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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As shown on Fig. 2 of D1 the alignment marker 32 which according to fig. 3 can have vertical pillars is shifted from windshield 28(meaning the center of the 32 is shifted from center of windshield. )
According to fig. 2 the sides of 28 and 32 are touching but it is just a matter of the installation, for example if the 32 is glued to the windshield then distance between the sides almost 0 but if they would be connected by the bracket the distance can be arbitrary. Due to the fact that the specification does not explain how that distance is important Examiner considers it as simple design choice.
According to D1 the system 24 is lidar and as one of ordinary skills in the art would know LIDAR in the car usually scan FOV using scanner, to support that Examiner provided secondary reference which teaches polygonal mirror .
Further in paragraph [0023] D1 teaches “The processor 38, in such embodiments, is programmed or configured to compare the indication from the sensor 24 regarding the radiation 36 reflected by the reflective alignment markers 32 to the first indication and to recognize any difference from that as an indication that there is some misalignment” and then clarifies in [0031] that “an indication of the position of the alignment markers 32 relative to the field of view 26 may vary depending on the particular embodiment. In some embodiments, the intensity of the reflected radiation is greater when reflected by the reflective alignment markers 32 compared to that reflected by objects 36 at a further distance from the sensor 24.” Using that it determines “the position of the reflective alignment markers 32 relative to the field of view” which is shifts in X and y Directions in addition to that according to fig. 6 also tilt.
Applicant argues that Prior art does not teach using pillar and wall model, but Examiner wants to note that neither claim or specification use both pillar and wall. The wall is only mentioned , but how it is used is not present in Application.
With respect to argument on page 13 and 14 that art does not teach iterative scan, Examiner agrees, Prior art does not explicitly teach all limitations as claimed in claims 9 and 17. On the other side claim 12 is much broader and prior art teaches calibration and alignment of the pixels which can read on claim language.
.
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 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20200094677 A1 in view of D2 US 20220260686 A1.
Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches
1,5, 6, 7, 12 A calibration apparatus comprising:
a calibration reference model(32) with a vertical pillar(fig. 4 fig. 7) and a horizontal wall(28) spaced apart from a rear surface of the vertical pillar(fig. 2 shows that center of the 32 which is a pillar shifted relative the center of the 28, although pillar and windshield touch each other it is just obvious matter of the placement and placing it shifted with respect to windshield is just matter of design choice, specification does not clarify why the distance between the horizontal wall and vertical pillar is important); and
and ranging (LiDAR) sensor configured to obtain pieces of scan data including the vertical pillar of the calibration reference model[0017], and
calibrate positions of the vertical pillar in pieces of scan data on the basis of a position of the vertical pillar in a specific piece of scan data among the obtained pieces of scan data.[0003][0030-0031]
determining reference scan data among the pieces of scan data, and calculating
degrees to which the vertical pillar is shifted laterally in other pieces of scan data on the basis of a position of the vertical pillar in the reference scan data;(fig. 7)
wherein the controller determines reference scan data[0023](first indication+[0031]) and calibrates a degree to which the vertical pillar is shifted by calculating degrees to which the vertical pillar is shifted laterally in other pieces of scan data on the basis of a position of the vertical pillar in the reference scan data.[0026]+[0003]
Calibrating and aligning sensor to get to the fig. 4.[0003]
but does not teach while D2 teaches
a polygonal mirror rotating light wave detection[0004]
a polygonal mirror rotating light wave detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor fixedly installed at a predetermined position and replaceable([0004] implicit car lidar components are replaceable); and
polygonal mirror rotating LiDAR sensor comprises a controller configured to obtain n pieces of scan data using n polygonal mirrors(fig. 8 implicit)
calibrate positions of the lidar in pieces of scan data on the basis of position data of the vertical pillar in a specific piece of scan data among the n pieces of scan data, wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 2.[0075] (FOV is calibrated in such way that FOV maintains the pixel registration/alignment and hence virtual vertical alignment of the pixels of the same column is calibrated)
controlling the vertical pillar location data in all of the pieces of scan data to coincide with one another by repeating the scanning and the calibrating.[0075](implicit the data are calibrated and aligned to achieve pixel alignment )
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 in order to set up square FOV which is limited by the calibration window frame and then scan the FOV.
2. The calibration apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polygonal mirror rotating LiDAR sensor and the calibration reference model are fixedly installed at predetermined positions.(D1 fig. 2 and D2 obvious vehicle lidar system is fixed)
3. The calibration apparatus of claim 2, wherein the polygonal mirror rotating LiDAR sensor is replaceable. (D2 implicit vehicle lidar system is fixed and replaceable )
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 in order to replace lidar system in case of damage.
4. The calibration apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polygonal mirror rotating LiDAR sensor comprises:
a transmitter(D2 310) configured to transmit laser light;(D2 fig. 3)
a receiver(D2 330) configured to receive reflected light of the laser light from the transmitter;
a polygonal mirror(D2 340) configured to be rotated to reflect the laser light from the transmitter to the calibration reference model and cause laser light reflected from the calibration reference model(D1 fig. 2) to the receiver; and
a controller configured to control laser light output timing of the transmitter and calculate a distance to the calibration reference model by calculating a difference between time when light is output from the transmitter and time when the light is received by the receiver.[0031]
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 in order to perform calibration of the scanning lidar .
8. The calibration apparatus of claim 7, wherein the controller converts the degrees to which the vertical pillar is shifted laterally into rotation angles of the polygonal mirror, and controls the output pulse timing of the transmitter on the basis of the rotation angles.(D2 [0075] obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art in order to create square scan pattern with individual column corresponding to single 360 degree rotation of the polygon mirror )(it is important to note that there are limited possibilities how to calibrate the system to set up FOV in such a way that columns are aligned and therefore pattern consist of parallel lines and all possibilities are predictable and consist of calibrating emission timing, rotation speed of mirror, repetition rate of pulses)
13. The calibration method of claim 12, wherein a number of the pieces of scan data is equal to that of the plurality of mirrors.(obvious modification if number of points in one column corresponds to number of the mirrors )
14. The calibration method of claim 12, wherein information about the degrees to which the vertical pillars are shifted laterally in the other pieces of scan data comprise directionality information of the vertical pillar in the reference scan data.(D1 fig. 7)
15. The calibration method of claim 12, wherein the calibrating of the degrees to which the vertical pillar is shifted laterally comprises adjusting pulse timing of transmission light.(obvious over D2 [0075] the motivation for claim 1)
16 The calibration method of claim 15, wherein the adjusting of the pulse timing of the transmission light comprises:
converting the degrees to which the vertical pillar is shifted laterally into rotation angles of a polygonal mirror; and
controlling output pulse timing of the transmission light on the basis of the rotation angles.(obvious over D2 [0075] the points of the scan need to be aligned in order to create square FOV See motivation above)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 17-19 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant arguments are persuasive.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Some explanation to rejection above
D1 teaches Scanning FOV and then aligning it with 32 as show in fig bellow
PNG
media_image1.png
246
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D2 teaches using the polygon mirror to scan points in FOV. Initially if the pulse timing is misaligned with movement of the mirror the pattern will be like
PNG
media_image2.png
246
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where black points correspond to mirror of 6 sides rotating 360 degree and therefore in order to align the FOV with square sides of 32 and then align all that with the box of FOV one has to inherently either adjust timing of the emission or rotation speed. Inherently time of emission is correlated to the rotation speed and only after that adjustment one can achieve adjustment as bellow.
PNG
media_image3.png
246
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights