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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 states: “The system of claim 1, the controller further…” this is improper English, the claim is interpreted as stating “The system of claim 1, wherein the controller further…”
Claim 23 states: “wherein the first ROI comprises a spatial region directly in on a side of a vehicle,” this is improper English, the claim is interpreted as stating “wherein the first ROI comprises a spatial region directly on a side of a vehicle”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15 recites the limitation "the instructions" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the claim is interpreted as “The system of claim 14, wherein the controller is further configured to:….”
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) 1-2, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akselrod et al. (US 20180239021).
Regarding claim 1, Akselrod teaches:
A light detection and ranging (lidar) system (#205 of Fig. 1, Lidar scanning system), comprising:
a transmitter subsystem (#210 of Fig. 1, optical transmitter) with a tunable optical metasurface (#216 of Fig. 1, transmit reconfigurable metasurface) to selectively steer optical radiation at various steering angles toward distant surfaces [31];
a receiver subsystem (#230 of Fig. 1, optical receiver) to receive reflected optical radiation from the distant surfaces [57]; and
a controller (#250 of Fig. 1, scanning engine, [30]) to operate the transmitter subsystem and the receiver subsystem [50] to:
scan a first region of interest (ROI) corresponding to a first set of steering angles (#φ1 and #φ3 shown in Fig. 3, regions) with a first set of ROI scan parameters ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5", φ1 and φ3 would use a standard resolution scan, thus having a first set of scan parameters), and
scan a second ROI corresponding to a second set of the steering angles (#φ2, #φ4 and #φ5 shown in Fig. 3, regions) with a second set of the ROI scan parameters ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5")
Regarding claim 2, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first set of steering angles of the first ROI includes a first subset of steering angles (#φ1 shown in Fig. 3, region) and a second subset of steering angles (#φ3 shown in Fig. 3, region) that are discontinuous with respect to one another, and wherein the second set of steering angles includes at least some steering angles that are between the first subset of steering angles and the second subset of steering angles (#φ2 shown in Fig. 3, region).
Regarding claim 10, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the metasurface comprises a one-dimensionally steerable metasurface [37], such that the first ROI is defined as one or more scan lines at the first set of steering angles ([50], incrementally stepping the pulsed light over a portion of the field of view is considered to be a scan line) and the second ROI is defined as one or more of scan lines at the second set of steering angles ([50], incrementally stepping the pulsed light over a portion of the field of view is considered to be a scan line).
Regarding claim 11, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the metasurface comprises a two-dimensionally steerable metasurface [37], wherein the first set of steering angles of the first ROI comprises a first set of two-dimensionally steered beamforms ([50], incrementally stepping the pulsed light over a portion of the field of view is considered to be two-dimensionally steered beamforms, this is a separate embodiment from claim 10), and wherein the second set of steering angles of the second ROI comprises a second set of two-dimensionally steered beamforms ([50], incrementally stepping the pulsed light over a portion of the field of view is considered to be two-dimensionally steered beamforms, this is a separate embodiment from claim 10).
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) 3, 14-16, 19-21, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li et al. (US 20230213623).
Regarding claim 3, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a steering scan resolution ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5"), and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first scan resolution ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5", φ1 and φ3 would use a standard resolution scan, thus having a first set of scan parameters) and to scan the second ROI with a second resolution ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5").
Akselrod does not teach.
The system of claim 1, wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a steering scan resolution that defines an angular step size between steering angles
However, Li teaches:
Increasing resolution by using denser spacing between points [92 states “such an increase can be achieved by decreasing the delta of the vertical angles between adjacent vertical angles”]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to dynamically change angular step size. This would have the predictable result of changing the resolution. Akselrod opens the door to changing the resolution (Akselrod: "An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5"), but does not specify the mechanism for doing so. Li merely fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 14, Akselrod teaches:
A software-defined lidar (SWDL) system (#205 of Fig. 1, Lidar scanning system, [24-30], the system may be software defined for further flexibility), comprising:
a single physical lidar device (#205 of Fig. 1, Lidar scanning system) that includes:
a transmitter subsystem (#210 of Fig. 1, optical transmitter) with a tunable optical metasurface (#216 of Fig. 1, transmit reconfigurable metasurface) to selectively steer optical radiation at various steering angles toward distant surfaces [31], and
a receiver subsystem (#230 of Fig. 1, optical receiver) to receive reflected optical radiation from the distant surfaces [57]; and
a controller to control the operation of the single physical lidar device (#250 of Fig. 1, scanning engine, [30, 50]), wherein the controller is configured to:
scan, via the single physical lidar device, each ROI according to the associated ROI scan parameters [50] to generate a virtual lidar sensor data set for each ROI [55]
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive one or more scan definitions from one or more requestors, including a first scan definition from a first requestor, wherein each scan definition specifies (i) a region of interest (ROI) corresponding to a set of steering angles of a single physical lidar device and (ii) associated ROI scan parameters and
transmit the virtual lidar sensor data set of each ROI to each respective requestor, such that the first requestor receives the virtual lidar sensor data associated with the ROI of the first scan definition.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive one or more scan definitions [125] from one or more requestors (#220 of Fig. 2, vehicle perception and planning system, [125]), including a first scan definition [130] from a first requestor (#220 of Fig. 2, vehicle perception and planning system, [125]), wherein each scan definition specifies (i) a region of interest (ROI) [130] corresponding to a set of steering angles of a single physical lidar device and (ii) associated ROI scan parameters [117] and
transmit the virtual lidar sensor data set of each ROI to each respective requestor (#213 of Fig. 2, communication path), such that the first requestor receives the virtual lidar sensor data associated with the ROI of the first scan definition (while Li does not explicitly teach this, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that whichever system sent the ROI reconfiguration request would receive the requested information, e.g. example given in [127])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to receive ROI requests and execute them similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of integrating the LIDAR system into an autonomous driving system, and would allow for it to quickly adapt to dynamic environments. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]).
Regarding claim 15, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 14
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor of the controller, further cause the controller to:
receive a modification to the first scan definition from the first requestor that specifies one or more of (i) an updated ROI corresponding to an updated set of steering angles and (ii) updated ROI scan parameters.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor of the controller, further cause the controller to:
receive a modification to the first scan definition from the first requestor ([105], the vehicle perception and planning system may execute steps #810-840 of Fig. 8 and transmit the information to the LIDAR system #210 of Fig. 2, this is considered a an ROI request, the ROI reconfiguration request is then considered a modification to the first scan definition [125]) that specifies one or more of (i) an updated ROI corresponding to an updated set of steering angles and (ii) updated ROI scan parameters [117 and 130].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to modify ROIs based on ROI reconfiguration requests similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of integrating the LIDAR system into an autonomous driving system, and would allow for it to quickly adapt to dynamic environments. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]).
Regarding claim 16, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 14,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the controller scans each ROI by:
generating a plurality of scan table entries, wherein each scan table entry specifies a steering angle and at least one additional ROI scan parameter for the single physical lidar device; and
controlling the single physical lidar device to implement a non-sequential set of the scan table entries by repeating a scan cycle that includes:
identifying a scan table entry to be implemented next as a current scan table entry,
implementing the current scan table entry by controlling the single physical lidar to scan a portion of an ROI according to the current scan table entry,
capturing sensor data via a detection subsystem of the single physical lidar for the current scan table entry,
processing, via a perception stack, the sensor data for the current scan table entry to generate a perception output, and
identifying the next scan table entry to be implemented based on the perception output.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the controller scans each ROI by:
generating a plurality of scan table entries ([136], ROI scan list), wherein each scan table entry specifies a steering angle and at least one additional ROI scan parameter for the single physical lidar device [137];
and controlling the single physical lidar device to implement a non-sequential set of the scan table entries ([131], priority based scanning is non-sequential) by repeating a scan cycle that includes:
identifying a scan table entry to be implemented next as a current scan table entry ([141] scan the set of ROIs with highest priority),
implementing the current scan table entry by controlling the single physical lidar to scan a portion of an ROI according to the current scan table entry [141],
capturing sensor data via a detection subsystem of the single physical lidar for the current scan table entry (Step #810 of Fig. 8, [106]),
processing, via a perception stack, the sensor data for the current scan table entry to generate a perception output (Step #830 of Fig. 8, [111]),
and identifying the next scan table entry to be implemented (Step #930 of Fig. 9, [141]) based on the perception output (Step #910 of Fig. 9, [137], the perception output determines the policy-based ROI candidates).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to integrate with a perception stack and use a priority scan list with reconfigurable ROI’s similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of integrating the LIDAR system into an autonomous driving system, and would allow for it to quickly adapt to dynamic environments. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]).
Regarding claim 19, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 14, wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise one or more of a scan resolution ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5"), a frame rate, a refresh rate, a power level of generated optical radiation, an integration time, a scan range, a scan angle, a bias voltage of a receiver, number of laser pulses, and a dwell time.
Regarding claim 20, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 14,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein scan definitions from two different requestors include ROIs that at least partially overlap, and wherein the controller operates to send virtual lidar sensor data to both requestors from a single scan of the overlapping portion of the ROI.
However, Li teaches:
wherein scan definitions from two different requestors ([115] a separate vehicle may request an ROI candidate, this would be the second requestor) include ROIs that at least partially overlap [138], and wherein the controller operates to send virtual lidar sensor data to both requestors from a single scan of the overlapping portion of the ROI (while Li does not explicitly teach this, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that whichever system sent the ROI reconfiguration request would receive the requested information, e.g. example given in [127]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to receive an overlapping ROI from a separate vehicle and combine it with a current ROI into a single scan similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of integrating the LIDAR system into an autonomous driving system, and would increase safety by coordinating with other vehicles to cover blind spots. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]).
Regarding claim 21, Akselrod teaches:
A software-defined lidar (SWDL) system (#205 of Fig. 1, Lidar scanning system, [24-30], the system may be software defined for further flexibility ), comprising:
a single physical lidar device (#205 of Fig. 1, Lidar scanning system) that includes:
a transmitter subsystem (#210 of Fig. 1, optical transmitter) with a tunable optical metasurface (#216 of Fig. 1, transmit reconfigurable metasurface) to selectively steer optical radiation at various steering angles toward distant surfaces [31], and
a receiver subsystem (#230 of Fig. 1, optical receiver) to receive reflected optical radiation from the distant surfaces [57];
a controller to control the operation of the single physical lidar device (#250 of Fig. 1, scanning engine, [30, 50]);
wherein the controller is configured to control the operation of the single physical lidar device to:
scan, via the transmitter and receiver subsystems [50] , a first region of interest (ROI) corresponding to a first set of steering angles (#φ1 and #φ3 shown in Fig. 3, regions) with a first set of ROI scan parameters ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5", φ1 and φ3 would use a standard resolution scan, thus having a first set of scan parameters) to generate sensor data for the first ROI [55],
scan, via the transmitter and receiver subsystems [50], a second ROI corresponding to a second set of steering angles (#φ2, #φ4 and #φ5 shown in Fig. 3, regions) with a second set of ROI scan parameters ("An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5") to generate sensor data for the second ROI [55],
Akselrod does not teach:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor of the controller, cause the controller to:
process, via a first perception stack, the sensor data for the first ROI to generate a first set of perception outputs, and
modify one or more of the first set of steering angles and the first set of ROI scan parameters of the first ROI based on the first set of perception outputs.
However, Li teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon [29] that, when executed by a processor of the controller, cause the controller to:
process, via a first perception stack (#220 of Fig. 2, vehicle perception and planning system, [37]), the sensor data for the first ROI to generate a first set of perception outputs (Step #830 of Fig. 8, [111]), and
modify one or more of the first set of steering angles and the first set of ROI scan parameters of the first ROI based on the first set of perception outputs (Step #840 of Fig. 8, [113], in this case, the first steering angle may be a “default” scan ROI as taught in [141]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to be integrated with a perception stack with configurable ROIs implemented on non-transitory storage similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of integrating the LIDAR system into an autonomous driving system, and would allow for it to quickly adapt to dynamic environments. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]).
Regarding claim 26, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 21, wherein the first ROI comprises a set of steering angles corresponding to a detected location of an object of interest with a spatial region (#φ4 shown in Fig. 3, the object of interest being a human), and the second ROI comprises a set of steering angles corresponding to spatial regions peripheral to the object of interest (#φ3 shown in Fig. 3 can be considered peripheral to ROI φ4).
Regarding claim 27, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 26,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the first set of perception outputs identifies movement of the object of interest relative to the single physical lidar device and wherein the controller modifies the first set of steering angles of the first ROI based on the identified movement of the object of interest.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the first set of perception outputs identifies movement of the object of interest relative to the single physical lidar device [51] and wherein the controller modifies the first set of steering angles of the first ROI based on the identified movement of the object of interest [127].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to identify and track objects using configurable ROIs similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of integrating the LIDAR system into an autonomous driving system, and would allow for it to quickly adapt to dynamic environments. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]).
Regarding claim 28, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 27, wherein the object of interest comprises one of a person (#φ4 shown in Fig. 3, the object of interest being a human), a sign, a positioning beacon, an animal, and a vehicle,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the first set of steering angles of the first ROI is modified to track the object of interest as it moves relative to the single physical lidar device.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the first set of steering angles of the first ROI is modified to track the object of interest as it moves relative to the single physical lidar device [127].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to configure ROIs based on an objects predicted movement similar to Li a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing tracking accuracy for the system. Additionally, Akselrod teaches sensing the environment around an autonomous vehicle using the disclosed LIDAR system (Akselrod: [32]), where accurate tracking would be advantageous.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Keilaf et al. (US 20190271767), hereafter referred to as Buskila.
Regarding claim 4, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 3,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the controller decreases the scan resolution by binning photodetectors of a sensor of the receiver subsystem, and wherein the controller increases the scan resolution by un-binning photodetectors of the sensor of the receiver subsystem.
However, Buskila teaches:09-
wherein the controller decreases the scan resolution by binning photodetectors of a sensor of the receiver subsystem , and wherein the controller increases the scan resolution by un-binning photodetectors of the sensor of the receiver subsystem (Fig. 7I, [166 and 178-181], Buskila states that the LIDAR system may increase resolution by increasing pixels by ungrouping detection elements, and increase sensitivity by grouping more detection elements).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to group and ungroup pixels to change resolution similar to Buskila with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for variable sensitivity of the pixel groups, which could increase accuracy at longer distances, and increase available data at shorter distances, and improve computing efficiency for systems integrated with depth processing (Buskila: [180-182]).
Claim(s) 5-8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Pigott et al. (US 20210096259).
Regarding claim 5, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a scan frame rate, and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first frame rate and to scan the second ROI with a second frame rate.
However, Pigott teaches:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a scan frame rate [20], and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first frame rate [20] and to scan the second ROI with a second frame rate [20].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use frame rate as an ROI scan parameter similar to Pigott with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing efficiency of the scanner for use in an autonomous vehicle by providing sufficient data for regions of interest, and deprioritizing data areas of lower interest (Pigott: [19]).
Regarding claim 6, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter subsystem comprises a laser assembly (#212 of Fig. 1, lasers) to generate the optical radiation [31]
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a power level of the optical radiation generated by the laser assembly, and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first power level and to scan the second ROI with a second power level.
However, Pigott teaches:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a power level of the optical radiation generated by the laser assembly [20], and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first power level [20] and to scan the second ROI with a second power level [20]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use laser power as an ROI scan parameter similar to Pigott with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the power efficiency of the scanner by allowing for higher power to be used only when necessary e.g. in a high resolution high distance ROI.
Regarding claim 7, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise an integration time per pixel of the receiver subsystem, and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first integration time and to scan the second ROI with a second integration time.
However, teaches:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise an integration time per pixel of the receiver subsystem ([38 and 44] integration time for each point can be considered to be integration time per pixel), and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first integration time and to scan the second ROI with a second integration time.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use integration time as a scan parameter similar to Pigott with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further increasing flexibility of the scanning system allowing for even more dynamic scanning. Dynamic scanning is desirable as taught by Pigott (Pigott: [19]).
Regarding claim 8, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a scan range, and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI at a first range and to scan the second ROI with a second, longer range.
However, Pigott teaches:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a scan range [44], and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI at a first range and to scan the second ROI with a second, longer range ([20-21] segments #102 and #103 are scanned with different chirp lengths, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that chirp length is correlated to maximum unambiguous range, thus these segments have different ranges).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to have a variable range similar to Pigott with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for even more dynamic scanning. Dynamic scanning is desirable as taught by Pigott (Pigott: [19]).
Regarding claim 12, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Akselrod does not teach:
the controller further operates the transmitter subsystem and the receiver subsystem to scan a third ROI corresponding to a third set of steering angles with a third set of scanning parameters.
However, Pigott teaches:
the controller further operates the transmitter subsystem and the receiver subsystem to scan a third ROI corresponding to a third set of steering angles (#103, #105, and #106 of Fig. 1A of Pigott, segments) with a third set of scanning parameters [20].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use a third ROI with a third set of scanning parameters similar to Pigott with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing efficiency by providing sufficient data for regions of interest, and deprioritizing data areas of lower interest (Pigott: [19])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Akselrod et al. (US 20210141060), hereafter referred to as Iyer.
Regarding claim 9, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first parameter at the first set of steering angles (#φ1 and #φ3 shown in Fig. 3, regions) and the second Roi with a second parameter at the second set of steering angles (#φ2, #φ4 and #φ5 shown in Fig. 3, regions, "An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5")
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a dwell time, and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first dwell time at the first set of steering angles and to scan the second ROI with a second dwell time at the second set of steering angles.
However, Iyer teaches:
Using dwell time as a scan parameter (Fig. 10B, [113])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use dwell time as a parameter similar to Iyer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further increasing flexibility of the scanning system allowing for even more dynamic scanning. Dynamic scanning is desirable as taught by Pigott (Pigott: [19]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of O’Keeffe (US 20180059248).
Regarding claim 13, Akselrod teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a number of laser pulses, and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first number of laser pulses and to scan the second ROI with a second number of laser pulses.
However, O’Keeffe, teaches:
wherein the ROI scan parameters comprise a number of laser pulses (#618 of Fig. 6A, [106]), and wherein the controller operates to scan the first ROI with a first number of laser pulses (#130 of Fig. 3, FOV, excludes region #310a and 310b) and to scan the second ROI with a second number of laser pulses (#310a and #310b of Fig. 3, dense scan regions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use laser pulse density as a scan parameter similar to O’Keeffe with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing or decreasing resolution in certain regions based on the amount of data necessary for processing. Akselrod opens the door for dynamic resolution changes (Akselrod: "An example of this would be dynamically selecting an enhanced resolution to scan regions φ2, φ4, and φ5"), but does not teach how dynamic resolution is achieved, O’Keeffe merely fills in the gaps.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tobias et al. (US 20140165069).
Regarding claim 17, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 16,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the scan cycle further comprises modifying an ROI scan parameter of at least one scan table entry based on the perception output.
However, Tobias teaches:
Changing current scan specification based on detected events [15, 32]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to change scan parameters based on perception outputs similar to Tobias with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing flexibility and shortening response times by allowing high priority scans to be combined, modified, or reordered. In this combination, the events could be perceptions made by the perception stack of Li.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li and Tobias as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Pigott.
Regarding claim 18, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 17,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein modifying the ROI scan parameter of at least one scan table entry based on the perception output comprises modifying at least one of a laser power level and an integration time for the steering angle of the current scan table entry, and wherein identifying the next scan table entry to be implemented comprises identifying the modified current scan table entry, such that the current scan table entry is re-scanned with at least one of the modified laser power level and the modified integration time.
However, Pigott teaches:
Using laser power [20] and integration time ([38 and 44] integration time for each point can be considered to be integration time per pixel) as scan parameters
Additionally, Li teaches:
Prioritizing certain scans when scanning [131]
Additionally, Tobias teaches:
Changing current scan specification based on detected events [15, 32]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ROI scan parameters of Akselrod to include laser power level and integration time similar to Pigott with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying the laser power level or integration time would have the predictable result of increasing efficiency by providing sufficient data for regions of interest, and deprioritizing data areas of lower interest (Pigott: [19]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to change the current scan parameters based on detected events similar to Tobias with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of enabling fast reactions to dynamic environments e.g. a pedestrian beginning to cross the road, or a car rapidly braking. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the scanner of Akselrod to prioritize the modified current scan using a priority system similar to Li. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy or precision of identifying or tracking a detected object, enabling fast and accurate reactions to dynamic environments e.g. a pedestrian beginning to cross the road, or a car rapidly braking.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Keilaf et al. (US 20180143324).
Regarding claim 22, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 21,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the first ROI comprises a spatial region directly in front of or directly behind a vehicle, and wherein the second ROI comprises a peripheral spatial region relative to the vehicle.
However, Keilaf teaches:
wherein the first ROI comprises a spatial region directly in front of (#4527 of Fig. 45, FOV portion, [716]) or directly behind a vehicle, and wherein the second ROI comprises a peripheral spatial region relative to the vehicle (#4522 of Fig. 45, FOV portion, [716]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Akselrod to use ROI's similar to Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of adapting the ROI's to be suited for highway driving (Keilaf [716])
Regarding claim 23, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 21,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the first ROI comprises a spatial region directly in on a side of a vehicle, and wherein the second ROI comprises a peripheral spatial region relative to the vehicle.
However, Keilaf teaches:
wherein the first ROI comprises a spatial region directly in on a side of a vehicle (#4527 of Fig. 45, FOV portion, [716], the front is considered to be the front side), and wherein the second ROI comprises a peripheral spatial region relative to the vehicle (#4522 of Fig. 45, FOV portion, [716]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Akselrod to use ROI's similar to Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of adapting the ROI's to be suited for highway driving (Keilaf [716])
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Keilaf and Iyer.
Regarding claim 24, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 21,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor of the controller, further cause the controller to: scan a third ROI corresponding to a third set of discontiguous steering angles that are directly behind or directly in front of a vehicle with a third set of ROI scan parameters for long-range detection.
However, Keilaf teaches:
further cause the controller to: scan a third ROI corresponding to a third set of steering angles that are directly behind or directly in front of a vehicle (#4527 of Fig. 45, FOV portion, [716], the first and second ROIs in this case are #4521 and #4522) with a third set of ROI scan parameters for long-range detection [716].
Additionally, Iyer teaches:
Discontiguous scanning (Fig. 10B, [113])
Additionally, Li teaches:
instructions executed by the processor of the controller [29]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Akselrod to use ROI's similar to Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of adapting the ROI's to be suited for highway driving (Keilaf [716]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Akselrod to use discontiguous scanning similar to Iyer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing scan efficiency by removing the steps in between scan angles (Iyer: [113]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use instructions to control a processor similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the scanner to use complex scanning procedures, e.g. variable ROI.
Regarding claim 25, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 24,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor of the controller, cause the controller to: implement a discontiguous scanning order of the steering angles of the first, second, and third sets of steering angles.
However, Iyer teaches:
Discontiguous scanning (Fig. 10B, [113])
Additionally, Li teaches:
instructions executed by the processor of the controller [29]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use modify the LIDAR system of Akselrod to use discontiguous scanning similar to Iyer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing scan speed efficiency by removing the steps in between scan angles (Iyer: [113]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use instructions to control a processor similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the scanner to use complex scanning procedures, e.g. variable ROI.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Keilaf.
Regarding claim 29, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 26,
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the first set of ROI scan parameters of the first ROI includes a higher frame rate than a frame rate specified in the second ROI scan parameters of the second ROI.
However, Keilaf teaches:
Using a higher frame rate to track objects more precisely [663]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use a higher frame rate for ROI with moving objects similar to Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the precision when tracking objects.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Li and Keilaf as applied to claim 29, and further in view of Cohen et al. (US 20210302587).
Regarding claim 30, Akselrod, as modified above, teaches:
The system of claim 29
Akselrod does not teach:
wherein the object of interest comprises a hand of a user, such that a higher frame rate is used to scan the hand of the user than the frame rate used to scan the peripheral spatial regions.
However, Cohen teaches:
wherein the object of interest comprises a hand of a user (#120 of Fig. 1, target object, [45]), and
the sensor tracks keypoints of the hand (#122 of Fig. 1, keypoints, [45])
Additionally, Keilaf teaches:
Using a higher frame rate to track objects more precisely [663]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to track the keypoints of a hand similar to Cohen. This would have the predictable result of adapting the scanner of Akselrod and perception system of Li for hand tracking. Akselrod modified by Li is suitable for tracking objects in dynamic environments, while autonomous driving is one example, hand tracking for gesture recognition is also a rapidly changing environment, and thus would be a suitable application of Akselrod modified by Li. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Akselrod to use a higher frame rate to track objects of interest similar to Keilaf with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the tracking precision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights