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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2023, 09/12/2023, and 02/10/2026 are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “based channel” should read “baseline channel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “encoder/decoder processing agent” in claims 1-3, 10, and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mirror motor galvanometer" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the rotatable polygon mirror" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the data pre-processor" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the galvanometer mirror" in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the polygon mirror" in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 4, 8, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland (US 2014/0340487 A1) in view of Van der Auwera (US 2021/0326734 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gilliland discloses a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system ([0007]: “A modular ladar sensor employs a receiver module within housing.) having data encoding ([0055]: “FIG. 11 is a tabular representation of a file format 248 which may be used to facilitate multi-camera 3-D productions which allow for 3-D computer modeling of a solid object to be constructed with a minimum of difficulty.”) and compression ([0035]: “If a lossless compression is used on the 3D data frame, a 2:1 compression may be realized, enabling frame rates of up to 40 Hz”), comprising:
a laser source couples to supply a plurality of light pulses to an optical steering system ([0027]: “The modular ladar sensor may include a system control processor with frequency reference and inertial reference, a system memory, a pulsed laser transmitter, transmit optics,”), wherein the optical steering system directs the plurality of light pulses in accordance with a field of view (FOV) ([0031]: “ An array of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers provides pulsed illuminating energy to a scene in the field of view at an eye-safe wavelength.”);
an optical detector coupled to receive return light pulses of one or more objects in the respective path of one or more of the plurality of light pulses within the FOV to generate detection data ([0007]: “A two dimensional array of light sensitive detectors is positioned at a focal plane of the lens assembly,”; [0025]: “ Each of the light sensitive detectors has an output producing an electrical response signal from a reflected portion of the laser light output. The electrical response signals are connected to a readout integrated circuit with a corresponding array of unit cell electrical circuits.”); and
an encoder/decoder processing agent coupled to transform detection data into raw data and to configure output data ([0045]: “Control processor 122, data reduction processor 140, and object tracking processor 158 each have an associated memory for storing programs, data, constants, and the results of operations and calculations.”; [0055]: “FIG. 11 is a tabular representation of a file format 248 which may be used to facilitate multi-camera 3-D productions which allow for 3-D computer modeling of a solid object to be constructed with a minimum of difficulty.”;), based on the raw data ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture”), trigger data ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture”), encoder data ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.”), and time synchronization data ([0052]: “The master control console 46 then is able to synchronize the real time clock on camera module 3 (38) in the same manner as described with respect to camera module 1 (12), by polling the real time clock 207 of camera module 3 (38) and making error measurements and adjustments until the real time clock 207 error is within acceptable limits.” The synchronization data is used to align measurements with a real time clock, and therefore the output data is configured based on the synchronization data.) , and wherein the output data are in a compressed format ([0035]: “If a lossless compression is used on the 3D data frame, a 2:1 compression may be realized, enabling frame rates of up to 40 Hz”)
wherein the optical steering system couples to provide the encoder data generated by position encoders ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.”).
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach including a data set of one baseline channel data encoded using absolute angle positions and one or more data sets of additional channels data encoded using differential angle positions with respect to the absolute angle positions of the baseline channel ([0036]: “The G-PCC encoder may encode angles between the laser beams in a high-level syntax structure.”; [0040]: “For example, this disclosure describes a method of decoding point cloud data in which a G-PCC decoder obtains a first laser angle, obtains a second laser angle, and obtains a laser angle difference for a third laser angle.”);
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 system of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to use an encoder/decoder which encodes one channel with absolute angle and other channels with a difference angle. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Increased coding efficiency can yield benefits to the end user including faster I/O times and/or decreased memory usage, both of which are desirable characteristics when dealing with large LiDAR data sets.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland further discloses wherein the data pre-processor is configured to generate the trigger data based on a system clock internal to the LiDAR system ([0044]: “The circuit assembly provides support circuitry which supplies conditioned power, a reference clock signal, calibration constants, and selection inputs for the readout column and row, among other support functions, while receiving and registering range and intensity outputs from the readout integrated circuit 132 for the individual elements of the detector array 130.”).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland further discloses wherein the time synchronization data comprises one or more segments (This is inherent in any computerized representation of data – it must comprise at least one unit of a given data type), the time synchronization data representing differences between a system clock internal to the LiDAR system and an external clock time ([0052]: “The master control console 46 then is able to synchronize the real time clock on camera module 3 (38) in the same manner as described with respect to camera module 1 (12), by polling the real time clock 207 of camera module 3 (38) and making error measurements and adjustments until the real time clock 207 error is within acceptable limits.” The synchronization data represents a difference between an external master clock and a real time clock within the camera itself.).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland further discloses wherein the encoder/decoder processing agent comprises:
a receiver couples to receive data associated with the return light signals from the optical detector ([0042]: “Given digital representations of the image frames, the same task may be handled in software/firmware by a capable embedded processor such as data reduction processor 140.”; [0045]: “The digital outputs 138 of the A/D converters 136 connect to the inputs of the data reduction processor 140.”), wherein the receiver facilities generating the raw data ([0046]: “Bus 152 is also used to pass uncorrected digital range representations to data reduction processor 140. Data reduction processor 140 refines the nominal range data and adjusts each pixel intensity data developed from the digitized analog samples received from A/D converters 136, and outputs a full image frame via unidirectional data bus 146 to frame memory 148,”);
and an encoder/decoder engine coupled to the receiver to decode the data associated with the return light signals and to compress the data for configuring the output data ([0035]: “lossless compression is used on the 3D data frame, a 2:1 compression may be realized, enabling frame rates of up to 40 Hz, while still accommodating a camera control uplink signal from master control console 46.”; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 10, Gilliland further discloses wherein the encoder/decoder processing agent further comprising: a data pre-processor coupled to the receiver and configured to perform data filtering and initial encoding ([0045]; [0046]: “Data reduction processor 140 refines the nominal range data and adjusts each pixel intensity data developed from the digitized analog samples received from A/D converters 136, and outputs a full image frame via unidirectional data bus 146 to frame memory 148”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 10, Gilliland discloses the encoder compression engine being configured to configure the output data in a compressed format ([0035]: “If a lossless compression is used on the 3D data frame, a 2:1 compression may be realized, enabling frame rates of up to 40 Hz”)
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach wherein the encoder/decoder engine comprises: a decoder; and an encoder compression engine coupled to the decoder ([0057]: “Each of G-PCC encoder 200 and G-PCC decoder 300 may be included in one or more encoders or decoders, either of which may be integrated as part of a combined encoder/decoder (CODEC) in a respective device. A device including G-PCC encoder 200 and/or G-PCC decoder 300 may comprise one or more integrated circuits, microprocessors, and/or other types of devices.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a coupled encoder/decoder system into the system of Gilliland according to the teaching of Van der Auwera. Coupled encoder/decoder systems allow for increased flexibility of LiDAR systems since they allow for data to be encoded or decoded nearly simultaneously, and increase efficiency by sharing some of the same circuitry.
Regarding Claim 14, Gilliland discloses a method of performing data encoding and compression for a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning system ([0007]: “A modular ladar sensor employs a receiver module within housing.), comprising:
receiving detection data from an optical detector of the LiDAR scanning system, wherein the detection data is associated with return light pulses reflected by one or more objects in the FOV ([0007]: “A two dimensional array of light sensitive detectors is positioned at a focal plane of the lens assembly,”; [0025]: “ Each of the light sensitive detectors has an output producing an electrical response signal from a reflected portion of the laser light output. The electrical response signals are connected to a readout integrated circuit with a corresponding array of unit cell electrical circuits.”);
receiving encoder data from an optical steering system, wherein the encoder data are generated by position encoders associated with the optical steering system ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.”);
decoding the detection data into raw data ([0045]: “Control processor 122, data reduction processor 140, and object tracking processor 158 each have an associated memory for storing programs, data, constants, and the results of operations and calculations.”; [0055]: “FIG. 11 is a tabular representation of a file format 248 which may be used to facilitate multi-camera 3-D productions which allow for 3-D computer modeling of a solid object to be constructed with a minimum of difficulty.”;); and
configuring output data from the ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture”), trigger data ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture”), encoder data ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.”), and time synchronization data ([0052]: “The master control console 46 then is able to synchronize the real time clock on camera module 3 (38) in the same manner as described with respect to camera module 1 (12), by polling the real time clock 207 of camera module 3 (38) and making error measurements and adjustments until the real time clock 207 error is within acceptable limits.” The synchronization data is used to align measurements with a real time clock, and therefore the output data is configured based on the synchronization data.), wherein the output data are in a compressed format ([0035]: “If a lossless compression is used on the 3D data frame, a 2:1 compression may be realized, enabling frame rates of up to 40 Hz”).
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach including a data set of one baseline channel data encoded using absolute angle positions and one or more data sets of additional channels data encoded using differential angle positions with respect to the absolute angle positions of the baseline channel ([0036]: “The G-PCC encoder may encode angles between the laser beams in a high-level syntax structure.”; [0040]: “For example, this disclosure describes a method of decoding point cloud data in which a G-PCC decoder obtains a first laser angle, obtains a second laser angle, and obtains a laser angle difference for a third laser angle.”);
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to use an encoder/decoder which encodes one channel with absolute angle and other channels with a difference angle. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Increased coding efficiency can yield benefits to the end user including faster I/O times and/or decreased memory usage, both of which are desirable characteristics when dealing with large LiDAR data sets.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera, and further in view of Dussan (US 2016/0047903 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Gilliland discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions ([0039]) for performing a method of data encoding and compression for a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning system ([0007]: “A modular ladar sensor employs a receiver module within housing.) comprising one or more processors and memory, the instruction being stored in the memory, when executed, causing the one or more processors to perform ([0039]):
receiving detection data associated from an optical detector of the LiDAR scanning system, wherein the detection data is associated with return light pulses reflected by one or more objects in the FOV ([0007]: “A two dimensional array of light sensitive detectors is positioned at a focal plane of the lens assembly,”; [0025]: “ Each of the light sensitive detectors has an output producing an electrical response signal from a reflected portion of the laser light output. The electrical response signals are connected to a readout integrated circuit with a corresponding array of unit cell electrical circuits.”);
receiving encoder data from an optical steering system, wherein the encoder data are generated by position encoders associated with the optical steering system ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.”);
decoding the detection data into raw data ([0045]: “Control processor 122, data reduction processor 140, and object tracking processor 158 each have an associated memory for storing programs, data, constants, and the results of operations and calculations.”; [0055]: “FIG. 11 is a tabular representation of a file format 248 which may be used to facilitate multi-camera 3-D productions which allow for 3-D computer modeling of a solid object to be constructed with a minimum of difficulty.”;);
configuring output data from the ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture”), trigger data ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture”), encoder data ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.”), and time synchronization data ([0052]: “The master control console 46 then is able to synchronize the real time clock on camera module 3 (38) in the same manner as described with respect to camera module 1 (12), by polling the real time clock 207 of camera module 3 (38) and making error measurements and adjustments until the real time clock 207 error is within acceptable limits.” The synchronization data is used to align measurements with a real time clock, and therefore the output data is configured based on the synchronization data.), wherein the output data are in a compressed format ([0035]: “If a lossless compression is used on the 3D data frame, a 2:1 compression may be realized, enabling frame rates of up to 40 Hz”).
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach including a data set of one baseline channel data encoded using absolute angle positions and one or more data sets of additional channels data encoded using differential angle positions with respect to the absolute angle positions of the baseline channel ([0036]: “The G-PCC encoder may encode angles between the laser beams in a high-level syntax structure.”; [0040]: “For example, this disclosure describes a method of decoding point cloud data in which a G-PCC decoder obtains a first laser angle, obtains a second laser angle, and obtains a laser angle difference for a third laser angle.”);
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to use an encoder/decoder which encodes one channel with absolute angle and other channels with a difference angle. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Increased coding efficiency can yield benefits to the end user including faster I/O times and/or decreased memory usage, both of which are desirable characteristics when dealing with large LiDAR data sets.
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach wherein the encoder data are generated by position encoders ([0065]; [0086]; [0109]: “a closed loop position encoder can be used in place of optical feedback to finely control the positioning of the spinning polygon mirror”) of the galvanometer mirror ([0070]: “a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror”) and the polygon mirror ([0109]: “The X-axis spinning polygon mirror scans in one direction.”)
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 method of Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use a galvanometer mirror and a polygon mirror for beam steering and to capture their position with position encoders. Gilliland already discloses capturing angular data in one direction with an encoder, and a worker skilled in the art would find it obvious to extend this data capture to a second direction upon adding a mirror scanning in a second direction. Using two distinct mirrors to steer the output beam in a LiDAR system is well-known in the art, and provides a straightforward way of independently controlling the scanning parameters in two dimensions.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dussan.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland discloses a controller coupled to receive data from the encoder/decoder processing agent ([0046]: “Data reduction processor 140 refines the nominal range data and adjusts each pixel intensity data developed from the digitized analog samples received from A/D converters 136, and outputs a full image frame via unidirectional data bus 146 to frame memory 148, which is a dual port memory having the capacity of holding several frames to several thousands of frames, depending on the application. Object tracking processor 158 has internal memory with sufficient capacity to hold multiple frames of image data, allowing for multi-frame synthesis processes, including video compression, single frame or multi-frame resolution enhancement, statistical processing, and object identification and tracking. The outputs of object tracking processor 158 are transmitted through unidirectional data bus 156 to a communications port 166, which may be resident on control processor 122.”),
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach wherein the controller is coupled to the optical steering system and the laser source to coordinate movement speed of the mirror motor galvanometer ([0070]: “a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror” The mirror is necessarily driven by a motor or servo.) and the rotatable polygon mirror ([0109]: “The X-axis spinning polygon mirror scans in one direction.”) with the plurality of light pulses supplied by the laser source ([0065]; [0086]; [0109]: “a closed loop position encoder can be used in place of optical feedback to finely control the positioning of the spinning polygon mirror”).
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 method of Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use a galvanometer mirror and a polygon mirror for beam steering and to implement feedback control on both mirrors. Using two distinct mirrors to steer the output beam in a LiDAR system is well-known in the art, and provides a straightforward way of independently controlling the scanning parameters in two dimensions. The feedback control allows for error correction in beam pointing. Dussan notes is [0077] that “slight errors in mirror positioning when the ladar pulses are incident to the mirrors can cause significant degradation in system performance.” Implementing dual axis feedback control therefore improves performance by suppressing such errors, yielding better retrievals of the target scene.
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Gilliland further discloses wherein the encoder/decoder processing agent comprises a data pre-processor configured to generate the trigger data, the trigger data comprising: a data type identification segment ([0055]: “In the columns of the table are the (x,y) coordinates of the detector array, in this case x=1-128, and y=1-128.” These indicate which element of the detector the data come from); and a trigger time stamp segment ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture sequence, typically the real time when the flash detector 123 transitions”).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach wherein the optical steering system comprises a mirror motor galvanometer for vertical scanning ([0070]: “As another example of other arrangements, a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror.”; [0161]: “For the X-axis, which in this example operates as a fast-axis”; [0079]: “It should be understood by a practitioner that the designation of the fast axis as the X-axis and the slow axis as the Y-axis is arbitrary as a 90 degree turn in position for the system would render the X-axis as the slow axis and the Y-axis as the fast axis.”) and a rotatable polygon mirror for horizontal scanning ([0109]: “and an X-axis spinning polygon mirror.”) .
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 method of Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use a galvanometer mirror and a polygon mirror for beam steering and to capture their position with position encoders. Gilliland already discloses capturing angular data in one direction with an encoder, and a worker skilled in the art would find it obvious to extend this data capture to a second direction upon adding a mirror scanning in a second direction. Using two distinct mirrors to steer the output beam in a LiDAR system is well-known in the art, and provides a straightforward way of independently controlling the scanning parameters in two dimensions.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 5, Gilliland discloses wherein the optical wherein the encoder data comprises:
a time stamp segment representing absolute time data based on a system clock of the LiDAR system ([0051]: “each frame of video or still picture is time stamped by production video camera” … “The master control console polls a particular camera module 12 for the status of the real time clock 207”),
a polygon encoder segment appended on the time stamp segment, the polygon encoder segment comprising angle positions of the rotatable polygon mirror ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.);
and a galvanometer encoder segment appended on the polygon encoder segment, the galvanometer encoder segment comprising angle positions of the mirror motor galvanometer ([0055]: “Azimuthal data may be recovered from shaft encoders which are attached to the horizontal pivot mount on camera module 12 or modular ladar sensor 14 or modular ladar sensor unit 29.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the teaching of Gilliland to include angular data in the output data. Upon the introduction of the teaching of Van der Auwera to scan in both azimuth and elevation and the teaching of Dussan to scan horizontally with a polygon mirror and vertically with a galvanometer mirror, it would have been obvious to a skilled worker in the art to extend the inclusion of encoder data in the output data to the second axis. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It is well-known to record metadata or operational parameters of a LiDAR device to interpret results, and therefore no unexpected results should obtain. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland teaches a time stamp segment ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture sequence”), wherein a data value in the time stamp segment represents a time relative to a beginning of a current frame a block of the output data ([0051]: “In order to make sure the 3-D images returned from each modular ladar 14 or 29 are coincident in time with another 3-D image, each frame of video or still picture is time stamped”).
Gilliland does not teach that the time stamp segment is appended to the one or more additional vertical angle data segments. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to append the time stamp to the other data in the limitations. There is no operational advantage to attaching the time stamp versus prepending it, and its location in the output data would not modify the overall operation of the method. The examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) which held rearrangement of parts not relevant to device operation to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach a first horizontal angle data segment encoding absolute polygon angle positions ([0037]: “When the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node.”);
a first vertical angle data segment appended to the first horizontal angle data segment, the first vertical angle data segment encoding absolute galvanometer angle positions ([0039]: “use of the angular mode may depend on knowing the vertical angles of the laser beams relative to one another.”; [0040]: “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Thus both the vertical and horizontal angles can be coded simultaneously.);
wherein the one or more data sets of the additional channels data of the output data comprise:
one or more additional horizontal angle data segments encoding differential polygon angle positions with respect to the absolute polygon angle positions of the first horizontal angle data segment ([0037]: “Similarly, use of the azimuthal mode may depend on knowing the angles between azimuthal sampling locations. Accordingly, the G-PCC encoder may need to code the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn for individual laser beams.;
one or more additional vertical angle data segments appended to the one or more additional horizontal angle data segments, the one or more additional vertical angle data segments encoding differential galvanometer angle positions with respect to the absolute galvanometer angle positions of the first vertical angle data segment ([0122]: “and encode a syntax element for the laser angle difference for a third laser angle “); and
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to encode absolute angle positions in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that the disclosed techniques “may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Improved efficiency may result in faster retrievals and smaller data outputs, which are beneficial for LiDAR systems, which are well-known to produce large amounts of data.
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach wherein the polygon mirror steers light in the horizontal direction ([0109]: “and an X-axis spinning polygon mirror.”) and the galvanometer mirror steers light in the vertical direction ([0070]: “As another example of other arrangements, a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror.”; [0161]: “For the X-axis, which in this example operates as a fast-axis”; [0079]: “It should be understood by a practitioner that the designation of the fast axis as the X-axis and the slow axis as the Y-axis is arbitrary as a 90 degree turn in position for the system would render the X-axis as the slow axis and the Y-axis as the fast axis.”).
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 method of Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use a galvanometer mirror and a polygon mirror for beam steering and to capture their position with position encoders. Gilliland already discloses capturing angular data in one direction with an encoder, and a worker skilled in the art would find it obvious to extend this data capture to a second direction upon adding a mirror scanning in a second direction. Using two distinct mirrors to steer the output beam in a LiDAR system is well-known in the art, and provides a straightforward way of independently controlling the scanning parameters in two dimensions.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland discloses a controller that comprises:
a laser controller configured to control the laser source ([0042]: “ the control processor 122 initiates a laser illuminating pulse by sending a logic command or modulation signal to pulsed laser transmitter 124, which responds by transmitting an intense pulse of laser light through transmit optics 126.”)
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach a galvanometer controller configured to control the mirror motor galvanometer based on the encoder data ([0076]: “The beam scanner controller 308 can then use the feedback information from the closed loop feedback system to adjust at least one of the mirror driving waveforms 314 and thereby achieve finer control over mirror positioning. In a preferred embodiment, this feedback control is employed with respect to both mirrors of the beam scanner 304.”; [0070]: “a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror.”; [0083]: “Thus, the position detector 602 will be able to sense data indicative of the actual position of mirror 502. This sensed data can then be fed back via 608 for improved Y-axis mirror control.”); and
a polygon controller configured to control the rotatable polygon mirror based on the encoder data ([0076]: “The beam scanner controller 308 can then use the feedback information from the closed loop feedback system to adjust at least one of the mirror driving waveforms 314 and thereby achieve finer control over mirror positioning. In a preferred embodiment, this feedback control is employed with respect to both mirrors of the beam scanner 304.”; [0168]: “The spinning polygon mirror 1102 rotates as shown by rotational direction 1104”; [0085]: “Thus, the position detector 612 will be able to sense data indicative of the actual position of mirror 500. This sensed data can then be fed back via 618 for improved X-axis mirror control.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Gilliland and Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use the encoder data from a polygon mirror and galvanometer mirror to control the respective mirrors. Dussan notes in [0076] that this arrangement can be used to “achieve finer control over mirror positioning.” This results in more accurate projections of the beam into the target scene, and therefore better and more accurate retrievals of the objects therein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Droz (US 2022/0082660 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Gilliland discloses wherein the raw data comprises:
a data type identification segment, wherein a data type value in the data type identification segment identifies a channel of a plurality of channels of the LiDAR system ([0055]: “In the columns of the table are the (x,y) coordinates of the detector array, in this case x=1-128, and y=1-128.” These indicate which element of the detector the data come from);
a first pulse time segment appended to the data type identification segment ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture sequence, typically the real time when the flash detector 123 transitions”);
a second pulse time segment appended to the first pulse time segment, wherein data values in a combination of the first pulse time segment and the second pulse time segment represent a timestamp associated with detection of a return light pulse [0051]: “This time stamp reference information can come from a GPS receiver if one is embedded or attached to the individual camera 12”; It is well-known in the art that GPS times consist of two segments comprising weeks since Jan. 6, 1980 represented as 10 bits, with the remaining time segment representing the number of seconds in the current week.);
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does not teach and Droz does teach wherein a pulse intensity segment appended to the second pulse time segment, wherein a data value in the pulse intensity segment represents an amplitude of the return light pulse ([0151]: “For example, the lidar device 400 may transmit data used to detect objects to an external processing device or storage device. Such data may include coordinates, distances, ranges, angles (e.g., yaw/azimuth angles and/or pitch/elevation angles), detected intensities, timestamps, normals, pulse widths, beam sizes, return indices, etc.”);
and a pulse width segment appended to the pulse intensity segment, wherein a data value in the pulse width segment represents a pulse width of the return light pulse ([0151]: “For example, the lidar device 400 may transmit data used to detect objects to an external processing device or storage device. Such data may include coordinates, distances, ranges, angles (e.g., yaw/azimuth angles and/or pitch/elevation angles), detected intensities, timestamps, normals, pulse widths, beam sizes, return indices, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Droz to include a pulse intensity and a pulse width in the output data. The benefits of outputting summary or ‘housekeeping’ data from a device are well-known in the LiDAR arts, and include providing live metrics of instrument data quality characteristics. Such metrics can rapidly be used in the field without having to do intense computations on a full LiDAR waveform.
Droz does not explicitly teach an order for the pulse intensity and pulse width data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to append these data to the other data in the limitations. There is no operational advantage to appending the pulse intensity and pulse width versus prepending it, and its location in the output data would not modify the overall operation of the method. The examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) which held rearrangement of parts not relevant to device operation to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dussan.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach steering one or more beams of light using a plurality of reflective facets of a polygon mirror to scan a Field-Of-View (FOV) in a first direction ([0109]: “and an X-axis spinning polygon mirror.”) ; and steering the one or more beams of light using a galvanometer mirror to scan the FOV in a second direction ([0070]: “As another example of other arrangements, a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror.”; [0161]: “For the X-axis, which in this example operates as a fast-axis”; [0079]: “It should be understood by a practitioner that the designation of the fast axis as the X-axis and the slow axis as the Y-axis is arbitrary as a 90 degree turn in position for the system would render the X-axis as the slow axis and the Y-axis as the fast axis.”).
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 method of Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use a galvanometer mirror and a polygon mirror for beam steering and to capture their position with position encoders. Gilliland already discloses capturing angular data in one direction with an encoder, and a worker skilled in the art would find it obvious to extend this data capture to a second direction upon adding a mirror scanning in a second direction. Using two distinct mirrors to steer the output beam in a LiDAR system is well-known in the art, and provides a straightforward way of independently controlling the scanning parameters in two dimensions.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach wherein the configuring output data in a compressed format comprises, identifying the baseline channel;
receiving the data set of the baseline channel data encoded using absolute angle positions ([0040]: “ this disclosure describes a method of decoding point cloud data in which a G-PCC decoder obtains a first laser angle,”);
determining, for each of one or more additional channels, the differential angle positions with respect to the absolute angle positions of the baseline channel ([0040]: “ and obtains a laser angle difference for a third laser angle. In this example, the G-PCC decoder may determine a predicted value based on the first laser angle and the second laser angle. The G-PCC decoder may determine the third laser angle based on the predicted value and the laser angle difference for the third laser angle.”);
constructing a plurality of block headers of the output data based on the data set of the baseline channel and the one or more data sets of the additional channels data ([0163]: “ in accordance with one or more techniques of this disclosure, the number of lasers used for the angular coding mode may be coded (e.g., in a parameter set such as a geometry parameter set or other syntax header) as number_lasers_minusL so that the number of lasers is obtained by adding a value L to the coded number_lasers_minusL value.”; [0164]-[0165] describe included parameter data which is equivalent here to a block header.); and
appending, to the block headers, one or more other data to form the output data ([0074]: “G-PCC encoder 200 may generate a geometry bitstream 203 that includes an encoded representation of the positions of the points of the point cloud. G-PCC encoder 200 may also generate an attribute bitstream 205 that includes an encoded representation of the set of attributes.”).
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to use an encoder/decoder which encodes one channel with absolute angle and other channels with a difference angle. Including headers containing metadata or relevant parameters is well-known in the art and a skilled worker would be able to include such data in the output data with predictable results. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Increased coding efficiency can yield benefits to the end user including faster I/O times and/or decreased memory usage, both of which are desirable characteristics when dealing with large LiDAR data sets.
Regarding Claim 17, Gilliland suggests but does not explicitly teach and Van der Auwera does teach wherein the data corresponding to the based channel are encoded using absolute horizontal angle positions ([0039]: “use of the azimuthal mode may depend on knowing the angles between azimuthal sampling locations.”) and absolute vertical angle positions ([0039]: “use of the angular mode may depend on knowing the vertical angles of the laser beams relative to one another.”; [0040]: “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Thus both the vertical and horizontal angles can be coded simultaneously.).
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to encode absolute angle positions in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that the disclosed techniques “may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Improved efficiency may result in faster retrievals and smaller data outputs, which are beneficial for LiDAR systems, which are well-known to produce large amounts of data.
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 16, Gilliland does not teach and Van de Auwera does teach wherein determining, for each of one or more additional channels, the differential angle positions with respect to the absolute angle positions of the baseline channel comprises:
obtaining absolute angle positions associated with the one or more additional channels ([0006]: “obtain a second laser angle;); and determining the differential angle positions based on the absolute angle positions associated with the one or more additional channels and the absolute angle positions of the baseline channel ([0006]: “determine a predicted value based on the first laser angle and the second laser angle; and encode a laser angle difference for a third laser angle, wherein the laser angle difference is equal to a difference between the third laser angle and the predicted value.”).
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to encode absolute angle positions in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that the disclosed techniques “may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Improved efficiency may result in faster retrievals and smaller data outputs, which are beneficial for LiDAR systems, which are well-known to produce large amounts of data.
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 16, Gilliland teaches a time stamp segment ([0055]: “The file header includes a time stamp for the start of a scene capture sequence”), wherein a data value in the time stamp segment represents a time relative to a beginning of a current frame a block of the output data ([0051]: “In order to make sure the 3-D images returned from each modular ladar 14 or 29 are coincident in time with another 3-D image, each frame of video or still picture is time stamped”).
Gilliland does not teach that the time stamp segment is appended to the one or more additional vertical angle data segments. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to append the time stamp to the other data in the limitations. There is no operational advantage to attaching the time stamp versus prepending it, and its location in the output data would not modify the overall operation of the method. The examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) which held rearrangement of parts not relevant to device operation to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does teach a first horizontal angle data segment encoding absolute polygon angle positions ([0037]: “When the location of a point is coded using the azimuthal coding mode, the G-PCC encoder may determine a context based on an azimuthal sampling location of a laser beam within a node.”);
a first vertical angle data segment appended to the first horizontal angle data segment, the first vertical angle data segment encoding absolute galvanometer angle positions ([0039]: “use of the angular mode may depend on knowing the vertical angles of the laser beams relative to one another.”; [0040]: “This disclosure describes techniques that may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Thus both the vertical and horizontal angles can be coded simultaneously.);
wherein the one or more data sets of the additional channels data of the output data comprise:
one or more additional horizontal angle data segments encoding differential polygon angle positions with respect to the absolute polygon angle positions of the first horizontal angle data segment ([0037]: “Similarly, use of the azimuthal mode may depend on knowing the angles between azimuthal sampling locations. Accordingly, the G-PCC encoder may need to code the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn for individual laser beams.;
one or more additional vertical angle data segments appended to the one or more additional horizontal angle data segments, the one or more additional vertical angle data segments encoding differential galvanometer angle positions with respect to the absolute galvanometer angle positions of the first vertical angle data segment ([0122]: “and encode a syntax element for the laser angle difference for a third laser angle “); and
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 method of Gilliland with the teaching of Van der Auwera to encode absolute angle positions in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Van der Auwera notes in [0040] that the disclosed techniques “may improve the coding efficiency when coding laser angles and/or the number of azimuthal sampling locations per turn.” Improved efficiency may result in faster retrievals and smaller data outputs, which are beneficial for LiDAR systems, which are well-known to produce large amounts of data.
Gilliland does not teach and Van der Auwera does not teach and Dussan does teach wherein the polygon mirror steers light in the horizontal direction ([0109]: “and an X-axis spinning polygon mirror.”) and the galvanometer mirror steers light in the vertical direction ([0070]: “As another example of other arrangements, a miniature galvanometer mirror can be used as a fast-axis scanning mirror.”; [0161]: “For the X-axis, which in this example operates as a fast-axis”; [0079]: “It should be understood by a practitioner that the designation of the fast axis as the X-axis and the slow axis as the Y-axis is arbitrary as a 90 degree turn in position for the system would render the X-axis as the slow axis and the Y-axis as the fast axis.”).
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 method of Gilliland in view of Van der Auwera with the teaching of Dussan to use a galvanometer mirror and a polygon mirror for beam steering and to capture their position with position encoders. Gilliland already discloses capturing angular data in one direction with an encoder, and a worker skilled in the art would find it obvious to extend this data capture to a second direction upon adding a mirror scanning in a second direction. Using two distinct mirrors to steer the output beam in a LiDAR system is well-known in the art, and provides a straightforward way of independently controlling the scanning parameters in two dimensions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights