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 – 20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 2, 7, and 14 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites the limitation “the second reflective component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Given that claim 15 depends from claim 14 and introduces “a second reflective component”, it appears that the second reflective component limitation was added unintentionally to Claim 14. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, Claim 14 will be examined without the second reflective component limitation.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, they are indefinite for broadening the scope of respective claims 1 and 14. In particular, claims 1 and 14 both require actuation of the first reflective component while claims 2 and 15 only require the actuation of the first reflective component OR the second reflective component, thereby impermissibly broadening the scope of a claim from which it depends since as amended these claims no longer require actuation of the first reflective component. Appropriate correction is required. One way to address this issue would be to amend claims 1 and 14 to describe “redirecting the light beam towards an inner surface of the housing instead of the environment, using the scanning unit”.
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, they are indefinite since they include claim limitations that change the definition of the first and second portions established in claims 5 and 18. In particular, claims 5 and 18 define the first portion of the field of view (FOV) as the portion of the FOV aligned with the window and the second portion of the FOV as the portion of the FOV misaligned with the window. Claims 7 and 20 then make the definition of the second portion unclear by requiring the second portion to be aligned with at least one side of the window. By the earlier given definition, the second portion of the FOV cannot be aligned with the window as it must be only that portion of the FOV that is misaligned with the window.
Claims 16-20 are further rejected due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are directed to a configuration in which the detection unit captures only the returning light beam reflecting off the inner surface of the housing when determining the voltage value. However, short of a repetition of the claim language in the specification, there is no description of how a LIDAR system would be configured to limit receipt of captured light to only the light beam reflecting off of the inner surface of the housing.
For example, the specification does not describe a light blocking cover that would be applied over the housing window during a calibration or any kind of internal light blocking configuration but instead just makes a brief statement in [0012] that the window “generally provides cover to internal components of the LIDAR system from other environmental light sources” without offering any explanation as to how the detection unit (internal component) would receive light reflected off an inner surface of the LIDAR housing without also capturing ambient light or perhaps even previously emitted light pulses entering through the window of the LIDAR housing.
While it’s clear that configuring the LIDAR system so that the calibration process could be performed without being interfered with by stray light other than the pulse or pulses being intentionally directed toward the inner surface of the housing could be advantageous, this claimed subject matter was not described in the specification in a way so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. If Applicant disagrees, they are encouraged to identify the portion(s) of the specification that demonstrate possession of this feature of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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, 3, 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 20200249324 (hereinafter Steinberg).
Regarding Claim 1 Steinberg teaches:
A method of calibrating a Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, the LIDAR system mounted to a Self-driving car (SDC) (110, see FIG. 1A showing LIDAR system 100 mounted to vehicle 110) operating in an environment, the LIDAR system (802, see [0217] describing similarities between LIDAR system 100 and LIDAR system 802) having a light source (812), a scanning unit (deflector 814), a detection unit (806), and a housing (AA, see marked up FIG. 8A below), the scanning unit including a first reflective component (814) for spreading a light beam (813) from the light source along a first axis; the scanning unit and the detection unit (806) being located inside the housing, the housing having a window (BB, see marked up FIG. 8A below) towards the environment and providing cover for the scanning unit and the detection unit from environmental light sources;
during operation of the LIDAR system:
actuating the first reflective component (814) for redirecting the light beam (see light beam 852 reflecting off an internal surface of housing AA & reference [0217] describing actuation of 814) towards an inner surface (CC, see marked up FIG. 8A below) of the housing instead of the environment;
determining, by the detection unit (a first region of 806 corresponding to the area indicated by outer boundary 877 as shown in FIG. 8C), a voltage value in response to capturing a returning light beam (854, FIG. 8C shows how calibration sensor 887 and/or 888 can be incorporated into a peripheral region of sensor 806), the returning light beam (854) being the light beam (852) reflected by the inner surface (CC) of the housing (BB) instead of being an other light beam coming from the environment;
calibrating the detection unit (806) based on a difference between the voltage value and a baseline voltage value, the baseline voltage value being a given voltage value that a calibrated detection unit determines when the returning light beam is returning from the inner surface of the housing ([0241], describes using a stored previous response of first region 887 of 806 and corresponding stored response of second region within outer boundary 877 of 806 in a known lighting condition as a basis for calibration of detection unit 806 in light of current response of first region 887 of 806. The described correction factors would be based on a difference between the current response and the stored response(s)).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detection unit captures only the returning light beam coming from the inner surface of the housing when determining the voltage value (FIG. 8C shows how the first region 887 or 888 of sensor 806 is outside the central second region of sensor 806 that captures the pulses reflected off detected objects external to the LIDAR sensor, thereby preventing receipt of pulses reflected off detected objects arriving in the first region of sensor 806. In this way, Steinberg appears to be more efficient at isolating externally reflected pulses from the calibration measurement since the instant application in FIG. 5 appears to instead break the incoming pathway for reflected pulses, which could result in incoming pulses being reflected off interior walls of the LIDAR enclosure and possibly detected during calibration. Neither Steinberg or the instant application appear to show a manner in which the ambient light could be entirely prevented from being detected during the calibration. See 35 USC 112(a) lack of written description rejection above for more on this).
Regarding Claim 8, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the calibrating comprises:
applying a reverse bias voltage ([0233] describes that the sensor (i.e. detection unit) can be formed from avalanche photodiodes, which are well known to be calibrated for sensitivity using a reverse bias voltage) onto the detection unit, a value of the reverse bias voltage being based on the difference between the voltage value and the baseline voltage value.
Regarding Claim 9, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises generating, by the detection unit, an analog signal representative of the returning light beam ([0233] describes the detection unit as being formed from APDs, which when operating as LIDAR sensors by default generate analog signal representations of any light they detect), the calibrating comprising:
modifying the analog signal based on the difference between the voltage value and the baseline voltage value (As described above with regards to claim 1, the recalibration would be based on the difference between the voltage value and the baseline voltage value. Changes made to the sensor during the recalibration of the detection unit would also modify the analog signal output of the APDs. Consequently, the resulting modification to the analog signal would also be based on the difference between the voltage value and baseline voltage value).
Regarding Claim 12, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is operating during operation of the SDC ([0237] describes how calibration can be performed at any time during operation of the LIDAR system & [0203] states that any of the embodiments described in Steinberg can be disposed on various platform types including the vehicle-based LIDAR platform system 100)
Regarding Claim 13, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detection unit comprises one or more photodiodes (FIG. 8C show sensor 806 including a grid of sensor elements and [0233] states sensor 806 can take the form of a SiPM including a group of avalanche type photodiodes).
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 2, 4-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of US PG Pub 20200025928 (hereinafter Gaalema).
Regarding Claim 2, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, (814) (852) towards the inner surface of the housing (AA) instead of the environment.
Steinberg fails to specifically teach where the scan unit includes a second reflective component and instead shows a configuration in which a single reflective component is responsible for moving emitted light along multiple axes.
However, Gaalema teaches a scanner 120 that includes multiple reflective components (mirrors 300-1 and 300-2 as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4) where both reflective components cooperatively rotate in independent axes to generate a two dimensional scan pattern.
Galeema and Steinberg both describe LIDAR systems using at least one mirror to output light from a LIDAR housing in a two dimensional scan pattern and are thus analogous art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Galeema described above with those of Steinberg to modify the single reflective component scanner configuration taught by Steinberg to implement rotation of two discrete reflective components in horizontal and vertical axes since the person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the known improvement of the multi-mirror assembly described in Galeema applying a known technique to a known base device, the multi-axis single mirror assembly described in Steinberg. According to Galeema, a LIDAR scanner may use either one or two rotating mirrors (see [0031] discussing scanner 120 using one or more mirrors). Using one or the other is simply a design choice with tradeoffs. Using two rotating reflective components provides the advantage of easier control of 2D scanning independently and hence more flexibility in directing the laser beam.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first reflective component is a pivotable reflective component (300-1, as shown in FIG. 4 of Gaalema is a spinning polygonal mirror), the actuating comprising:
pivoting the pivotable reflective component to a position in which the light beam is redirected towards the inner surface of the housing instead of the second reflective component (Steinberg in FIG. 8A shows the use of a pivotable reflector 814 to divert a portion of the light being emitted from the LIDAR housing toward an interior surface of the housing).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second reflective component is a rotatable multifaceted reflective component (see mirror 300-1 as shown in FIG. 4) spreading the light beam along a Field of View (FOV), the FOV having (i) a first portion aligned with the window of the housing for scanning the environment, and (ii) a second portion misaligned with the window (FIG. 8A of Steinberg shows how a first portion of the light beam 813 is emitted through the window (BB) and a second portion 852 reflects off a interior facing surface of the housing adjacent to the window),
the actuating comprising:
rotating the rotatable multifaceted reflective component so that the light beam is redirected along the second portion of the FOV and towards the inner surface of the housing instead of the window (FIG. 8A of Steinberg shows a reflective component directs a first portion of light beam 813 through the window (BB) and a second portion 852 toward an interior facing surface of the housing adjacent to the window),.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 5 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the first portion is useful for detecting an object in the environment ([0217] describing illumination of LIDAR FOV 820) and the second portion is useful for the calibrating the detection unit instead of the detecting the object (FIG. 8A, 8C and [0222] of Steinberg describe how light 854 reflected off the interior surface (CC) of the housing (AA) is collected by a sensor 806 to calibrate parameters associated with operation of sensor 806).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 5 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the second portion of the FOV is aligned with the housing on at least one side of the window (FIG. 8A shows light ray 852 incident to just one side of window BB, which is interpreted such that FOV 820 is the first portion of the FOV and light ray 852 represents at least a part of the second portion of the FOV, which is only misaligned on one side of window BB).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first axis is orthogonal to the second axis (FIG. 3 of Gaalema shows a multi-reflector scanner configuration in which a first portion of output beam 125 between mirrors 300-1 and 300-2 is orthogonal to a second portion of output beam 125 between mirror 300-1 and target 130).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first reflective component horizontally spreads the light beam and the second reflective component vertically spreads the light beam (FIG. 3 of Gaalema shows a multi-reflector scanner configuration in which reflective component 300-2 verticaly spreads the light beam and reflective component 300-1 horizontally spreads the light beam).
Claims 14-20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-7.
Conclusion
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 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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