 15, wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining the velocity based on a signal from a speedometer or a vehicle control system for the vehicle (Col 8 lines 26-32 describes the vehicle including GPS and wheel speed sensors used to determine when high rates of speed are experienced).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teach the method of claim 15, wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining that the velocity has increased (Col. 6 lines 46 – 54 of Templeton describe increasing refresh rate at high rates of speed).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teach the method of claim 15, wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining that the velocity is greater than a threshold value (Col. 6 lines 46 – 54 of Templeton describes varying refresh rate of the lidar sensor based on increased speeds. Increasing a velocity of a vehicle would result in a threshold speed being exceeded and a change in point cloud data resolution would be instituted).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 the method of claim 15, wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining that the location has moved from a slow-speed environment to a high-speed environment (Col. 6 lines 46 - 54 of Templeton describe varying refresh rate based on changes in rate of speed).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teaches the method of claim 14, wherein decreasing the FOV comprises decreasing at least one of an azimuth angle or an elevation angle (Col 21 line 66 - Col 22 line 3 of Campbell2 describe moving from 50 x 10 degrees to 2 x 1 degree targeted field of regard).
Regarding Claim 23, the method of claim 14, wherein decreasing the FOV comprises decreasing a spacing between data points in the point cloud (Col 17 lines 13-15 of Campbell2 describes dynamically varying an angle separating two successive points from one scan to a subsequent scan (e.g. scans 200 and 800)).
Regarding Claim 28, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 14.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of Campbell2 and further in view of US20170168146 (hereinafter Boehmke).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teaches the method of claim 15. While Templeton describes using enhanced point cloud data at high speeds, it does not specifically teach wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining that the location is on a highway.
However, Boehmke teaches wherein determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining that the location is on a highway ([0034] of Boehmke describes how a LIDAR configuration module 135 can dynamically narrow the FOV and that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines specify road geometries make decreased field of view suitable).
Templeton, Campbell2 and Boehmke are analogous art as they all relate to modifying LIDAR scan patterns to provide additional detail regarding detected objects of interest. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 with the teachings of Boehmke by implementing logic to provide enhanced point cloud data for highway driving. Paragraph [0034] of Boehmke describes how adjusting the scan volume is beneficial due to the narrower geometries of highways that make narrower fields of view good for the highway environment.
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Templeton in view of Campbell2 and further in view of US20180164439 (hereinafter Droz).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 teach the method of claim 15. Templeton describes the vehicle including a GPS but fails to describe determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining the location using a global positioning system.
However, Droz describes determining that enhanced point cloud data should be obtained comprises determining the location using a global positioning system ([0099] describes where target region is based on reporting from an external system, which leaves the target region identification up to navigation/pathing system 348 of the vehicle, [0074] describes navigation/pathing system 348 capable of fusing GPS 326 and LIDAR unit 332).
Templeton, Campbell2 and Droz are analogous art as they all relate to modifying LIDAR scan patterns/parameters to provide additional detail regarding detected objects of interest. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve the combination of Templeton and Campbell2 with the teachings of Droz to incorporate GPS queueing that helps identify hazards detected by off-board sensors / systems.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Templeton, Campbell2 and Droz teaches the method of claim 14 but fails to specifically mention decreasing the FOV comprises maintaining a rate at which optical signals are sent from the lidar device into the surrounding environment ([0042] of Droz describes how slowing a scan rate of a LIDAR (30 vs 15 Hz) while maintaining the same rate of pulse emissions results in a higher angular resolution).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, the NPL reference “Requirements for Automotive LIDAR Systems” by Dai et al, (see pages 10-12) describes how classification and confidence scores are used with LIDAR systems and in particular how they rely on varying minimum resolution in order to classify various objects depending on their size / orientation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 6:30pm 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 5712703603. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645