DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/167,847, filed 11 February 2023, which claims priority to Provisional Application No. 63/312,356, filed 21 February 2022.
Claims 1–31 are pending.
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 Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(n).
This is informative only; Applicant need not renumber claims at this time.
Claims 1 and 21–23 are objected to because of grammatical inconsistencies with the use of the word “criteria” which is a plural of the singular “criterion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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.
Claims 1–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0131080 A1 (“Retterath”)1 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0284244 A1 (“Russell”)2.
Retterath, directed to Lidar, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) (passim, LiDAR), the method comprising:
a) configuring a laser array such that each laser in the laser array generates an optical beam having a laser field-of-view and an intensity that illuminates a region of interest when energized (¶¶ 0046, Fig. 3, emitter/detector array 10 having array of laser diodes that project beams of light at known angles);
b) configuring a detector array such that each detector in the detector array receives light from a detector field-of-view (id., detector elements 200 in emitter/detector array 10);
c) energizing at least one laser in the laser array (¶ 0048, pulse generation circuit activates emitter);
d) receiving light from the illuminated region of interest of the energized at least one laser in the laser array at the detector array, wherein at least one detector in the array of detectors has a detector field-of-view located within the laser field-of-view of the energized at least one laser in the laser array (¶¶ 0046, 49; detector element configured to be on same axis with emitter element receives light;
e) processing the received light for select ones of the detectors in the detector array with standard parameters to determine time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array (¶ 0053, computing distance to reflected object using time of flight calculation)
to generate a three-dimensional point cloud representation of an object positioned in the illuminated region of interest of the energized at least one laser in the laser array (¶ 0007, point cloud described as known in the art; ¶¶ 0069–70, distance (z-axis) plus spot (x- and y- axes) for each emitter-detector pair is a point cloud).
The claimed invention differs from Retterath in that the claimed invention specifies limitations for bloom correction. Retterath does not disclose this material. However, Russell, directed to control for a Lidar system, teaches with respect to claim 1:
f) analyzing the determined time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets a blooming criteria [sic] indicating that the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object is larger than a true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object (¶¶ 0027, 0030; detecting an atmospheric effect such as rain or fog that distorts the perceived distance of the object by using various means such as detecting a tailing effect);
g) re-energizing the at least one laser in the laser array if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria (¶¶ 0027–29, adjusting power of light pulse);
h) receiving light at the detector array from the illuminated region of interest of the re-energized at least one laser in the laser array, wherein at least one detector in the array of detectors has a detector field-of-view located within the laser field-of-view of the re-energized at least one laser in the laser array (id., discrete or continuous adjustment as needed); and
i) processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object, thereby generating a more accurate image of the object (¶ 0027–30, compensating for the distortion or attenuation of previous light pulses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to improve the Retterath Lidar system by incorporating the Russell power adjustment, in order to compensate for weather conditions that cause error. Russell ¶ 0027.
Regarding claim 2, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the processing the received light for select one of the detectors in the detector array with standard parameters additionally determines intensity data for the select ones of the detectors in the detector array to generate the three-dimensional intensity image of an object positioned in the illuminated region of interest of the energized at least one laser in the laser array (Retterath ¶ 0043, signal intensity known in LiDAR as encoding information about the object that produced the return signal; ¶ 0105, measuring intensity value for each data point).
Regarding claim 4, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 2 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detectors in the detector array further comprises processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object (Retterath Fig. 8, array of detector elements 200; Russell ¶¶ 0143–46, processing returned light pulse for parameters including rise time, fall time, or pulse duration).
Regarding claim 3, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 2 further comprising analyzing the determined intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria (Russell ¶ 0030, identify suspect returned light profiles consistent with attenuation or distortion).
Regarding claim 5, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array further comprises processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with parameters to determine time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object (Retterath Fig. 8, array of detector elements 200; Russell ¶¶ 0143–46, processing returned light pulse for parameters including rise time, fall time, or pulse duration).
Regarding claim 10, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the energizing the at least one laser in the laser array comprises energizing a first and second laser in the laser array (Retterath Fig. 8, array of detector elements 200).
Regarding claim 11, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 10 wherein the first and second lasers are adjacent to each other in the laser array (Retterath Fig. 8, array of detector elements 200).
Regarding claim 12, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria comprises comparing intensity data associated with the energized first and second lasers (Russell ¶ 0146, comparing pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line adjustments of power intensity)
Regarding claim 13, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein energizing the at least one laser in the laser array comprises energizing the at least one laser in the laser array to generate two different optical transmit powers at two different times (Russell ¶ 0146, adjusting light source parameters, including pulse energy of light pulses).
Regarding claim 14, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 13 wherein analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria comprises comparing the processed and received light at the generated two different optical transmit powers at the two different times (Russell ¶ 0146, continued pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line adjustments of power intensity over time).
Regarding claim 18, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria comprises determining a pulse characteristic of the processed received light (Russell ¶ 0030, returned light pulse anomalies indicate distorting atmospheric conditions).
Regarding claim 19, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 18 wherein the pulse characteristic comprises a pulse width (Russell ¶ 0030, pulse duration).
Regarding claim 20, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 18 further comprising comparing the determined pulse characteristic of the processed received light to a predetermined pulse characteristic (Russell ¶ 0030, thresholds of pulse duration or falling edge duration).
Regarding claim 25, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with the blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object comprises reducing a laser field-of-view for at least one of the plurality of lasers in the laser array (Russell ¶¶ 0027–28, compensating for excessive scattering; ¶¶ 0100–102, maintaining relative positions of emitted and received fields of view).
Regarding claim 26, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with the blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object comprises reducing an optical transmit power generated by at least one laser in the plurality of lasers in the laser array (Russell ¶¶ 0028–30, adjusting light pulse power including reducing power).
Regarding claim 28, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with the blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object comprises reducing a pulse width generated by a laser in the plurality of lasers (Russell ¶¶ 0031, 0071, 0141, 0161; adjusting pulse duration).
Regarding claim 30, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array comprises comparing the processed received light for detectors corresponding to detector field-of-views located inside of the laser field-of-view of the energized at least one laser in the laser array to the processed received light for detectors corresponding to detector field-of-views located outside of the laser field-of-view of the energized at least one laser in the laser array (Retterath ¶ 0046, 0053–54; paired emitters and detectors that emit and receive light pulses with narrow fields of view; Russell ¶ 0146, comparing pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line adjustments of power intensity).
Regarding claim 31, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 30 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with the blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object comprises processing received light for detectors corresponding to a detector field-of-view located outside of the laser field-of-view of the energized at least one laser in the laser array (Retterath ¶ 0046, 0053–54; paired emitters and detectors that emit and receive light pulses with narrow fields of view; Russell ¶ 0146, comparing pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line adjustments of power intensity).
Regarding claim 6, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria comprises comparing time-of-flight data associated with the energized at least one laser (Retterath ¶ 0046, emitter and detector pairs; Russell ¶¶ 0044–45, time of flight analysis)
Regarding claim 7, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the energizing the at least one laser in the laser array comprises energizing a first and second laser in the laser array (Retterath Fig. 8, array of detector elements 200).
Regarding claim 8, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 7 wherein the first and second lasers are adjacent to each other in the laser array (Retterath Fig. 8, array of detector elements 200).
Regarding claim 9, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the metho of claim 8 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria comprises comparing intensity data associated with the energized first and second laser (Russell ¶ 0146, comparing pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line adjustments of power intensity).
Regarding claim 15, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detectors in the detector array to determine if the processed received light meets the blooming criteria comprises determining a pulse characteristic of the processed received light (Russell ¶ 0030, returned light pulse anomalies indicate distorting atmospheric conditions).
Regarding claim 16, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 15 wherein the pulse characteristic comprises a pulse width (Russell ¶ 0030, pulse duration).
Regarding claim 17, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 15 further comprising comparing the determined pulse characteristic of the processed received light to a predetermined pulse characteristic (Russell ¶ 0030, thresholds of pulse duration or falling edge duration).
Regarding claim 21, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the blooming criteria changes [sic] as a function of time (Russell ¶ 0025, examples of triggering event include ambient events such as insect swarm and vehicle approach).
Regarding claim 22, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the blooming criteria changes [sic] as a function of ambient light conditions (Russell ¶ 0025, examples of triggering event include fog and smoke).
Regarding claim 23, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the blooming criteria changes [sic] as a function of weather conditions (Russell ¶ 0025, examples of triggering event include atmospheric conditions such as rain, snow, or fog).
Regarding claim 24, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with the blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object comprises reducing a laser field-of-view for at least one of the plurality of lasers in the laser array (Russell ¶¶ 0027–28, compensating for excessive scattering; ¶¶ 0100–102, maintaining relative positions of emitted and received fields of view).
Regarding claim 27, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the processing the received light for selected ones of the detectors in the detector array with the blooming parameters to determine time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array that at least partially compensate for the three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object being larger than the true three-dimensional point cloud representation of the object comprises reducing a pulse width generated by a laser in the plurality of lasers (Russell ¶¶ 0031, 0071, 0141, 0161; adjusting pulse duration).
Regarding claim 29, Retterath in view of Russell teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the analyzing the determined time-of-flight and intensity data for the select ones of detectors in the detector array comprises comparing the processed received light for detectors corresponding to detector field-of-views located inside of the laser field-of-view of the energized at least one laser in the laser array to the processed received light for detectors corresponding to detector field-of-views located outside of the laser field-of-view of the energized at least one laser in the laser array (Retterath ¶ 0046, 0053–54; paired emitters and detectors that emit and receive light pulses with narrow fields of view; Russell ¶ 0146, comparing pixel-by-pixel or line-by-line adjustments of power intensity).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2022/0365219 A1
US 2019/0146071 A1
US 2019/0302246 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 This reference was cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding application PCT/US2023/052750 and was listed in the 12 September 2023 Information Disclosure Statement.
2 This reference was cited as a ‘Y’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding application PCT/US2023/052750 and was listed in the 12 September 2023 Information Disclosure Statement.