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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application #18/131,175 that was filed on 04/05/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word ‘form’ needs to be changed into ‘from’ in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word ‘exceding’ needs to be changed into ‘exceeding’ in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is entirely clear what ‘ a detected vehicle condition’ in line 3-4 is and mean. Is the vehicle condition being referred an operation status (working/not working) or is it a measured parameter about the host vehicle or another vehicle on the host vehicle’s environment or mean something else? Appropriate clarification/correction required.
In clam 7, it is not clear from the claims and the specification how the claimed ‘vehicle speed’ and ‘vehicle wheel position’ measurements relates to the power-level determination of the optical source. How does these measurements affect the power-level of the optical source and how are they related. Appropriate clarification/correction required.
In claim 15, it is entirely clear what ‘a detected vehicle condition’ in line 6 is and mean. Is the vehicle condition being referred an operation status (working/not working) or is it a measured parameter about the host vehicle or another vehicle on the host vehicle’s environment or mean something else? Appropriate clarification/correction required.
In claim 13, it is entirely clear what ‘a detected vehicle condition’ in line 7-8 is and mean. Is the vehicle condition being referred an operation status (working/not working) or is it a measured parameter about the host vehicle or another vehicle on the host vehicle’s environment or mean something else? Appropriate clarification/correction required.
In claim 15, it is not clear what ‘a virtual actor in the area’ mean in line 3 of the claim. It also seem to claim an actor/a person. Is the ‘virtual actor’ being claimed in a virtual environment/simulation/software or is it a physical object that actually exists in real environment of the optical source. The ‘virtual actor’ is being claimed without any virtual simulation/system used to create it being claimed. Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite.
Claim 18 is also rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 15.
Dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale as the rejection of their respective parent claims.
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) 1-3, 6, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841).
Regarding Claim 1, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a method comprising:
detecting a first object (212, Fig. 2) using an optical source (208, Fig. 2) activated with a first power level (para. [0041]);
determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition (‘…Based on the determined detection distances, power level determination unit 344 may calculate the appropriate emitting power level output by laser emitter 208…, power level determination unit 344 may reduce the emitting power level from the maximum available output power level…’, para. [0045]); and
selecting a second power level to detect a second object (i.e. object after the power adjustment, Fig. 2) using the optical source (para. [0046], “….Once the emitting power level is determined, command signal generation unit 346 may generate a command signal to control driver circuit 218 in order to drive laser emitter 208 to emit laser beams at the determined emitting power level…’).
Regarding Claim 2, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a method wherein the second power level corresponds with a reduced heat generation by the optical source compared to the first power level(reducing power inherently reduces heat generation ‘….power level determination unit 344 may reduce the emitting power level from the maximum available output power level…’, para. [0045])
Regarding Claim 3, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a method wherein the second power level corresponds with detection of a distance from the optical source (208, Fig. 2) to the second object (i.e. objects at a shorter detection distance, para. [0017], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a method wherein selecting the second power level is based on a second detected vehicle condition (para. [0017]) the second detected vehicle condition being different than the first detected vehicle condition ((i.e. a vehicle at a shorter detection distance from the object different from a vehicle at a longer detection distance from the object, para. [0017]).
Regarding Claim 8, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for controlling a light detection and ranging system (para. [0058]) and including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors (304, Fig. 3) to:
detect a first object (212, Fig. 2) with a first optical beam emitted from an optical source activated with a first power level(para. [0041]);
decide to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition(‘…Based on the determined detection distances, power level determination unit 344 may calculate the appropriate emitting power level output by laser emitter 208…, power level determination unit 344 may reduce the emitting power level from the maximum available output power level…’, para. [0045]); and
select a second power level to detect a second object (i.e. object after the power adjustment, Fig. 2)using the optical source(para. [0046], “….Once the emitting power level is determined, command signal generation unit 346 may generate a command signal to control driver circuit 218 in order to drive laser emitter 208 to emit laser beams at the determined emitting power level…’).
Regarding Claim 9, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for controlling a light detection and ranging system (para. [0058]) wherein the second power level consumes less electrical power than the first power level(reducing power inherently consumes less electrical power ‘….power level determination unit 344 may reduce the emitting power level from the maximum available output power level…’, para. [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for controlling a light detection and ranging system (para. [0058]) wherein the first object (i.e. objects at a longer detection distance, para. [0017]) is positioned at a farther distance from the optical source than the second object (i.e. objects at a shorter detection distance, para. [0017]).
Regarding Claim 11, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for controlling a light detection and ranging system (para. [0058]) wherein the second object (i.e. objects at a shorter detection distance, para. [0017]) is detected with a second optical beam emitted from the optical source (para. [0017], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for controlling a light detection and ranging system (para. [0058]) wherein the second power level corresponds with a detection distance from the optical source to the second object(i.e. objects at a shorter detection distance, para. [0017]) (para. [0017], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, broadly interpreted Yeh discloses a system comprising: a processor (304, Fig. 3) connected to an optical source (208, Fig. 2);
a memory (306, Fig. 3) storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor,
cause the processor (304) to:
detect a first object (212, Fig. 2) with a first optical beam emitted from an optical source (208, Fig. 2) activated with a first power level(para. [0041]);
decide to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition(‘…Based on the determined detection distances, power level determination unit 344 may calculate the appropriate emitting power level output by laser emitter 208…, power level determination unit 344 may reduce the emitting power level from the maximum available output power level…’, para. [0045]); and
select a second power level to detect a second object (i.e. object after the power adjustment, Fig. 2)using the optical source(para. [0046], “….Once the emitting power level is determined, command signal generation unit 346 may generate a command signal to control driver circuit 218 in order to drive laser emitter 208 to emit laser beams at the determined emitting power level…’).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841) in view of Buoniconti, IV et al. (US2023/0243977).
Regarding Claim 4, broadly interpreted Yeh discloses a LIDAR system wherein activating the optical source with the second power level to detect an object (para. [0045]-[0046]), but silent to disclose a LIDAR system to detect a velocity of an object.
Yeh is silent, but Buoniconti, IV in the same field of endeavor teaches a lidar system (200, Fig. 2) with a optical source (204, Fig. 2) to detect a velocity of an object (para. [0057], ‘…The LIDAR system 200 can be used to determine parameters regarding objects, such as range and velocity, and output the parameters to a remote system….’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical source of the lidar system disclosed in Yeh to detect the velocity of the object as taught in Buoniconti, IV with a reasonable expectation of success because it is a vital parameters for use by a vehicle controller that can control operation of a vehicle as well as the velocity as a measurement can be displayed for awareness for the operators of the system.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841) in view of Lu et al. (US2023/0011457).
Regarding Claim 5, broadly interpreted Yeh discloses a LIDAR system of detecting a first object (212, Fig. 2) using an optical source (208, Fig. 2) activated with a first power level (para. [0041]); determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition (power adjusting the optical source as desired, para. [0045]-[0046]).
Yeh is silent, but Liu in the same field of endeavor suggests/teaches a system wherein a vehicle condition is a thermal load condition in a package containing the optical source (para. [0011], ‘…LiDAR chip which produces excess heat (e.g., FPGA controller or power module)…’), the thermal load condition corresponding with a temperature of the optical source exceeding a predetermined threshold (para. [0011], ‘…The temperature controller is configured to switch off the thermal switch in response to detecting a temperature below a temperature threshold from the temperature output of the temperature monitor, in order to impede heat flow from the LiDAR…’, i.e., that means it will turn on when the temperature exceeding a predetermined threshold ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical source of the lidar system disclosed in Yeh with the thermal load condition control of optical source when temperature of the optical source goes above/below the predetermined threshold via a temperature controller as suggested in Lu with a reasonable expectation of success because it prevent thermal damage to the lidar device as well as it allows to control the heat flow to and from the heat sources in the optical source power level control taught in Yeh.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841) in view of Schwindt et al. (US 2021/0139018).
Regarding Claim 5, broadly interpreted Yeh discloses a LIDAR system comprising determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition/parameter (‘…Based on the determined detection distances, power level determination unit 344 may calculate the appropriate emitting power level output by laser emitter 208…, power level determination unit 344 may reduce the emitting power level from the maximum available output power level…’, para. [0045]).
Yeh is silent, but Schwindt in the same field of endeavor teaches a lidar system wherein the detected vehicle condition is a vehicle speed and the second detected vehicle condition is a vehicle wheel position (para. [0027], ‘….The sensors 114 may include, for example, vehicle control sensors (for example, sensors that detect accelerator pedal position, brake pedal position, and steering wheel position [steering angle]), wheel speed sensors, vehicle speed sensors, yaw sensors, force sensors, odometry sensors, and vehicle proximity sensors (for example, camera, radar, LIDAR, and ultrasonic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detected vehicle condition detected by the lidar system that reduced power disclosed in Yeh with the vehicle speed and the vehicle wheel position vehicle conditions detected by the vehicle control sensor as taught in Schwindt with a reasonable expectation of success because these parameters are among critical parameters that needs to be measured for safety of the vehicle and ones that most likely use the power-level adjusting optical source of the Yeh lidar system. Additionally, it would have also been an obvious design choice also to use any one of the vehicle control parameters taught in Schwindt to determined the increased/reduced power level of the optical source as desired in Yeh.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841) in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0180772).
Regarding Claim 14, broadly interpreted Yeh discloses a system comprising identify a region of a field of view (FOV, Fig. 1) of the optical source (208, Fig. 2) that poses safety threat for a vehicle containing the optical source (Fig. 1).
Yeh is silent, but Liu in the same field of endeavor teaches a system that ignore the region by deactivating the optical source when pointed toward the region that poses a reduced/no safety threat for a vehicle (para. [0044], i.e. ‘…the controller may activate or maintain an active state of light sources 808 if incoming light is from another vehicle and deactivate or maintain an off state of the light sources if the light is from sunlight…’, if there is a reflected light from a vehicle keep the light source else deactivate to conserve electrical power of the light source).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Yeh with ignoring the region by deactivating the optical source when pointed toward the region that poses a reduced/no safety threat for a vehicle as taught in Liu with a reasonable expectation of success because it in order to conserve electrical power used to run light source.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841) in view of Yoshimatsu et al. (US 2023/0120172) (PCT Pub. date Sep.23, 2021) .
Regarding Claim 15, broadly interpreted and best understood Yeh discloses a system comprising identify an area of a field of view of the optical source posing a risk of containing an object that could obstruct travel of the optical source (Fig. 1-2; the system of Yeh is capable of identifying possible obstructing objects).
Yeh is silent, but Yoshimatsu in the same field of endeavor teaches a system that create a virtual actor in the area used to calculate a risk a third object will obstruct travel of the optical source (para. [0130], ‘…an object is detected by the vehicle, a risk potential of the object is obtained, the risk potential of the object is associated with an encounter location… When the primary estimated risk potential is set, the travel of the subject vehicle V1 may be obstructed by the action of the other vehicle that avoids the risk due to the primary estimated risk potential.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Yeh with creating a virtual actor (i.e. vehicles) in the area used to calculate a risk a third object will obstruct travel of the optical source as taught in Yoshimatsu with a reasonable expectation of success because it in order to minimize obstruction of the travel of the optical source.
Regarding Claim 16, broadly interpreted and best understood modified Yeh discloses a system wherein the area of the field of view has aspects hidden from the optical source (i.e. depending on what is in front of the vehicle/optical source in Fig, 1, the FOV can have hidden aspects/objects from the optical source).
Regarding Claim 17, broadly interpreted and best understood modified Yeh discloses a system wherein the area of the field of view is an intersection, hill, or wall (the FOV in Fig. 1 inherently can be an intersection, hill, or wall).
Regarding Claim 18, broadly interpreted and best understood modified Yeh is silent, but Yoshimatsu in the same field of endeavor teaches a system further comprising predicting motion of the virtual actor relative to the optical source and using the motion to calculate the risk the third object will obstruct travel of the optical source (Fig. 3, para. [0130], ‘…when an object is detected by the vehicle, a risk potential of the object is obtained, the risk potential of the object is associated with an encounter location at which the object is encountered… the accumulated risk potential at the encounter location is used to obtain a primary estimated risk potential of the object predicted to be encountered at the encounter location….).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in modified Yeh with predicting motion of the virtual actor (i.e. vehicles) relative to the optical source and using the motion to calculate the risk the third object will obstruct travel of the optical source as taught in Yoshimatsu with a reasonable expectation of success because it in order to predict motion of the virtual actor/vehicles movements to minimize obstruction and avoid traffic congestion of the travel of the optical source.
Regarding Claim 19, broadly interpreted and best understood modified Yeh discloses a system comprising selecting a third power level to emit towards the area of the field of view in response to the risk (i.e. the modified Yeh clearly capable of adjusting optical power as desired based on the vehicle condition or the risk as taught in Yoshimatsu, para. [0130]) ), the third power level being greater than the second power level ( to make sure object detection accuracy is increased).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yeh et al. (US 2022/0003841) in view of Lu et al. (US2023/0011457).
Regarding Claim 20, broadly interpreted modified Yeh discloses a LIDAR system of determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition (power adjusting the optical source as desired, para. [0045]-[0046]).
Modified Yeh is silent, but Liu in the same field of endeavor suggests/teaches a system wherein a vehicle condition is a thermal load condition in a package containing the optical source (para. [0011], ‘…LiDAR chip which produces excess heat (e.g., FPGA controller or power module)…’), the thermal load condition corresponding with a temperature of the optical source (para. [0011], ‘…The temperature controller is configured to switch off the thermal switch in response to detecting a temperature below a temperature threshold from the temperature output of the temperature monitor, in order to impede heat flow from the LiDAR…’, i.e., that means it will turn on when the temperature exceeding a predetermined threshold ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical source of the lidar system disclosed in modified Yeh based on the predicted (i.e. interpreted to mean an already known behavior) thermal load condition control of optical source as suggested in Lu with a reasonable expectation of success because it prevent thermal damage to the lidar device as well as it allows to control the heat flow to and from the heat sources in the optical source power level control taught in Yeh.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642