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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims use the terms “spinning LiDAR system” and “scanning LiDAR system”. These terms are explained in the Specification, paragraph [0051] as follows: “The spinning LiDAR sensor 117 may be configured to rotate 360° and take a “shot” of a scene of the vehicle environment, meaning that all points on a vertical line are acquired at approximately the same time by the spinning LiDAR sensor 117. In contrast, the scanning LiDAR sensor 119 may be configured to acquire points in an iterative fashion, moving upward sequentially to image an area in front of the scanning LiDAR sensor 119”. The Examiner interprets the spinning LidAR sensor is interpreted as acquiring points azimuthally, while the scanning LiDAR system is interpreted as acquired points along an altitude (or polar angle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 7-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Purdy (US 12,240,445).
With regard to claim 1, Purdy discloses a method (Fig. 10, see also Fig. 4 for system components) for detecting and measuring object velocity, comprising:
using a spinning Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system (rotating LIDAR 202(1)), generating a first LIDAR point cloud of an environment surrounding a vehicle;
using a scanning LiDAR system (scanning LIDAR 202(2)), generating a second LiDAR point cloud of the environment surrounding the vehicle; and
using a processor (Fig. 14, element 1404, 25th col. lines 9-15): identifying
points within the first LIDAR point cloud coinciding with a position of an object; and points within the second LiDAR point cloud coinciding with a position of the object;
determining whether the points within the second LiDAR point cloud line up with the points within the first LiDAR point cloud; and
when the points within the second LiDAR point cloud do not line up with the points within the first LiDAR point cloud, determining that the object is moving (velocity attribute determined based on difference between first point cloud and second point cloud, 10th col. lines 38-41, implicitly there is a non-zero velocity when the point clouds do not line up).
With regard to claim 7, Purdy discloses a system for detecting and measuring object velocity, comprising (Fig. 4):
a spinning Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system (rotating LIDAR 202(1)), coupled to a vehicle (102), configured to generate a first LiDAR point cloud (112(1)) of an environment surrounding the vehicle;
a scanning LiDAR system, (scanning LIDAR 202(2)) coupled to the vehicle (102), configured to generate a second LIDAR point cloud (112(2)) of the environment surrounding the vehicle; and
a processor (25th col. lines 9-15, and Fig. 14, element (1416) )coupled to the vehicle, configured to store programming instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to identify:
points within the first LIDAR point cloud coinciding with a position of an object; and
points within the second LiDAR point cloud coinciding with a position of the object;
determine whether the points within the second LiDAR point cloud line up with the points within the first LiDAR point cloud; and
when the points within the second LiDAR point cloud do not line up with the points within the first LIDAR point cloud, determine that the object is moving (velocity attribute determined based on difference between first point cloud and second point cloud, 10th col. lines 38-41, implicitly there is a non-zero velocity when the point clouds do not line up).
With regard to claim 14, Purdy discloses a system for detecting and measuring object velocity, comprising (Fig. 4):
a spinning Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system (rotating LIDAR 202(1)), coupled to a vehicle (102), configured to generate a first LiDAR point cloud (112(1)) of an environment surrounding the vehicle;
a scanning LiDAR system, (scanning LIDAR 202(2)) coupled to the vehicle (102), configured to generate a second LIDAR point cloud (112(2)) of the environment surrounding the vehicle; and
a computing device (Fig. 14, element 1404, 25th col. lines 9-15), comprising a processor (1416) and a memory (1418), coupled to the vehicle, configured to store programming instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: identify:
points within the first LIDAR point cloud coinciding with a position of an object; and
points within the second LiDAR point cloud coinciding with a position of the object;
determine whether the points within the second LiDAR point cloud line up with the points within the first LiDAR point cloud; and
when the points within the second LiDAR point cloud do not line up with the points within the first LIDAR point cloud, determine that the object is moving (velocity attribute determined based on difference between first point cloud and second point cloud, 10th col. lines 38-41, implicitly there is a non-zero velocity when the point clouds do not line up).
With regard to claims 2, 8, and 15, the velocity is determined based on the difference in position between the points within the second LIDAR point cloud and the points within the first LIDAR point cloud (also including the time difference, 12th col. lines 35-57).
With regard to claims 3, 9, and 16, the calculation of the velocity using the difference in point clouds according to the method (12th col. lines 35-57) will result in determining that the object is not moving when the point clouds line up.
With regard to claims 13, and 20 the system further includes a vehicle (102).
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) 4-5, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 2023/0213628).
Purdy does not specifically disclose, but LaChapelle teaches in the same field of endeavor, that the point cloud is generated in a single scan across a field of regard of a LIDAR scanner (para. [0152], motion of single facet of polygon mirror corresponds to a scan producing one point cloud). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, to configure the scanning LIDAR system of Purdy before the effective filing date of the application, to generate a point cloud with a single scan of the scanning LIDAR as suggested by LaChapelle, to quickly obtain complete data of the environment which is desirable for the safe operation of autonomous vehicle (Purdy, 6th col. lines 7-16). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, to configure the spinning LIDAR system of Purdy before the effective filing date of the application, to generate a point cloud with a single scan of the scanning LIDAR as suggested by LaChapelle, to quickly obtain complete data of the environment which is desirable for the safe operation of autonomous vehicle (Purdy, 6th col. lines 7-16).
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, and further in view of Pennecot et al. (US 2018/0011196). Purdy does not specifically disclose that the spinning LIDAR system is coupled (physically) to the scanning LIDAR system. However, in the same field of endeavor, Pennecot et al. teach a LIDAR system mounted on a vehicle (see Fig. 1B and para. [0047], comprising a first LIDAR (120), and a second LIDAR (122) coupled to the first via a dividing structure (124) ). The first and second LIDAR may be rotating in various configurations. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application to couple the first and second LIDAR of Purdy, as taught by Pennecot et al., for compactness and to manufacture the LIDAR and associated processors as a single unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gassend et al. disclose multiple LIDAR sensors with different scanning directions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645