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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chamberlain (10754034).
Referring to claims 2 and 8, Chamberlain shows a lidar emitter (see column 2 lines 23-35) comprising one or more emitter elements configured to emit optical signals defining a primary field of illumination (see figure 2 note the undirected field of view); and
one or more reflective optical elements (see figure 3 and 4 Ref 16) that are arranged to reflect one or more subsets of the optical signals into respective fields of illumination that are different than the primary field of illumination (see figure 3 and 4 note the redirected field of view), wherein at least one of the respective fields of illumination does not overlap with the primary field of illumination (see figure 2 note Ref 12 and 14 being orthogonal to each other).
Referring to claims 3 and 9, Chamberlain shows the primary field of illumination comprises a first field of illumination and one or more additional fields of illumination, and wherein the one or more reflective optical elements are arranged to obstruct the one or more additional fields of illumination, optionally without altering the first field of illumination (see figure 2, note the undirected FOV is not changed or blocked however the redirected FOV is redirected by the reflector Ref 16).
Referring to claims 4 and 10, Chamberlain shows the lidar emitter is configured to be mounted facing a first direction, wherein the at least one of the respective fields of illumination comprises a second field of illumination in a second direction that differs from the first direction by about 60 degrees or more, by about 90 degrees or more, by about 120 degrees or more, or by about 180 degrees or more (see figure 3 note the location of the emitter is directed at the undirected FOV and the redirected FOV is 90 degrees or more).
Referring to claim 16, Chamberlain shows the one or more reflective optical elements comprise static elements that are arranged in respective fixed positions within the primary field of illumination and/or the primary field of detection (see figure 3 Ref 16).
Referring to claim 17, Chamberlain shows the one or more reflective optical elements comprises one or more mirrors (see column 5 lines 47-51).
Referring to claim 21, Chamberlain shows the one or more reflective optical elements are arranged to provide the respective fields of illumination and/or the respective fields of view in two or more dimensions (see figure 2 Ref 12 and 14).
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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (10754034) in view of O’Keeffe (20180059248).
Referring to claim 1, Chamberlain shows a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (see figure 3 Ref 10 also see figure 5 Ref 10), comprising:
a lidar emitter comprising one or more emitter elements configured to emit optical signals defining a primary field of illumination (see column 2 lines 23-35 also see figure 2 Ref 12);
a lidar detector comprising one or more
one or more reflective optical elements (see figure 3-5 note Ref 16), wherein the one or more reflective optical elements are arranged to:
reflect one or more subsets of the optical signals into respective fields of illumination that are different than the primary field of illumination (see the static and dynamic redirected beams in figure 3 and 4), wherein at least one of the respective fields of illumination does not overlap with the primary field of illumination (see figure 3 and 4 also see also see figure 2 Ref 12 and 14); and/or
reflect light from respective fields of view different than the primary field of detection toward the lidar detector, wherein at least one of the respective fields of view does not overlap with the primary field of detection (see figure 3 and 4 note the redirected field of view).
While Chamberlain shows the use of a LIDAR system with a photodetector there is no details pertaining to the photodetector. O’Keeffe shows a similar device that includes a multi-FOV LIDAR system (see figure 26 note Ref 2160a that creates beam 2180d and 2180c) and includes a detector with one or more pixels (see paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to include one or more pixels as shown by O’Keeffe because this is extremely well known in LIDAR and produces a larger image per emission in the LIDAR.
Referring to claim 18, Chamberlain fails to show but O’Keeffe shows the one or more reflective optical elements comprises one or more reflective surfaces of a housing comprising the lidar emitter and/or the lidar detector (see figure 26 Ref 2150b). It would have been obvious to include the reflective surface on the housing of the LIDAR because this allows for a more compact device.
Referring to claim 19, Chamberlain fails to show but O’Keeffe shows the first direction is a forward direction of travel of an autonomous vehicle (see figure 24B). It would have been obvious to include the primary direction being the front of a vehicle because this is the predominant direction of travel for an autonomous vehicle.
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Chamberlain and O’Keeffe shows at least one control circuit coupled to the lidar emitter and/or the lidar detector, wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to:
operate the lidar emitter and/or the lidar detector to provide the first field of illumination and/or the first field view responsive to detecting a first vehicle operational mode for travel in the forward direction; and
operate the lidar emitter and/or the lidar detector to provide the second field of illumination and/or the second field view responsive to detecting a second vehicle operational mode for travel in a reverse direction of travel (see figure 24B Ref 2410h and 2410g of O’Keeffe in conjunction with the switchable FOV as shown by Chamberlain in the dynamic optical element in figure 4 Ref 16). It would have been obvious to include the switchable element as shown by Chamberlain in fig 4 with the forward or reverse direction of travel with the autonomous vehicle as shown by O’Keeffe because this allows the full intensity of the laser to be used when the vehicle is traveling forward while allowing detection behind the vehicle while traveling in reverse.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (10754034) in view of Steinberg (20190227175).
Referring to claim 5, Chamberlain fails to show but Steinberg shows the one or more emitter elements comprises first and second emitter elements, the first emitter elements are configured to provide the first field of illumination, and the second emitter elements and the one or more reflective optical elements are configured to provide the second field of illumination (see figure 2B note the multiple Ref 102 that correspond to different FOV Ref 120A-120C). It would have been obvious to include multiple emitters as shown by Steinberg because this allow for the full power of a laser to be emitted to a specific FOV.
Referring to claim 6, Chamberlain fails to show but Steinberg shows an emitter control circuit coupled to the lidar emitter and configured to activate the first and second emitter elements to provide the first and second fields of illumination, respectively, sequentially and/or with different power levels (see paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to include the different power levels as shown by Steinberg because this allows for detecting different objects that may require different power levels in different FOV’s as well as maintaining eye-safety in specific FOV’s that include pedestrians.
Referring to claims 7 and 14, Chamberlain fails to show but Steinberg shows the first field of illumination and the respective fields of illumination collectively illuminate an angular range of up to 360 degrees relative to the first direction (see paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to include the 360 relative to the first direction because this allows a vehicle borne LIDAR to have situational awareness of obstacles surrounding the vehicle.
Referring to claim 11, Chamberlain fails to show but Steinberg shows the one or more detector pixels comprise first and second detector pixels, the first detector pixels are configured to image the first field of view, and the second detector pixels and the one or more reflective optical elements are configured to image the second field of view see figure 2B note the multiple Ref 102 that correspond to different FOV Ref 120A-120C also the associated detectors Ref 116). It would have been obvious to include dedicated detectors for each FOV because this allows for high resolution images for each of the individual and separate FOV’s.
Referring to claim 12, Chamberlain fails to show but Steinberg shows a detector control circuit coupled to the lidar detector and configured to activate the first and second detector pixels to image the first and second fields of view, respectively, sequentially and/or with different sensitivity levels,
optionally synchronously or in coordination with activation of first and second emitter elements of a lidar emitter to sequentially provide first and second fields of illumination, respectively (see paragraph 42 and 53). It would have been obvious to include different sensitivity levels as shown by Steinberg because this allows for compensating the different sensitivity for different laser level powers of a particular FOV, allowing for detecting targets without saturating a detector.
Referring to claim 13, the combination of both Chamberlain and Steinberg shows at least one control circuit coupled to the lidar detector, wherein the at least one control circuit is configured to:
receive respective detection signals output from the first and second detector pixels;
calculate a distance, position, and/or direction of a first target in the first field of view relative to the first direction responsive to the respective detection signals output from the first detector pixels; and
calculate a distance, position, and/or direction of a second target in the second field of view relative to the first direction responsive to the respective detection signals output from the second detector pixels (see figure 2B Ref 118 of Steinberg and figure 5 Ref 48 of Chamberlain).
Referring to claim 15, Chamberlain fails to show but Steinberg shows the one or more reflective optical elements comprise a shared element that is configured to reflect the one or more subsets of the optical signals into one of the respective fields of illumination and to reflect the light from one of the respective fields of view toward the lidar detector (see figure 2B Ref 114). It would have been obvious to include the shared element as shown by Steinberg because this allows for scanning of 360 degrees with only a single element based on the angular dispersion of multiple transmitter detector pairs as taught by Steinberg.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645