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 .
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.
Excessive Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
12 May 2023 1/4
12 May 2023 2/4
12 May 2023 3/4
12 May 2023 4/4
12 September 2023
10 February 2026
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “410” has been used to designate both “an optical combiner” and “an optical fiber which outputs a signal” in reference to Fig. 4 and in paragraph [0065].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “413” as included in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
A minor typographical error "the a replacement signal" in paragraph [0110], line 2.
A minor typographical error "In other words, the in…. The dynamic…" in paragraph [0110], line 14.
Paragraph [0126], lines 2-3 refer to obtaining ADC data as step "1206" instead of "1208" per Fig. 12.
Paragraph [0129], line 8 refers to "step 1306" as a correction step, which should refer to "1308" per Fig. 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7, 11, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The last limitation of claims 6 and 18 include “computing the offset based on of the signal…”.
The first line of claims 7 and 19 include “…based on of the signal…”.
Line 15 of claim 11 includes “ …time windows;, the…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-8, 10, 13-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20190250257 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 22 and 23, Finkelstein anticipates a LIDAR system, method of operation ([0070]), a non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-executable instructions ([0214]) and a vehicle comprising a LIDAR system ([0106]), respectively, comprising:
a light source configured to provide transmission light signals in a plurality of firing cycles ([0101]; Fig. 1, emitter array (115) controlled by timing circuit (106));
a detector configured to detect return signals formed based on the transmission light signals ([0101]; Fig. 1, detector array (110) controlled by timing circuit (106));
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to obtain ADC data representing the detected return signals ([0011], [0168]; where readout voltages of pixels within detector are digitized by an analog-to-digital converter (ADC));
and one or more processors and memory device, and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory device, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform, for at least one firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles ([0098], [0103]; Fig. 1 where control circuit (105) is one of possible processors/controllers within system which control operations):
determining a multiple-point time window using the ADC data ([0121], [0142], [0180] - [0183], [0188]; where background/uncorrelated photons may be recorded during a time gate without signal photons, or during frames/sub-frames between pulses);
based on the multiple-point time window, determining an offset of the ADC data ([0142], [0194], where the uncorrelated photon count level is monitored within a frame or sub-frames);
at least partially correcting the ADC data based on the offset ([0192] - [0195], [0215]; where system corrects detector readout signals for background signals);
and providing the corrected ADC data for constructing a point cloud representing an external environment of the LiDAR system ([0103]).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 1, wherein
determining the multiple-point time window using the ADC data comprises positioning the multiple-point time window based on time positions of digital signals representing one or more of the detected return signals ([0180] - [0183], [0188], [0202], [0213] - [0214]; where background/uncorrelated photons may be recorded during time gates without signal photons, or during passive frames/sub-frames situated during or between frames/sub-frames with emitted and returned pulses).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 2, wherein
the multiple-point time window is positioned within a previous firing cycle before a time position associated with a triggering of a current firing cycle ([0180] - [0183], [0188], [0202], [0213] - [0214]; where background/uncorrelated photons may be recorded during time gates without signal photons, or during passive frames/sub-frames situated during or between frames/sub-frames with emitted and returned pulses, such as during a previous firing cycle within a sub-frame).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 2, wherein
the multiple-point time window is positioned between a previous firing cycle and a current firing cycle or within the current firing cycle ([0180] - [0183], [0188], [0202], [0213] - [0214]; where background/uncorrelated photons may be recorded during time gates without signal photons, or during passive frames/sub-frames situated during or between frames/sub-frames with emitted and returned pulses, such as during a current firing cycle within a sub-frame).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 2, wherein
the multiple-point time window is positioned before a time position associated with digital signals representing a first pulse of the detected return signals in the current firing cycle ([0180] - [0183], [0188], [0202], [0213] - [0214]; where background/uncorrelated photons may be recorded during time gates without signal photons, or during passive frames/sub-frames situated during or between frames/sub-frames with emitted and returned pulses, such as during a current firing cycle within a sub-frame).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 1, wherein based on the multiple-point time window, determining the offset of the ADC data comprises:
obtaining time positions of the determined multiple-point time window ([0202] - [0207]; where the time bin is recorded for photon arrival time);
obtaining signal intensities of the ADC data corresponding to the time positions of the multiple-point time window ([0202] - [0207]; where the number of avalanches/photons is recorded per time bin);
and computing the offset based on of the signal intensities of the ADC data corresponding to the time positions of the multiple-point time window ([0202] - [0207]; where errors, offsets, and /or correlation times are determined based on received signals and background signal information).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 6, wherein computing the offset based on of the signal intensities of the ADC data corresponding to the time positions of the multiple-point time window comprises computing at least one of:
a mean value of the signal intensities ([0186]; where system may find an average background intensity);
a weighted mean value of the signal intensities;
a median value of the signal intensities;
and a mode of the signal intensities.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 6, wherein
computing the offset is further based on a preset initial value of the offset ([0195]; where background may be determined based on a threshold based on a predetermined background level).
Regarding claim 10, Finkelstein anticipates the system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions comprise further instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
obtaining offsets associated with a group of firing cycles of the plurality of firing cycles, the group of firing cycles being associated with a frame of the point cloud ([0141] - [0144]; Fig. 7, where each point cloud/frame is formed of a set of sub-frames, where each sub-frame includes alternating cycles of laser pulses and strobe windows, and the processor is configured to dynamically adjust background subtraction/correction);
determining a plurality of lowest offsets associated with the group of firing cycles associated with the frame ([0205] - [0215]; where a total number of uncorrelated (background) events per passive subframe are included in determining an accurate time of flight and signal);
computing a frame offset value based on the plurality of the lowest offsets, the frame offset representing an offset of the ADC data representing the frame ([0205] - [0215]; passive sub-frame values are used to extrapolate and apply background counts to active sub-frames within a frame and where passive sub-frames will have lowest background/offset counts);
and at least partially correcting the ADC data representing the frame based on the frame offset ([0205] - [0215]; wherein background /passive sub-frame values are used to correct active-subframes).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20190250257 A1) in view of Heinonen (US 20210116562 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Finkelstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least partially correcting the ADC data based on the offset includes background subtraction, but is silent on subtracting a prior firing cycle’s offset from a current firing cycle.
Heinonen teaches a method of operating a LIDAR device, which includes determining an offset, or background information, which includes subtracting the offset from the ADC data representing detected return signals in a first firing cycle from the ADC data representing detected return signals in a second firing cycle, the first firing cycle preceding the second firing cycle ([0051], [0061] - [0062]; where noise signals are detected in passive periods between emissions and are used to correct subsequent scans' intensity values.).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Heinonen to use offset, or background, data from a prior firing cycle to correct a current firing cycle’s data with a reasonable expectation of success. Finkelstein mentions that background subtraction methods may be used to correct intensity data collected ([0100], [0144], [0199]), and Heinonen discusses that offsets and time delays in LIDAR data can lead to intensity/pulse errors in resulting received pulse profiles, and offset subtraction is one avenue to compensate for these errors ([0051]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20190250257 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 20220355926 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Finkelstein teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions comprise further instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform, for a group of firing cycles of the plurality of firing cycles, the group of firing cycles being associated with a frame of the point cloud ([0141] - [0144]; Fig. 7, where each point cloud/frame is formed of a set of sub-frames, where each sub-frame includes alternating cycles of laser pulses and strobe windows and the processor is configured to dynamically adjust background subtraction/correction), where the processor further performs:
identifying, from multiple-point time windows associated with the group of firing cycles, a group of multiple-point time windows corresponding to the plurality of the smallest standard deviations of the signal intensities of the ADC data associated with the group of firing cycles ([0205] - [0215]; where passive sub-frame values are used to extrapolate and apply background counts to active sub-frames within a frame and where passive sub-frames will have lowest background/offset counts, and a total number of uncorrelated (background) events per passive subframe are included in determining an accurate time of flight and signal);
determining offsets of the ADC data associated with the identified group of multiple- point time windows ([0205] - [0215]; where a total number of uncorrelated (background) events per passive subframe are included in determining an accurate time of flight and signal);
computing a frame offset based on the offsets of the ADC data associated with the identified group of multiple-point time windows; , the frame offset representing an offset of the ADC data representing the frame ([0205] - [0215]; passive sub-frame values are used to extrapolate and apply background counts to active sub-frames within a frame and where passive sub-frames will have lowest background/offset counts);
and at least partially correcting the ADC data representing the frame based on the frame offset ([0205] - [0215]; wherein background /passive sub-frame values are used to correct active-subframes).
Finkelstein does not explicitly teach computing standard deviations for signal intensities, or selecting a plurality of firing cycles based on a lowest subset of standard deviations.
Zhang teaches a vision system for an autonomous aerial vehicle which is equipped for object collection from water, where to minimize glare in the collected images/frames, the system executes computing standard deviations of signal intensities of the ADC data associated with the group of firing cycles; and
selecting, from the computed standard deviations, a plurality of smallest standard deviations of signal intensities of the ADC data associated with the group of firing cycles ([0037] - [0039]; Claim 8, where the system finds the standard deviation of intensity values of pixels above a threshold in a minimum number of frames, where an offset is then determined based on minimum values and the offset subtracted from an intensity threshold).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to find groups of firing cycles with a lowest standard deviation in intensity to determine signal offsets with a reasonable expectation of success. To one of ordinary skill in the art, it would be known that scans, or segments of scans, with a small standard deviation will have a more uniform intensity value, thus being far more likely to represent a portion of data where there are limited (or no) return pulses, as these would increase the standard deviation. These lowest standard deviation scans/segments would therefore much more likely represent background or offset values. Inclusion of use of standard deviations in the calculations of Finkelstein would have a predictable result of reducing calculation resources by focusing on frames with smallest standard deviations to determine offsets/background values, as these would be best representative of the offset/background values.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20190250257 A1) in view of Shu et al. (hereinafter Shu, US 20180259645 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Finkelstein teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on the exact number of points used for determining an offset/background value.
Shu teaches a LIDAR system, in which a different number of photodetectors and time bins can be used for determining echo signals and background signals, where a multiple-point time window comprises a 16-point time window ([0371], where a system's detectors may use background threshold criteria and a specific number of time bins, for example between 2 and 20 during a detection interval, specifically when dealing with a strong source of background signal).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Shu to specifically use a 16-point set of time bins to determine data offset with a reasonable expectation of success. As Shu explains, use of variable detection intervals, detector numbers, gains, thresholds and number of time bins all work to modify received light so to avoid overloading detectors such as SPADs and reducing distortion of collected signals ([0355], [0371] – [0373]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaChapelle et al. (US 20180284245 A1) teaches a method for calibrating LIDAR systems operating in vehicles which includes noise or background removal based on the amount of noise detected during a calibration period.
Moch (US 6594612 B2) teaches a digitizer for use in a measurement system, which operates to calibrate the system taking into account voltage offsets, gain errors, and utilizes a scan list which may include timing parameters, gain, and looping specifications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645