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
The applicant’s amendments/remarks dated 05/01/2026 have been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1, 5-8, 11,13,15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word ‘inerita’ needs to be changed into ‘inertia’ in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word ‘or’ in line 3 needs to be changed into ‘exceeding’ in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5, 8-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Shanta et al. (US 2023/0392948).
Regarding Claim 1, Boehmke discloses a method comprising:
detecting a first object (objects, para. [0026], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 2) using an optical source (216, Fig. 2) activated with a first power level (para. [0038]);
determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition parameter(vehicle conditions 232, 238, 239, para. [0035]; Fig. 2; ‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’, para. [0038]); and
selecting a second power level to detect a second object (i.e. object after the power adjustment, Fig. 2) using the optical source (216, Fig. 2. para. [0038], “….(‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’).
Boehmke discloses is silent, but Shanta in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle condition parameter indicative of a vehicle wheel position (para. [0019]. “…sensors used to sense a position and/or state of one or more vehicle components…”). In para. [0032] of the specification in the instant application, the “wheel position’ is measured via sensor just like vehicle speed and vehicle inertial measurements recited there (para. [0032] of the application “…one or more sensors can convey vehicle speed, vehicle inertial measurements, and vehicle wheel position…”). There wheel position parameter do not seem to be a special parameter apart being just a parameter to be sensed regarding a position and/or state of one or more vehicle components.
Therefore, 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 vehicle condition parameter disclosed in Boehmke to indicate/measure a vehicle wheel position as taught in Shanta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize the LIDAR configurations for the LIDAR sensor and dynamically control the increase or decrease power of the laser source as well as increase or decrease the pulse rate (para. [0038], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Boehmke 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 (para. [0038], “….(‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’).
Regarding Claim 3, broadly interpreted, Boehmke discloses a method wherein the second power level corresponds with detection of a distance from the optical source (216, Fig. 2) to the second object (i.e. objects/vehicles detected (para. [0030] inherently indicate a distance from the optical sources with a corresponding light source power level as per the adjustment disclosed in para. [0038], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Boehmke discloses a method wherein selecting the second power level is based on a second detected vehicle condition (i.e. detected, ‘other vehicles’, para. [0030]), the second detected vehicle condition being different than the first detected vehicle condition (i.e. the first detected vehicle condition would clearly be different from the second vehicle condition requiring power level adjustment based on the required vehicle control parameter, para. [0038], [0030]).
Regarding Claim 8, Boehmke discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 19-20) for controlling a light detection and ranging system (210, Fig. 2]) and including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors (510, Fig. 5) to:
detect a first object (objects, para. [0026], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 2) with a first optical beam emitted from an optical source activated with a first power level(para. [0038]);
decide to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition parameter (vehicle conditions 232, 238, 239, para. [0035]; Fig. 2; ‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’, para. [0038]); and
select a second power level to detect a second object (i.e. object after the power adjustment, Fig. 2) using the optical source (216, Fig. 2. para. [0038], “….(‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’).
Boehmke discloses is silent, but Shanta in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle condition parameter indicative of a vehicle wheel position (para. [0019]. “…sensors used to sense a position and/or state of one or more vehicle components…”). In para. [0032] of the specification in the instant application, the “wheel position’ is measured via sensor just like vehicle speed and vehicle inertial measurements recited there (para. [0032] of the application “…one or more sensors can convey vehicle speed, vehicle inertial measurements, and vehicle wheel position…”). There wheel position parameter do not seem to be a special parameter apart being just a parameter to be sensed regarding a position and/or state of one or more vehicle components.
Therefore, 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 vehicle condition parameter disclosed in Boehmke to indicate/measure a vehicle wheel position as taught in Shanta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize the LIDAR configurations for the LIDAR sensor and dynamically control the increase or decrease power of the laser source as well as increase or decrease the pulse rate (para. [0038], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, broadly interpreted, Yeh discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium for controlling a light detection and ranging system wherein the second power level consumes less electrical power than the first power level(i.e., decreasing power inherently consumes less electrical power, (‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’, para. [0038])).
Regarding Claim 10, broadly interpreted, Boehmke discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 19-20) for controlling a light detection and ranging system (210, Fig. 2]) wherein the first object (i.e. objects detected before adjustable parameters of the lidar sensor, para. [0038])is positioned at a farther distance from the optical source than the second object (i.e. objects detected after adjustable parameters of the lidar sensor at a shorter distance and need adjustable parameters, para. [0038])).
Regarding Claim 11, broadly interpreted, Boehmke discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 19-20) for controlling a light detection and ranging system (210, Fig. 2]) wherein the second object (i.e. objects detected after adjustable parameters of the lidar sensor, para. [0038])) is detected with a second optical beam emitted from the optical source (para. [0038], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, broadly interpreted, Boehmke discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 19-20) for controlling a light detection and ranging system (210, Fig. 2]) wherein the second power level corresponds with detection of a distance from the optical source (216, Fig. 2) to the second object (i.e. objects/vehicles detected (para. [0030] inherently indicate a distance from the optical sources with a corresponding light source power level as per the adjustment disclosed in para. [0038], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Boehmke discloses a discloses a system comprising: a processor (510, Fig. 5) connected to an optical source (216, Fig. 2);
a memory (520, Fig. 5) storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor,
cause the processor (510) to:
detect a first object(objects, para. [0026], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 2) with a first optical beam emitted from an optical source (216, Fig. 2) activated with a first power level(para. [0038]);
decide to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition parameter (vehicle conditions 232, 238, 239, para. [0035]; Fig. 2; ‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’, para. [0038]); and
select a second power level to detect a second object (i.e. object after the power adjustment, Fig. 2) using the optical source (216, Fig. 2. para. [0038], “….(‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’)).
Boehmke discloses is silent, but Shanta in the same field of endeavor teaches a vehicle condition parameter indicative of a vehicle wheel position (para. [0019]. “…sensors used to sense a position and/or state of one or more vehicle components…”). In para. [0032] of the specification in the instant application, the “wheel position’ is measured via sensor just like vehicle speed and vehicle inertial measurements recited there (para. [0032] of the application “…one or more sensors can convey vehicle speed, vehicle inertial measurements, and vehicle wheel position…”). There wheel position parameter do not seem to be a special parameter apart being just a parameter to be sensed regarding a position and/or state of one or more vehicle components.
Therefore, 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 vehicle condition parameter disclosed in Boehmke to indicate/measure a vehicle wheel position as taught in Shanta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize the LIDAR configurations for the LIDAR sensor and dynamically control the increase or decrease power of the laser source as well as increase or decrease the pulse rate (para. [0038], Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, broadly interpreted, Boehmke discloses a 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 (para. [0039]), and calculate a risk a third object will obstruct travel of the optical source based on a virtual actor that is not detected but is determined to be possible based on the a detected environment of the area (digital reality; i.e. configuration logic for optimization via lookup table, para. [0037], configuration logic that is not detected but is determined to be possible based on the a detected environment of the area ).
Regarding Claim 16, broadly interpreted, Boehmke discloses a 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 216 in Fig, 2, the FOV can have hidden aspects/objects from the optical source).
Regarding Claim 17, Boehmke discloses a discloses a system comprising: a processor (510, Fig. 5) wherein the area of the field of view is an intersection, hill, or wall (para. [0035], detected hazards 238 (e.g., identified pedestrians, bicyclists, road objects, etc.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Buoniconti, IV et al. (US 2023/0243977).
Regarding Claim 4, broadly interpreted Boehmke discloses a LIDAR system wherein activating the optical source with the second power level to detect an object (para. [0038]) and detect hazards/objects (para. [0035], ‘…, detected hazards 238 (e.g., identified pedestrians, bicyclists, road objects, etc.…’), fig. 2), but silent to disclose a LIDAR system to detect a velocity of an object.
Boehmke 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 Boehmke 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Lu et al. (US 2023/0011457).
Regarding Claim 6, Boehmke discloses a LIDAR system of detecting a first object (objects, para. [0026], [0034]-[0035], Fig. 2) using an optical source (216, Fig. 2) activated with a first power level (para. [0038]); determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition (‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’, para. [0038]).
Boehmke is silent, but Lu 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 in a package containing the optical source, 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 Boehmke 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 Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Schwindt et al. (US 2021/0139018).
Regarding Claim 7, broadly interpreted Boehmke discloses a LIDAR system comprising determining to reduce the first power level in response to a first detected vehicle condition/parameter (‘…the LIDAR controller 250 can increase or decrease power to the laser source 216 …’, para. [0038], para. [0030])).
Boehmke is silent, but Schwindt in the same field of endeavor teaches a lidar system wherein the detected vehicle condition is a vehicle speed , a vehicle inertia, an age of a last full power scan or an indication of turning, braking, acceleration, or lane change 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 Boehmke with the vehicle speed vehicle conditions detected by the vehicle control sensor as taught in Schwindt with a reasonable expectation of success because it is 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 Boehmke 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 determine the increased/reduced power level of the optical source as desired in Boehmke.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0180772).
Regarding Claim 14, Boehmke discloses a system comprising identify a region of a field of view (VFOV, para. [0039]) of the optical source (216, Fig. 2) that poses safety threat for a vehicle containing the optical source (Fig. 2).
Boehmke 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 Boehmke 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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Yoshimatsu et al. (US 2023/0120172) (PCT Pub. date Sep.23, 2021) .
Regarding Claim 18, broadly interpreted and best understood modified Boehmke 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 Boehmke 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 Boehmke 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 Boehmke 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 Boehmke (US 2017/0168146) in view of Lu et al. (US2023/0011457).
Regarding Claim 20, broadly interpreted modified Boehmke 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. [0038]).
Boehmke 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 Boehmke 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 Boehmke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights