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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 line 3, there appears to be a typographical error in the limitation “configured_to emit” which has an underscore line, and it is suggested to delete the underscore line between “configured” and “to” to improve clarity.
The other claims are objected due to dependency.
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.
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) 1-7 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Subasingha et al. US20210239806.
Regarding independent claim 1, Subasingha discloses, in Figures 1-8,
A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Subasingha; Fig. 1-8; LIDAR system 100), comprising: a beam steering system (Subasingha; Fig. 1; [0020] lenses/mirrors are used “to focus and direct light”; the assembly of lens 106 and 112); a light source (Subasingha; laser light emitter 102; [0030]) configured to emit outgoing light pulses that are steered by the beam steering system in accordance with a field of view of the LiDAR system; a detection system (Subasingha; the assembly of the light sensor/receiver 104, avalanche photodiode APD, transimpedance amplifier TIA, and ADC 124; [0038] refers to the APD, TIA, ADC, and supporting detection circuitry; [0030] “supporting circuitry”; [0043] “circuitry of the detector(s)”) configured to detect return pulses corresponding to the outgoing light pulses (Subasingha; Fig. 1); and a controller (Subasingha; Fig. 8; the assembly of processor 804 and memory 806; [0100]) comprising one or more processors (Subasingha; processor 804), a memory device (Subasingha; memory 806), and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory device, the processor-executable instructions comprising instructions for: obtaining an intensity of a return pulse of the detected return pulses (Subasingha; [0050] APD processes the light intensity), determining whether the intensity of the return pulse is within an intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708), based on the determination, selecting a pulse-center based method or a pulse-edge based method for measuring a time-of-flight between the return pulse and the corresponding outgoing light pulse (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”), the time-of-flight being a time lapse between a timing of the return pulse and a timing of the corresponding outgoing light pulse, and measuring the time-of-flight based on the selected method (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; calculation operation 312; [0056]).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein selecting the pulse-center based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is within the intensity threshold, and wherein selecting the pulse-edge based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is not within the intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708).
Regarding claim 3, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein selecting the pulse-center based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is not within the intensity threshold, and wherein selecting the pulse-edge based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is within the intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708).
Regarding claim 4, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the timing of the return pulse determined using the pulse-center based method is determined by finding a weighted mean of the return pulse (Subasingha; [0091] “weighted moving average”).
Regarding claim 5, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the timing of the return pulse determined using the pulse-edge based method is determined by finding a timing of an edge of the return pulse (Subasingha; Fig. 6A; [0036] “clock signals generated by the controller 116… determine the TDOA”; [0042] “receive a clock signal from the controller 116… and/or any other indication sufficient to determine a TDOA from which the detector may calculate the distance”; [0073-0074] received signal 600).
Regarding claim 6, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions comprise further instructions for: adjusting the measured time-of-flight using an intensity to distance correction table (Subasingha; Fig. 4B; calibrator 428 comprises a lookup table of experimental values that associates an offset distance 424 for corresponding unsaturated signals and saturated signals; [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the intensity to distance correction table comprises parameters (Subasingha; Fig. 4B; offset distance 424; [0067-0068]) to be adjusted when the pulse-edge based method is selected (Subasingha; Fig. 4B; calibrator 428 comprises a lookup table of experimental values that associates an offset distance 424 for corresponding unsaturated signals and saturated signals; [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Subasingha discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detection system comprises: at least one receiving lens (Subasingha; light sensor/receiver 104); a detector comprising an avalanche photo diode (APD) detector (Subasingha; avalanche photodiode APD; [0038] refers to the APD); and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) (Subasingha; ADC 124; [0038] refers to the ADC).
Regarding independent claim 10, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1, and
A method for using a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Subasingha; Fig. 1-8; LIDAR system 100), comprising: transmitting outgoing light pulses (Subasingha; laser light emitter 102; [0030]) to a beam steering system (Subasingha; Fig. 1; [0020] lenses/mirrors are used “to focus and direct light”; the assembly of lens 106 and 112) that redirects the outgoing light pulses to a field of view of the LiDAR system; detecting return pulses corresponding to the outgoing light pulses (Subasingha; the assembly of the light sensor/receiver 104, avalanche photodiode APD, transimpedance amplifier TIA, and ADC 124; [0038] refers to the APD, TIA, ADC, and supporting detection circuitry; [0030] “supporting circuitry”; [0043] “circuitry of the detector(s)”); obtaining an intensity of a return pulse of the detected return pulses (Subasingha; [0050] APD processes the light intensity); determining whether the intensity of the return pulse is within an intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708); based on the determination, selecting a pulse-center based method or a pulse-edge based method for measuring a time-of-flight between the return pulse and the corresponding outgoing light pulse (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”), the time-of-flight being a time lapse between a timing of the return pulse and a timing of the corresponding outgoing light pulse; and measuring the time-of-flight based on the selected method (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; calculation operation 312; [0056]).
Regarding claim 11, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subasingha et al. US20210239806 in view of Zhu et al. US20220035035.
Regarding claim 8, Subasingha does not disclose wherein the intensity threshold is about 8%.
Zhu teaches wherein the intensity threshold is about 8% (Zhu; [0078] “As shown in FIG. 5A in this example the threshold intensity value 535 is set at 20% of the maximum intensity 540, however one of skill in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that threshold intensity value 535 can be set at any percentage of maximum intensity 540.”; the value of 20% is about 8%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the intensity threshold as taught by Subasingha to be about 8% as taught by Zhu for the purpose of optimizing the saturated/unsaturated decision process for identifying the saturated/unsaturated characteristic of the return light pulses.
Regarding claim 17, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaChapelle US20180284275 teaches an intensity detector 818 and “In some cases, a look-up table may be used to determine the peak or center of a received pulse. As an example, if the received pulse causes the detector to saturate ( e.g., for a nearby or highly reflective target), then the peak or center of the received pulse may be determined from a look-up table rather than using a recreated or detected envelope of the pulse to determine the center.” (LaChapelle; Fig. 18; [0145]).
Subasingha et al. US20190293769 teaches a classifier 132 and “Merely estimating that the maximum magnitude of the saturated return signal 202 is half-way between the rising edge 206 and the falling edge 208 is insufficient because the sample number corresponding with the half-way point does not always correspond with the actual maximum value. As can be observed in FIG. 2B, sometimes the falling edge 208 of saturated signals may include a longer tail than a rising tail of the rising edge 206, which indicates non-Gaussian characteristics that may be introduced by highly reflective or very close objects.” (Subasingha; Fig. 1 and 2B; [0045])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 1/7/23