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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0003], “iscapable” should read “is capable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 7 both contain the phrase, “the vehicle equipped with the lidar” with no prior introduction of a vehicle. To improve clarity and align more closely with standard practices, the examiner recommends that this phrase be updated to “a vehicle equipped with the lidar”.
Appropriate correction is 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.
(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) 1-5, 10-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ingram et al. (US 20190277962 A1), hereinafter Ingram.
Regarding claim 1, Ingram teaches:
A detection method of a lidar capable of rotating around a rotating shaft at a constant speed ([0039] “As an example, the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 could include at least one substrate… The housing is configured to rotate about a rotational axis. In an example embodiment, the housing could rotate such that the light-emitting devices of LIDAR sensor(s) 120 could provide 360 degree azimuthal scanning.”; The examiner notes that the phrasing “capable of” leaves open a broad interpretation of this claim limitation and does not require that the device actually operate in a state of rotating at a constant speed. In an effort to apply the most relevant art, the examiner does not believe to have relied upon this broad interpretation, but the applicant may consider more explicit claim language if they want to ensure such an interpretation is not relied upon in the future prosecution of this application.) and
comprising an emitting unit having a plurality of laser emitters ([0078] “FIG. 3 illustrates a vehicle 300, according to an example embodiment… the one or more sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 could include LIDAR sensor units that could be similar or identical to the LIDAR sensor(s) 120. As an example, sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 could include LIDAR sensors having a plurality of light-emitter devices arranged over a range of angles with respect to a given plane (e.g., the x-y plane)”), the detection method comprising:
S101: controlling the plurality of laser emitters to emit laser beams for detection so that the lidar has a non-uniform angular resolution along a horizonal direction ([0067] “Controller 150 and/or another computing device could carry out operation 230, which includes selecting, from a plurality of sensor power configurations, a desired sensor power configuration… the LIDAR operating parameters could include at least one of: enabled LIDAR unit(s), dynamic sector angle ranges, sector-based power per light pulse, light pulse rate, or LIDAR scan rate, among other possibilities.”; [0071] “the plurality of sensor power configurations could include respective priority sectors”; [0075] “Yet further, low priority sectors could be scanned according to a lower spatial resolution as that of higher priority sectors.”);
S102: receiving echoes of the emitted laser beams for detection reflected by a target object and converting the echoes into electrical signals ([0079] “One or more of the sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 may be configured to rotate about an axis (e.g., the z-axis) perpendicular to the given plane so as to illuminate an environment around the vehicle 300 with light pulses… Based on detecting various aspects of reflected light pulses (e.g., the elapsed time of flight, polarization, etc.), information about the environment may be determined as described herein.”); and
S103: calculating a distance and/or reflectivity of the target object according to the electrical signals ([0080] “In an example embodiment, sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 may be configured to provide respective point cloud information that may relate to physical objects within the environment of the vehicle 300.” Note that point cloud information corresponds to a distance.).
Regarding claim 2, Ingram teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the step S101 comprises: controlling the plurality of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at frequencies relatively different from each other (This alternative limitation is not relied upon.);
and/or
controlling the plurality of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at frequencies relatively different in different horizontal fields of view ([0067] “Controller 150 and/or another computing device could carry out operation 230, which includes selecting, from a plurality of sensor power configurations, a desired sensor power configuration… the LIDAR operating parameters could include at least one of: enabled LIDAR unit(s), dynamic sector angle ranges, sector-based power per light pulse, light pulse rate, or LIDAR scan rate, among other possibilities.”; [0071] “Among other variations, the plurality of sensor power configurations could include respective priority sectors that could be appropriate for one or more operating contexts of the vehicle. For example, high priority sectors could correspond to spatial locations, zones, azimuthal ranges, elevation ranges, two-dimensional areas or three-dimensional volumes of greater relative interest during a given operating context of the vehicle 110.”);
and/or
controlling the plurality of laser emitters and selecting at least partially different laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at different horizontal angles (This alternative limitation is not relied upon.).
Regarding claim 3, Ingram teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of laser emitters are arranged in one or more columns along a direction of the rotating shaft ([0039] “the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 could include at least one substrate. The at least one substrate may be disposed along one or more a vertical planes. In such a scenario, the plurality of emission vectors may be defined with respect to a horizontal plane. Furthermore, as an example, the at least one substrate may be oriented vertically within a housing configured to rotate about a rotational axis, which may itself be substantially vertical.”), and
the step S101 comprises: controlling, in at least a subsection of the horizontal fields of view, laser emitters located adjacent to a central part of vertical fields of view in the one or more columns to emit the laser beams for detection at a frequency higher than that of laser emitters located adjacent to a peripheral part of the vertical fields of view ([0076] “As a further embodiment, the plurality of sensor power configurations could include directing LIDAR and/or radar sensor power toward a specific elevation range based on a change in road grade. That is, if a vehicle is traveling on level ground and comes to a rising hill, the sensor power may be directed further upward than in flat-ground driving scenarios. Likewise, if the approaching road grade is changing negatively, the sensor power may be directed further downward than in normal flat-ground driving scenarios.” Note that the consideration of shifting the “power configuration” either up or down relative to the flat-ground situation means that the flat-ground configuration is reasonably understood to have room to be directed both up and down. Thus, the flat-ground situation involves directing “lidar sensor power” towards a central part of the elevation range, with non-directed zones both above and below.).
Regarding claim 4, Ingram teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the step S101 comprises: controlling the plurality of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection in a predetermined field of view that is located in front of a vehicle and along a travel direction of the vehicle at a higher frequency than that outside the predetermined field of view ([0098] “spatial sectors facing toward the front of the vehicle 300 may be designated as high priority sectors, while spatial sectors facing the sides and rear of the vehicle 300 could be designated as low priority sectors.”),
wherein the vehicle is equipped with the lidar ([0078] “FIG. 3 illustrates a vehicle 300… the one or more sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 could include LIDAR sensor units that could be similar or identical to the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ingram teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of laser emitters are arranged in one or more columns along the direction of the rotating shaft ([0039] “the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 could include at least one substrate. The at least one substrate may be disposed along one or more a vertical planes. In such a scenario, the plurality of emission vectors may be defined with respect to a horizontal plane. Furthermore, as an example, the at least one substrate may be oriented vertically within a housing configured to rotate about a rotational axis, which may itself be substantially vertical.”), and
the detection method further comprises: receiving scene information ([0125] “Block 602 includes receiving information indicative of an operating context of a vehicle. As described elsewhere herein, the vehicle includes at least one Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensor or at least one radar sensor. Such LIDAR and radar sensors could be coupled to the vehicle.”),
wherein the step S101 further comprises: determining an expected angular resolution along a horizontal direction for a lidar point cloud according to the scene information ([0126] “Block 604 includes selecting, from a plurality of sensor power configurations, a desired sensor power configuration based on the operating context of the vehicle.”) and adjusting light emission frequency of the laser emitter ([0127] “Block 606 includes causing at least one of: the at least one LIDAR sensor to emit light pulses according to the desired sensor power configuration”; [0067] “the LIDAR operating parameters could include… light pulse rate”).
Regarding claim 10, the lidar of claim 10 is encompassed in scope by the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the lidar of claim 11 is encompassed in scope by the method of claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the lidar of claim 12 is encompassed in scope by the method of claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the lidar of claim 13 is encompassed in scope by the method of claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the lidar of claim 14 is encompassed in scope by the method of claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Ingram teaches the lidar of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control unit is adapted to: when a preset obstacle is detected, depending on the type and location of the obstacle, control the laser emitter to emit the laser beams for a next detection of the preset obstacle at a frequency different from that of a previous detection of the obstacle ([0058] “The controller 150 could carry out operation 210, which includes receiving information indicative of an operating context of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the controller 150 could receive LIDAR sensor data 202 from the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”; [0104] “Optionally or alternatively, upon determining a presence of a pedestrian in a given sector, that sector could be reprioritized (e.g., given a higher priority) to improve the likelihood of continued awareness of the pedestrian.”; [0089] “the average power per light pulse, spatial resolution, and/or pulse rate could be dynamically adjusted so efficiently direct a greater proportion of optical power toward one or more high priority sectors”; This describes a system which, for example, dynamically increases the pulse rate based on detecting a pedestrian.).
Regarding claim 16, Ingram teaches the lidar of claim 15, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control unit is adapted to: when a pedestrian or a traffic cone is detected, control the laser emitter to emit the laser beams at a higher frequency for the next detection of the obstacle ([0058] “The controller 150 could carry out operation 210, which includes receiving information indicative of an operating context of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the controller 150 could receive LIDAR sensor data 202 from the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”; [0104] “Optionally or alternatively, upon determining a presence of a pedestrian in a given sector, that sector could be reprioritized (e.g., given a higher priority) to improve the likelihood of continued awareness of the pedestrian.”; [0089] “the average power per light pulse, spatial resolution, and/or pulse rate could be dynamically adjusted so efficiently direct a greater proportion of optical power toward one or more high priority sectors”; This describes a system which, for example, dynamically increases the pulse rate based on detecting a pedestrian.).
Regarding claim 18, Ingram teaches the lidar of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches:
A system for a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body ([0078] “FIG. 3 illustrates a vehicle 300”); and
the lidar according to claim 10 (See rejection of claim 10, above.),
the lidar being installed on the vehicle body, so as to detect a target object around the vehicle body ([0078] “FIG. 3 illustrates a vehicle 300, according to an example embodiment. The vehicle 300 may include one or more sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 320, 322, 324, and 326. In some examples, the one or more sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 could include LIDAR sensor units that could be similar or identical to the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”).
Regarding claim 19, Ingram teaches the lidar of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the lidar is installed at the front of the vehicle body (FIG. 3, sensor 304 located at the front of the vehicle; [0086] “Furthermore, while certain locations and numbers of sensor systems are illustrated in FIG. 3, it will be understood that different mounting locations and/or different numbers of the various sensor systems are contemplated.”), and
a control unit of the lidar is configured to: control the plurality of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection in a predetermined field of view that is located in front of the vehicle and along a travel direction of the vehicle at a higher frequency than that outside the predetermined field of view ([0098] “As such, spatial sectors facing toward the front of the vehicle 300 may be designated as high priority sectors, while spatial sectors facing the sides and rear of the vehicle 300 could be designated as low priority sectors.”),
wherein the vehicle is equipped with the lidar ([0078] “FIG. 3 illustrates a vehicle 300, according to an example embodiment. The vehicle 300 may include one or more sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 320, 322, 324, and 326. In some examples, the one or more sensor systems 302, 304, 306, 308, and 310 could include LIDAR sensor units that could be similar or identical to the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”).
Regarding claim 20, Ingram teaches the lidar of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the lidar is installed on a roof of the vehicle body (FIG. 3, sensor 302 located at the roof of the vehicle; [0086] “Furthermore, while certain locations and numbers of sensor systems are illustrated in FIG. 3, it will be understood that different mounting locations and/or different numbers of the various sensor systems are contemplated.”),
the plurality of laser emitters are arranged in one or more columns along the direction of the rotating shaft ([0039] “the LIDAR sensor(s) 120 could include at least one substrate. The at least one substrate may be disposed along one or more a vertical planes. In such a scenario, the plurality of emission vectors may be defined with respect to a horizontal plane. Furthermore, as an example, the at least one substrate may be oriented vertically within a housing configured to rotate about a rotational axis, which may itself be substantially vertical.”),
the system further comprises a photographing unit, the photographing unit is capable of collecting images around the vehicle and determine scene information according to the images ([0128] “In some embodiments, one or more other sensors are associated with the vehicle. The one or more sensors could include at least one of: a Global Positioning System (GPS), an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), a temperature sensor, a speed sensor, a camera, or a microphone. Other types of sensors are contemplated… In such scenarios, receiving the information indicative of the operating context of the vehicle could include receiving at least a portion of the information from the one or more sensors.”), and
the control unit of the lidar communicates with the photographing unit to receive the scene information and is configured to determine an expected angular resolution along a horizontal direction for a lidar point cloud according to the scene information and adjust light emission frequency of the laser emitter ([0067] “Controller 150 and/or another computing device could carry out operation 230, which includes selecting, from a plurality of sensor power configurations, a desired sensor power configuration based on the operating context of the vehicle 110.”).
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.
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram in view of Trofymov (US 20210208281 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ingram teaches the method of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches:
Adjusting a priority sector of the lidar device based on a change in road grade ([0076] “As a further embodiment, the plurality of sensor power configurations could include directing LIDAR and/or radar sensor power toward a specific elevation range based on a change in road grade. That is, if a vehicle is traveling on level ground and comes to a rising hill, the sensor power may be directed further upward than in flat-ground driving scenarios. Likewise, if the approaching road grade is changing negatively, the sensor power may be directed further downward than in normal flat-ground driving scenarios.”).
However, while this produces a similar effect to the claimed invention in many scenarios, Ingram does not explicitly teach an adjustment based specifically on being in a downhill state, nor does Ingram discuss the optical arrangement of the lidar with sufficient detail to clarify which laser emitters are directed towards an upper or lower field of view:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when it is detected or received that the vehicle equipped with the lidar is in a downhill state, controlling laser emitters located relatively close to a lower side in at least one column of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at a higher frequency than that of laser emitters located adjacent to an upper side.
Trofymov, in the same field of lidar scanning, teaches the advantages of adjusting an area of focus when encountering an uphill or downhill state, and proposes that an area of focus may be based on the position of the horizon ([0031] “The capability to change at least the elevation angle of the field of regard can avoid scenarios in which the sensor is overly focused on the road surface just a relatively short distance ahead of the vehicle (when driving downhill), or overly focused on the sky (when driving uphill), for example.”; [0032] “Other heuristic approaches are also possible, instead of, or in addition to, the approaches described above. For example, the area of focus may be set based on the position of the horizon relative to the vehicle”).
In combination with teachings of Trofymov, the priority sectors of Ingram may be set based on the relative position of the horizon. Thus teaching:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when it is detected or received that the vehicle equipped with the lidar is in a downhill state, controlling laser emitters [directed towards the horizon, and thus in the upper region of the field of view] to emit the laser beams for detection at a higher frequency than that of laser emitters located adjacent to an upper side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the horizon-based emphasis taught by Trofymov to select a priority sector in the lidar system of Ingram, to avoid focusing lidar power towards unnecessary directions (Trofymov: [0031]).
The combination is still silent as to whether directing an increased pulse rate towards the upper region of the field of view is achieved by increasing the pulse rate of laser emitters “located relatively close to a lower side” of a laser column:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when it is detected or received that the vehicle equipped with the lidar is in a downhill state, controlling laser emitters located relatively close to a lower side in at least one column of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at a higher frequency than that of laser emitters located adjacent to an upper side.
However, this is dependent on upon a simple matter of optical design choice, i.e. whether the particular arrangement of lenses, etc. invert the vertical mapping of the light emitters to the field of view. Note that in the instant application, the activating of laser emitters located relatively close to a lower side of a column are considered to direct light to an upper portion of the vertical field of view (see, for example, FIGS. 18A-C and paragraph [0092]), producing the same result as taught by the combination. Also, the instant application does not appear to highlight the criticality of an optical arrangement that inverts the vertical mapping of the laser emitters into the field of view. Choosing an optical design arrangement which inverts the mapping of the laser emitters into the field of view would be a reasonable and predictable choice of optical engineering, and would lead the combination to teach the claimed limitation in full.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen an optical design which inverts the vertical mapping of the laser emitters into the projected field of view, as a reasonable and predictable choice within the field of optical engineering.
Regarding claim 7, Ingram teaches the method of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches:
Adjusting a priority sector of the lidar device based on a change in road grade ([0076] “As a further embodiment, the plurality of sensor power configurations could include directing LIDAR and/or radar sensor power toward a specific elevation range based on a change in road grade. That is, if a vehicle is traveling on level ground and comes to a rising hill, the sensor power may be directed further upward than in flat-ground driving scenarios. Likewise, if the approaching road grade is changing negatively, the sensor power may be directed further downward than in normal flat-ground driving scenarios.”).
However, while this produces a similar effect to the claimed invention in many scenarios, Ingram does not explicitly teach an adjustment based specifically on being in an uphill state, nor does Ingram discuss the optical arrangement of the lidar with sufficient detail to clarify which laser emitters are directed towards an upper or lower field of view:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when it is detected or received that the vehicle equipped with the lidar is in an uphill state, controlling laser emitters located adjacent to an upper side in at least one column of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at a higher frequency than that of laser emitters located adjacent to a lower side.
Trofymov, in the same field of lidar scanning, teaches the advantages of adjusting an area of focus when encountering an uphill or downhill state, and proposes that an area of focus may be based on the position of the horizon ([0031] “The capability to change at least the elevation angle of the field of regard can avoid scenarios in which the sensor is overly focused on the road surface just a relatively short distance ahead of the vehicle (when driving downhill), or overly focused on the sky (when driving uphill), for example.”; [0032] “Other heuristic approaches are also possible, instead of, or in addition to, the approaches described above. For example, the area of focus may be set based on the position of the horizon relative to the vehicle”).
In combination with teachings of Trofymov, the priority sectors of Ingram may be set based on the relative position of the horizon. Thus teaching:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when it is detected or received that the vehicle equipped with the lidar is in an uphill state, controlling laser emitters [directed towards the horizon, and thus in the lower region of the field of view] to emit the laser beams for detection at a higher frequency than that of laser emitters located adjacent to a lower side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the horizon-based emphasis taught by Trofymov to select a priority sector in the lidar system of Ingram, to avoid focusing lidar power towards unnecessary directions (Trofymov: [0031]).
The combination is still silent as to whether directing an increased pulse rate towards the upper region of the field of view is achieved by increasing the pulse rate of laser emitters “located relatively close to a lower side” of a laser column:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when it is detected or received that the vehicle equipped with the lidar is in an uphill state, controlling laser emitters located adjacent to an upper side in at least one column of laser emitters to emit the laser beams for detection at a higher frequency than that of laser emitters located adjacent to a lower side.
However, this is dependent on upon a simple matter of optical design choice, i.e. whether the particular arrangement of lenses, etc. invert the vertical mapping of the light emitters to the field of view. Note that in the instant application, the activating of laser emitters located adjacent to an upper side of a column are considered to direct light to a lower portion of the vertical field of view (see, for example, FIGS. 20A-C and paragraph [0093]), producing the same result as taught by the combination. Also, the instant application does not appear to highlight the criticality of an optical arrangement that inverts the vertical mapping of the laser emitters into the field of view. Choosing an optical design arrangement which inverts the mapping of the laser emitters into the field of view would be a reasonable and predictable choice of optical engineering, and would lead the combination to teach the claimed limitation in full.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen an optical design which inverts the vertical mapping of the laser emitters into the projected field of view, as a reasonable and predictable choice within the field of optical engineering.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram in view of Droz et al. (US 20180164439 A1), hereinafter Droz.
Regarding claim 8, Ingram teaches the method of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when a preset obstacle is detected, depending on the type and movement speed of the obstacle, controlling the laser emitter to emit the laser beams for a next detection at a frequency different from that of a previous detection of the obstacle ([0058] “The controller 150 could carry out operation 210, which includes receiving information indicative of an operating context of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the controller 150 could receive LIDAR sensor data 202 from the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”; [0104] “Optionally or alternatively, upon determining a presence of a pedestrian in a given sector, that sector could be reprioritized (e.g., given a higher priority) to improve the likelihood of continued awareness of the pedestrian.”; [0089] “the average power per light pulse, spatial resolution, and/or pulse rate could be dynamically adjusted so efficiently direct a greater proportion of optical power toward one or more high priority sectors”; This describes a system which, for example, dynamically increases the pulse rate based on detecting a pedestrian.).
Ingram does not explicitly teach that this includes consideration of the movement of the obstacle:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when a preset obstacle is detected, depending on the type and movement speed of the obstacle, controlling the laser emitter to emit the laser beams for a next detection at a frequency different from that of a previous detection of the obstacle.
Droz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method which includes tracking a particular detected object, thus including consideration of the movement speed of the obstacle, thus teaching, in combination with Ingram, the missing limitation:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when a preset obstacle is detected, depending on the type and movement speed of the obstacle (Droz: [0094] “At block 504, method 500 involves identifying a range of pointing directions of the sensor that are associated with a target region of the environment… the target region may correspond to a region where a system of method 500 decides to track a particular object (e.g., pedestrian, animal, object on an assembly line, etc.)… To that end, the identification at block 504 may involve identifying the range of pointing directions of the sensor where a FOV of the sensor (e.g., contour 404, 406, etc.) overlaps a location of the target region.”), controlling the laser emitter to emit the laser beams for a next detection at a frequency different from that of a previous detection of the obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the lidar system of Ingram with the object tracking of Droz to further improve the likelihood of continued awareness of high priority targets.
Regarding claim 9, Ingram in view of Droz teaches the method of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the step S101 comprises: when a traffic sensitive object is detected, controlling the laser emitter to emit the laser beams for the next detection at a higher frequency when the laser emitter scans the obstacle again, the traffic sensitive object comprising pedestrians or traffic cones ([0058] “The controller 150 could carry out operation 210, which includes receiving information indicative of an operating context of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the controller 150 could receive LIDAR sensor data 202 from the LIDAR sensor(s) 120.”; [0104] “Optionally or alternatively, upon determining a presence of a pedestrian in a given sector, that sector could be reprioritized (e.g., given a higher priority) to improve the likelihood of continued awareness of the pedestrian.”; [0089] “the average power per light pulse, spatial resolution, and/or pulse rate could be dynamically adjusted so efficiently direct a greater proportion of optical power toward one or more high priority sectors”; This describes a system which, for example, dynamically increases the pulse rate based on detecting a pedestrian.);
and/or
when a non-sensitive object is detected, controlling the laser emitter to emit the laser beams for the next detection at a lower frequency when the laser emitter scans the obstacle again, the non-sensitive object comprising trees (This alternative claim limitation is not relied upon.).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram in view of Diehl et al. (US 20210097303 A1), hereinafter Diehl.
Regarding claim 17, Ingram teaches the lidar of claim 15, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control unit is adapted to: when a [low priority target] is detected, control the laser emitter to emit the detection laser beams at a lower frequency for a next detection of the obstacle ([0089] “the average power per light pulse, spatial resolution, and/or pulse rate could be dynamically adjusted so efficiently direct… a lower proportion of optical power (including zero power) toward one or more low priority sectors.”).
Ingram does not explicitly teach that a tree may be considered a low priority target:
wherein the control unit is adapted to: when a tree is detected, control the laser emitter to emit the detection laser beams at a lower frequency for a next detection of the obstacle.
Diehl, in the field of lidar, teaches that a tree may be detected as a low priority target ([0051] “In some examples, the identification engine 1110 may determine an object such as a traffic light to be high priority to be increased in resolution, another object such as a moving vehicle to be medium priority to be increased in resolution, and another object such as a tree to be low priority.”).
Thus, Diehl in combination with the lidar system of Ingram, teaches the full claim limitation:
wherein the control unit is adapted to: when a tree is detected, control the laser emitter to emit the detection laser beams at a lower frequency for a next detection of the obstacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lidar system of Ingram to consider trees to be low priority targets, as taught by Diehl, to improve efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Templeton et al. (US 9983590 B2) teaches dynamic adjustment of pulse rate based on object identification.
Eichenholz (US 20200025923 A1) teaches dynamic adjustment of pulse repetition frequency for scanning ground regions ahead of the lidar with different modulations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645