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 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, 11 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20200256955 A1 in view of D2 US 20230168344 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 11 D1 teaches
1. A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device, comprising:
a laser light irradiator(402) configured to irradiate a pulsed laser light towards an object;[0003]
a laser light receiver(410B) configured to detect a pulsed laser reflected light signal based on receiving the pulsed laser light reflected from the object;(fig. 2)
a signal analyzer configured to determine noise [0067]
a processor configured to, in response to a determination noise[0067], adjust a dynamic range of an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to sample the pulsed laser reflected light signal.[0067]
but does not explicitly teach
a signal analyzer configured to determine whether the pulsed laser reflected light signal is a low signal to noise ratio (SNR) signal based on comparing a level of the pulsed laser reflected light signal with a reference signal level; and
D2 teaches
Analyzing instead of noise signal to noise ratio [0004]
Although D1 and D2 do not say
based on comparing a level of the pulsed laser reflected light signal with a reference signal level
obtaining SNR by comparing the signal to reference background is well known in the art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 to use SNR as it is simple alternative to the noise level in comparison to signal which is important to identify the reflection signals.
2, 12 The LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to the determination that the pulsed laser reflected light signal is the low SNR signal, adjust the dynamic range of the ADC such that the dynamic range is smaller than a reference dynamic range, to configure the ADC to detect a valid signal corresponding to the pulsed laser reflected light signal from the low SNR signal.(obvious over[0067] as low signal to noise ratio means weak signal and using smaller dynamic range is within one of ordinary skills in the art to find the dynamic range which gives best signal to noise ratio )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Although does not explicitly teach
3, 13 The LiDAR device of claim 2, wherein the adjusted dynamic range is 1/4 of the reference dynamic range of the ADC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Although does not explicitly teach
4, 14 The LiDAR device of claim 2, wherein the ADC is configured to perform signal sampling with a rate of 4 times per second on the pulsed laser reflected light signal determined to be the low SNR signal.
Optimizing the sampling rate is obvious modification in order to achieve the desirable SNR.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980).
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
8, 18The LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the signal analyzer comprises:
a first ADC configured to perform analog-to-digital conversion on the pulsed laser light irradiated from the laser light irradiator; and
a second ADC configured to perform analog-to-digital conversion on the pulsed laser reflected light signal detected by the laser light receiver,
wherein the first ADC and the second ADC are each configured to perform analog-to-digital conversion for 2-channel signal sampling from a second pulse of the pulsed laser reflected light signal corresponding to a certain pixel.
It is just simple multiplication of parts in order to simultaneously detect signals from larger area.
9, 19 The LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the pulsed laser light is irradiated and the pulsed laser reflected light signal is detected in units of one pixel of an image of the object.(implicit one detector is one pixel and it detects pixel of image, pixel size can be large or small)
10, 20 The LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a distance to the object, based on a time of flight (ToF) from the LiDAR device to the object, the ToF being measured based on detecting the pulsed laser reflected light signal.(implicit LIDAR device measures the distance by using TOF)
With respect to the claim 5, 25 D1 teaches using noise, and S2 analysis of the SNR. As SNR is = signal ratio to noise and in our case reference signal is noise then
“5. The LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the signal analyzer is further configured to
compare a level of a first pulse from among a plurality of pulses of the pulsed laser reflected light signal corresponding to a certain pixel with the reference signal level, and
in response to a determination that the level of the first pulse is lower than the reference signal level, determine that the pulsed laser reflected light signal corresponding to the certain pixel is the low SNR signal.”
Is obvious outcome especially as term “low “is relative.
D1 and D2 teach adjusting gain based on noise or SNR and therefore limitation
6, 26 The LiDAR device of claim 5, wherein the ADC is further configured to perform, in response to a determination that the pulsed laser reflected light signal corresponding to the certain pixel is the low SNR signal, signal sampling using the adjusted dynamic range from a second pulse from among the plurality of pulses.
Is inherently applied for each individual pixel if more than one pixel exist. And using multiple pixels is just obvious modification in order to simultaneously picture large area
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
7, 27 The LiDAR device of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to,
in response to the determination that the pulsed laser reflected light signal is the low SNR signal, adjust the dynamic range of the ADC such that the dynamic range is smaller than a reference dynamic range, to configure the ADC to detect a valid signal corresponding to the pulsed laser reflected light signal from the low SNR signal, and
in response to a determination that the signal sampling using the adjusted dynamic range is completed for the plurality of pulses, restore the adjusted dynamic range to the reference dynamic range of the ADC.
D1 and D2 teach adjustment of the ADC in response to noise or SNR and therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value/range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980)/ In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645