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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 02/14/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “generating parameters for calibrating the sensing device” and “transmitting the parameters to the sensing device.” However, claim 14, from which claim 19 depends, previously recites “one or more sensing devices” and does not establish antecedent basis for a particular singular “the sensing device”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (US 20200132850 A1, “Crouch”) in view of Steinberg et al. (US 2019/0227175 A1, “Steinberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Crouch teaches a sensing device (at least Fig. 2A, claim 1) comprising:
a light source that emits light with modulated frequencies (Fig. 2A; [0080], laser source 212 emitting carrier wave 201 that is frequency modulated by modulator 282a to produce a chirped optical signal 203.);
an interference optical system (Fig. 2A, at least splitter 216, reference path 220) that separates the light emitted from the light source into reference light and output light (Crouch's Fig. 2A and [0080] teach splitter 216, which splits the optical signal so that: target/transmitted beam 205 constitutes the claimed output light; and reference beam 207a/207b passes through reference path 220.) and generates interference light between reflected light and the reference light , the reflected light being generated by the output light being reflected at a reflecting point of a physical object (Crouch teaches that transmitted beam 205 illuminates the area/object, producing returned/reflected beam 291, and that reference beam 207b and returned beam 291 are combined in optical mixer 284. Crouch identifies the resulting signal as an interference pattern, whose frequency, phase, or amplitude is recorded. See Fig. 2A; [0081].);
a photodetector (Fig. 2A, detector array 230) that receives the interference light and outputs a detection signal according to intensity of the interference light (Crouch [0073] teaches directing the reference optical signal and returned optical signal to the same optical detector. The detector produces an electrical output signal containing a beat frequency corresponding to the frequency difference between the two incident optical signals. Crouch [0081] further states that the frequency, phase, or amplitude of the interference pattern is recorded for each detector.);
and a processing circuit (Fig. 2A, Processing system 250) that processes the detection signal (Crouch teaches processing system 250, which receives the acquired detector data and processes it to determine Doppler shift, corrected range, position/movement information, and other measurement information. See Fig. 2A; [0083]. Crouch [0073] also teaches performing an FFT on the electrical detector output to determine the beat frequency peak.),
Crouch fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuit selects a specific data format from a plurality of data formats, the processing circuit being capable of generating the data formats based on the detection signal, and outputs output data including measurement data having the specific data format that is selected.
Crouch teaches the claimed coherent sensing device and a processing system capable of generating multiple forms of measurement data from the detection signal, including range/distance information, Doppler/relative-velocity information, point-cloud information, and velocity-vector information (Figs. 1C, 2A, 16; [0067], [0073], [0080]-[0083], [0143]-[0151]). Crouch, however, does not explicitly teach selecting a particular one of the available data formats for output.
Steinberg teaches that a LIDAR system outputs raw and processed detection data at varying degrees of processing, including point-cloud, object-detection, and detected-velocity data, and selects different kinds/levels of data based on requests or requirements of the receiving device ([0139], [0172]- [0174]; Fig. 8; claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing system of Crouch to select and output one of its available forms of LIDAR measurement data according to the teachings of Steinberg. Crouch already generates measurement information at multiple stages and forms, including detector/heterodyne information, spectral information, range, relative velocity, point-cloud data, and velocity-vector information. Steinberg teaches transmitting raw or processed LIDAR data at varying degrees of processing and selecting different types or levels of LIDAR data according to recipient requests and requirements. One of ordinary skill therefore would have been motivated to provide Crouch's processor with Steinberg's selectable output functionality so that the receiving system receives the type or degree of processed measurement information appropriate to its particular processing, bandwidth, resolution, or operational requirements, thereby avoiding transmission and processing of unnecessary LIDAR information.
Regarding claim 2, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of data formats have data formats for which processing stages of the detection signal are mutually different.
Crouch teaches that the detector signal is processed through different stages to produce different forms of measurement information. For example, the detector electrical signal is Fourier transformed to obtain a beat frequency peak used for range/Doppler processing ([0073]), and Crouch further distinguishes a raw Doppler LIDAR point cloud from a processed, ego motion compensated Doppler LIDAR point cloud (Figs. 5B-5C). Steinberg also teaches that a LIDAR communication unit may transmit “raw detection data and/or processed detection data in varying degrees of processing,” including point-cloud data, object detection data, and detected velocity data ([0139]). Thus, Steinberg teaches a plurality of data formats corresponding to mutually different processing stages of the underlying detection information, e.g., raw detection data at an earlier processing stage and point-cloud/object/velocity data at progressively processed stages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Crouch's processor to make available measurement data corresponding to different stages of the detector signal processing, as taught by Steinberg, because doing so permits a receiving device to obtain either less processed data for further downstream processing or more processed data such as point cloud, object, or velocity information, depending on the recipient's processing capability and information requirements. Steinberg teaches transmission of raw and processed LIDAR data at varying degrees of processing.
Regarding claim 3, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit generates positional information of the reflecting point based on the detection signal and generates the measurement data including the positional information.
Crouch teaches that the processing circuit generates positional information of the reflecting point based on the detection signal and generates measurement data including positional information. Specifically, Crouch teaches that each point of the LIDAR point cloud represents a return from an illuminated spot, wherein each spot is associated with a particular azimuth angle, inclination angle, and range, thereby defining the three-dimensional position of the reflecting point ([0088]; Fig. 2C). Crouch further teaches that the range is determined from the beat frequency electrical signal produced by the optical detector from the reference and returned optical signals ([0071]- [0073]; Figs. 1D, 2A). Accordingly, Crouch generates positional information of each reflecting point from the detection signal and includes that positional information in the generated 3D point-cloud measurement data.
Regarding claim 4, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit generates velocity information of the reflecting point based on the detection signal and generates the measurement data including the velocity information.
Crouch teaches that the processing circuit generates velocity information of the reflecting point based on the detection signal and generates measurement data including the velocity information. Specifically, Crouch teaches that each point of the LIDAR point cloud represents a return from an illuminated spot and that each such spot has an associated speed relative to the LIDAR ([0088]; Fig. 2C). Crouch further teaches that the high-resolution range-Doppler LIDAR generates a 3D point-cloud image having point by point signed relative speed ([0089]). The relative speed is obtained from Doppler frequency information derived from the electrical detector signal ([0067], [0073]). Accordingly, Crouch's illuminated spot corresponds to the claimed reflecting point, and the signed relative speed associated with that point constitutes the claimed velocity information generated based on the detection signal.
Regarding claim 5, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 4, wherein the velocity information is information indicating a relative velocity vector of the reflecting point with respect to the sensing device or a component of the relative velocity vector in a direction along a straight line connecting the sensing device and the reflecting point.
Crouch teaches that the velocity information includes a component of a relative velocity vector of the reflecting point with respect to the sensing device along a straight line connecting the sensing device and the reflecting point. Specifically, Crouch teaches that the high-resolution Doppler LIDAR determines a relative signed speed along the vector between the LIDAR system and an external object ([0005]). Crouch further teaches, with respect to Figs. 9B-9C, that the relative speed of a detected spot is obtained as the dot product of a line of sight unit vector and the velocity vector, and that where both the target and sensor are moving, the measured relative speed is ([0143]-[0144]). Thus, Crouch's measured Doppler speed constitutes the component of the relative velocity vector along the straight line connecting the LIDAR sensing device and the reflecting point
Regarding claim 6, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit generates spectrum information of the interference light based on the detection signal and generates the measurement data including the spectrum information.
Crouch teaches that the processing circuit generates spectrum information of the interference light based on the detection signal and generates measurement data including spectrum information. Specifically, Crouch teaches that reference beam 207b and returned beam 291 are combined by optical mixer 284 to form an interference pattern whose frequency, phase, or amplitude is detected and recorded (Fig. 2A; [0081]). Crouch further teaches that the resulting electrical detector signal contains a beat frequency corresponding to the frequency difference between the reference and returned optical signals and that a Fourier transform of the electrical detector signal produces spectral information including a peak at the beat frequency ([0073]). Crouch additionally teaches generating a cross spectrum of the detected signal, wherein Fig. 1C depicts spectral amplitude as a function of frequency shift and spectral peaks corresponding to Doppler shifts ([0067]). Accordingly, Crouch generates spectrum information representative of the interference light based on the detector output signal.
Regarding claim 8, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit generates waveform data of the interference light based on the detection signal and generates the measurement data including the waveform data.
Crouch teaches that the processing circuit generates waveform data of the interference light based on the detection signal and generates measurement data including the waveform data. Specifically, Crouch teaches that reference beam 207b and returned beam 291 are combined by optical mixer 284 to form an interference pattern, and that the frequency, phase, or amplitude of the interference pattern is recorded for each detector at multiple times during the signal duration (Fig. 2A; [0081]). Crouch further teaches processing a plurality of temporal samples and maintaining a digital record of the returned heterodyne signal, which acquired data are provided to processing system 250 ([0082]-[0083]). Thus, the time-sequenced samples/digital record of the detected interference signal constitute waveform data representing the interference light. Crouch additionally teaches that the detected signal itself is a chirp or other transmitted waveform ([0073]; Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 9, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit: generates positional information and velocity information of the reflecting point based on the detection signal; generates information indicating a degree of danger of the physical object based on the velocity information; and generates the measurement data including the positional information and the information indicating the degree of danger.
Crouch teaches generating positional and velocity information for reflecting points in the 3D Doppler point cloud. Crouch further determines whether a moving object represents a danger based on the velocity of the own vehicle, the velocity of the moving object, or a combination thereof, including determining whether the velocity information indicates a collision or near collision ([0102], Fig. 4). Thus, the determination that the velocity information indicates a collision or near collision condition constitutes information indicating a degree of danger associated with the detected physical object based on the velocity information.
Regarding claim 10, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit: generates positional information and velocity information of each of a plurality of reflecting points irradiated with the output light; divides the plurality of reflecting points to one or more clusters based on the positional information and determines one velocity vector for each cluster based on the velocity information of three or more reflecting points included in each cluster; and generates the measurement data including information indicating the velocity vector of each cluster.
Crouch teaches generating positional and velocity information for a plurality of reflecting points and clustering the reflecting points based on positional information. Specifically, Crouch teaches filtering a Doppler LIDAR point cloud to isolate points having Doppler speed values and clustering such points based on similar Doppler speeds and similar azimuthal directions, with object clusters further associated based on spatial proximity and Doppler similarity ([0144]-[0145]; Fig. 10). Crouch further teaches clustering several spots on the same moving object based on Doppler speed and azimuthal angle proximity and calculating from the Doppler velocity information of the clustered spots a global velocity vector, which is used as for the detected object ([0151]; Fig. 16). Crouch additionally teaches determining a three-dimensional velocity vector from Doppler measurements of three detected points by forming three equations having three velocity-vector unknowns ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the velocity vector of the object cluster using velocity information from three or more of the reflecting points included in the cluster because Crouch teaches that the clustered points correspond to the same moving object and further teaches using Doppler measurements from three points to solve the three components of a three-dimensional velocity vector. Applying that disclosed three-point velocity solution to the clustered points would have predictably determined a single velocity vector representative of the moving object.
Regarding claim 12, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit selects the specific data format from the plurality of data formats according to a request signal inputted from another device.
Steinberg teaches selecting a specific data format according to a request signal input from another device. Steinberg teaches providing different kinds of LIDAR/3D data to a vehicle based on a request from the vehicle, including detailed 3D data, bounding box data, or rudimentary data ([0172]). Steinberg further teaches that first and second requests result in first and second 3D data having different levels of detail ([0173]- [0174]; claim 4). Thus, Steinberg teaches selecting the particular data representation to be output according to a request received from another device.
Regarding claim 13, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, teaches the sensing device according to claim 1 further comprising a communication circuit that transmits the output data to another device.
Steinberg teaches a communication circuit that transmits the output data to another device. Specifically, each LIDAR sensing unit includes a communication unit configured to output detector based information, including raw or processed detection data, point-cloud data, object information and detected velocities, through wired and/or wireless communication with external systems ([0138]- [0139]). Steinberg further teaches wireless transmission of 3D LIDAR data to a vehicle (claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Crouch's LIDAR sensing device to include the communication circuit taught by Steinberg for transmitting the generated output data to another device. Crouch generates LIDAR measurement data for subsequent processing and vehicle-control operations and contemplates wired or wireless communication with a remote processor, while Steinberg expressly teaches providing a LIDAR sensing unit with a communication unit for transmitting raw or processed LIDAR detection information, including point-cloud and velocity data, to external systems. Applying Steinberg's known communication arrangement to Crouch would have predictably permitted Crouch's generated measurement data to be supplied to another processor or system for further processing or use and would have involved the use of a known communication technique for its established purpose with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Steinberg and Schaffner et al. (US 2018/0356528 A1, “Schaffner”).
Regarding claim 7, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, fails to explicitly teach the sensing device according to claim 6, wherein the spectrum information includes information on a power spectrum of the detection signal or a peak frequency of the power spectrum.
Crouch teaches generating spectrum information of the interference light based on the detection signal as indicated in claim 6 but does not explicitly characterize the spectrum information as information on a power spectrum of the detection signal.
However, Schaffner teaches mixing received backscattered light with local-oscillator light and detecting the resulting heterodyne signal using photodiodes, wherein the photodiode outputs constitute an IF detection signal supplied to signal-processing circuitry ([0015]- [0016]). Schaffner further explicitly teaches that the heterodyne signal from photodiode 84 has a Power Spectral Density (PSD) and that balanced photodetectors and associated circuitry generate an analog PSD signal as illustrated in Figs. 5- 6 ([0086], [0092]). Accordingly, Schaffner teaches spectrum information including information on a power spectrum of the detection signal, thereby satisfying one of the alternative limitations of claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Crouch to generate the power spectrum information taught by Schaffner for Crouch’s photodetector signal. Crouch already analyzes the electrical output of optical detector 230 in the frequency domain using an FFT to identify the beat frequencies produced by mixing the returned light with the reference light ([0073], [0085]- [0086]). Schaffner likewise employs heterodyne detection and expressly teaches that the resulting photodiode signal has a power spectral density (PSD) whose position in frequency corresponds to the frequency difference between the received signal light and the local oscillator light ([0086]). Therefore, representing Crouch’s already frequency analyzed heterodyne detector signal as the power spectrum taught by Schaffner would have been the predictable use of a known spectral analysis technique for the same type of detector signal, permitting the frequency content of the detected interference signal to be represented and used in determining the corresponding Doppler information, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Steinberg and Arakawa et al. (JP 2008217612 A, “Arakawa”).
Regarding claim 11, Crouch, in view of Steinberg, fails to explicitly teach the sensing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit includes identification information indicating the specific data format in the output data and outputs the output data.
Crouch in view of Steinberg teaches selectively outputting measurement data having different data formats or different degrees of processing but does not explicitly teach including identification information indicating the selected data format in the output data. However, Arakawa teaches a sensor device that transmits sensor data containing a data format identifier indicating the type/data format of the sensor data. In particular, Arakawa teaches arranging the sensor data format identifier at a fixed position within the transmitted sensor data, such as at the head thereof, and provides the example in which the identifier “Temp” is included at the head of the sensor data transmitted by sensor device 7 ([0021], [0029]; Figs. 4, 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Crouch’s sensing device to include, in the output measurement data, a data format identifier as taught by Arakawa. Crouch already generates and outputs sensor derived measurement data, while Arakawa teaches the known technique of including a data format identifier within transmitted sensor data so that the format of the transmitted data can be identified. Applying Arakawa’s known format identification technique to Crouch’s sensor data output would have been no more than the predictable use of a known technique with a known sensor data system and would have predictably enabled a receiving processor to determine the format of the received Crouch measurement data and process the data accordingly.
Claims 14, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Arakawa.
Regarding claim 14, Crouch teaches a method (Fig. 4, [0096]) comprising:
obtaining output data including measurement data, from one or more sensing devices (Crouch teaches that acquired LIDAR data is made available to processing system 250 ([0083]). Crouch further states that a vehicle is controlled based on data received from a high-resolution Doppler LIDAR system mounted on the vehicle ([0090]- [0091]). The LIDAR constructs a 3D point cloud having relative-speed information at each point, which is analyzed to determine stationary objects, vehicle motion, and moving-object speed/direction ([0099]). Thus, Crouch teaches obtaining/receiving measurement data from at least one sensing device.) including a light source that emits frequency-modulated light (Crouch [0080], Fig. 2A. Laser source 212 emits carrier wave 201, which is frequency modulated by modulator 282a to produce chirped optical signal 203.);
an interference optical system (Fig. 2A, at least splitter 216, reference path 220) that separates the light emitted from the light source into reference light and output light (Crouch's Fig. 2A and [0080] teach splitter 216, which splits the optical signal so that: target/transmitted beam 205 constitutes the claimed output light; and reference beam 207a/207b passes through reference path 220.) and generates interference light between reflected light and the reference light, the reflected light being generated by the output light being reflected at a reflecting point of a physical object (Crouch teaches that transmitted beam 205 illuminates the area/object, producing returned/reflected beam 291, and that reference beam 207b and returned beam 291 are combined in optical mixer 284. Crouch identifies the resulting signal as an interference pattern, whose frequency, phase, or amplitude is recorded. See Fig. 2A; [0081].);
a photodetector (Fig. 2A, detector array 230) that receives the interference light and outputs a detection signal according to intensity of the interference light (Crouch [0073] teaches directing the reference optical signal and returned optical signal to the same optical detector. The detector produces an electrical output signal containing a beat frequency corresponding to the frequency difference between the two incident optical signals. Crouch [0081] further states that the frequency, phase, or amplitude of the interference pattern is recorded for each detector.); and
a processing circuit (Fig. 2A, Processing system 250) that generates the measurement data based on the detection signal (Crouch teaches processing system 250, which receives the acquired detector data and processes it to determine Doppler shift, corrected range, position/movement information, and other measurement information. See Fig. 2A; [0083]. Crouch [0073] also teaches performing an FFT on the electrical detector output to determine the beat frequency peak.);
Crouch fails to explicitly teach discriminating a data format of the measurement data; and generating positional information of the physical object by applying arithmetic processing according to the data format that is discriminated to the measurement data.
However, Arakawa teaches receiving sensor data having a data-format identifier, recognizing/reading the data-format identifier, and acquiring data-format information corresponding to the identified format ([0029]). Arakawa further teaches that the received sensor data is analyzed based on the acquired data-format information, including processing the input sensor data according to the identified format to extract the data elements contained therein ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Crouch in view of Arakawa to identify the data format of received LIDAR measurement data and process the measurement data according to the identified format because Arakawa teaches that identifying the format of received sensor data permits the receiving processor to correctly interpret and process the particular data representation supplied by the sensor. Such modification would have been a predictable use of a known sensor data processing technique in Crouch's LIDAR processing system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Crouch, as modified by Arakawa, teaches discriminating a data format of the measurement data and applying arithmetic processing according to the data format that is discriminated to the measurement data. Specifically, Arakawa teaches that received sensor data includes a data-format identifier, that the corresponding data-format information is acquired based on the identifier, and that the received sensor data is thereafter analyzed based on the acquired data-format information ([0029]- [0030]). Applied to Crouch, the processing system would therefore identify the format of the received LIDAR measurement data and apply the processing corresponding to that identified format. Crouch further teaches that such processing includes arithmetic for generating positional information, including measuring the frequency difference between the transmitted and returned signals and determining the target range according to Equation 4b ([0070], Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 17, Crouch, in view of Arakawa, teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein the output data includes identification information indicating the data format of the measurement data, and the discrimination of the data format is performed based on the identification information (Arakawa teaches that the output data includes identification information indicating the data format. Specifically, sensor device 7 transmits sensor data to sensor data processing unit 13, wherein the transmitted sensor data includes a data format identifier. Arakawa explains that the identifier is located at a predetermined position in the sensor data and gives the example in which the identifier “Temp” is located at the head of the transmitted sensor data ([0028]-[0029]). The processing unit reads the identifier and obtains the data format information corresponding thereto.
Arakawa further teaches that the data format is discriminated based on the identification information, because sensor data processing unit 13 acquires the data format information corresponding to the data format identifier of the received sensor data and thereafter analyzes the received sensor data based on that acquired data-format information ([0029]- [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Crouch, in view of Arakawa, teaches the method according to claim 14 further comprising outputting a signal for controlling operations of a mobile object based on the positional information of the physical object (Crouch further teaches generating an output signal for controlling the mobile object based on the positional information. Specifically, Crouch determines relative location using the 3D LIDAR point cloud and measured distances to physical objects such as road markings and curbs ([0105]). Crouch then determines whether the relative location indicates that the vehicle is in danger of leaving the roadway and, in response, generates a command signal causing vehicle systems such as the brakes or steering to operate to direct the vehicle to remain on the roadway ([0106]).
Regarding claim 20, Crouch teaches a processing device comprising:
a processor (Crouch teaches onboard processor 314 and, more specifically, processor 2003 of chip set 2000, which executes instructions and processes information ([0091], [0170], Figs. 3A and 20));
and a memory storing a computer program that is executed by the processor (Crouch teaches memory 2005 connected to processor 2003 and storing executable instructions that, when executed, perform one or more steps of the disclosed methods ([0171], Fig. 20).), wherein the processor performs:
obtaining output data including measurement data, from one or more sensing devices (Crouch teaches that acquired LIDAR data is made available to processing system 250 ([0083]). Crouch further states that a vehicle is controlled based on data received from a high-resolution Doppler LIDAR system mounted on the vehicle ([0090]- [0091]). The LIDAR constructs a 3D point cloud having relative-speed information at each point, which is analyzed to determine stationary objects, vehicle motion, and moving-object speed/direction ([0099]). Thus, Crouch teaches obtaining/receiving measurement data from at least one sensing device.) including a light source that emits frequency-modulated light (Crouch [0080], Fig. 2A. Laser source 212 emits carrier wave 201, which is frequency modulated by modulator 282a to produce chirped optical signal 203.);
an interference optical system (Fig. 2A, at least splitter 216, reference path 220) that separates the light emitted from the light source into reference light and output light (Crouch's Fig. 2A and [0080] teach splitter 216, which splits the optical signal so that: target/transmitted beam 205 constitutes the claimed output light; and reference beam 207a/207b passes through reference path 220.) and generates interference light between reflected light and the reference light, the reflected light being generated by the output light being reflected at a reflecting point of a physical object (Crouch teaches that transmitted beam 205 illuminates the area/object, producing returned/reflected beam 291, and that reference beam 207b and returned beam 291 are combined in optical mixer 284. Crouch identifies the resulting signal as an interference pattern, whose frequency, phase, or amplitude is recorded. See Fig. 2A; [0081].);
a photodetector (Fig. 2A, detector array 230) that receives the interference light and outputs a detection signal according to intensity of the interference light (Crouch [0073] teaches directing the reference optical signal and returned optical signal to the same optical detector. The detector produces an electrical output signal containing a beat frequency corresponding to the frequency difference between the two incident optical signals. Crouch [0081] further states that the frequency, phase, or amplitude of the interference pattern is recorded for each detector.);
and a processing circuit (Fig. 2A, Processing system 250) that generates the measurement data based on the detection signal (Crouch teaches processing system 250, which receives the acquired detector data and processes it to determine Doppler shift, corrected range, position/movement information, and other measurement information. See Fig. 2A; [0083]. Crouch [0073] also teaches performing an FFT on the electrical detector output to determine the beat frequency peak.);
Crouch fails to explicitly teach discriminating a data format of the measurement data; and generating positional information of the physical object by applying arithmetic processing according to the data format that is discriminated to the measurement data.
However, Arakawa teaches receiving sensor data having a data-format identifier, recognizing/reading the data-format identifier, and acquiring data-format information corresponding to the identified format ([0029]). Arakawa further teaches that the received sensor data is analyzed based on the acquired data-format information, including processing the input sensor data according to the identified format to extract the data elements contained therein ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Crouch in view of Arakawa to identify the data format of received LIDAR measurement data and process the measurement data according to the identified format because Arakawa teaches that identifying the format of received sensor data permits the receiving processor to correctly interpret and process the particular data representation supplied by the sensor. Such modification would have been a predictable use of a known sensor data processing technique in Crouch's LIDAR processing system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Crouch, as modified by Arakawa, teaches discriminating a data format of the measurement data and applying arithmetic processing according to the data format that is discriminated to the measurement data. Specifically, Arakawa teaches that received sensor data includes a data-format identifier, that the corresponding data-format information is acquired based on the identifier, and that the received sensor data is thereafter analyzed based on the acquired data-format information ([0029]- [0030]). Applied to Crouch, the processing system would therefore identify the format of the received LIDAR measurement data and apply the processing corresponding to that identified format. Crouch further teaches that such processing includes arithmetic for generating positional information, including measuring the frequency difference between the transmitted and returned signals and determining the target range according to Equation 4b ([0070], Fig. 1D).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Arakawa and Steinberg.
Regarding claim 15, Crouch, in view of Arakawa, fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 14 further comprising transmitting a request signal specifying the data format of the measurement data to the one or more sensing devices.
Steinberg teaches that a LIDAR sensing unit may transmit raw detection data and/or processed detection data at varying degrees of processing, including point cloud data, object detection information, and detected velocities. Steinberg further teaches that the communication unit of the LIDAR sensing unit may receive requests from vehicles or neighboring sensing units ([0139]). Steinberg additionally teaches providing different kinds of 3D data based on requests from a vehicle, including detailed 3D information or bounding box/rudimentary information ([0172]), and providing different levels of 3D data detail in response to respective requests ([0173]- [0174]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Crouch system according to Steinberg so that a request transmitted to the LIDAR sensing device identifies the desired data format or degree of processing. Steinberg teaches, in the same LIDAR communication architecture, both the ability of the sensing unit to output different forms and degrees of processed detection data and the ability of that sensing unit to receive requests. Steinberg further teaches selecting different kinds or levels of LIDAR data based on requests. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have found it obvious for the request to identify which of the available data representations is desired, thereby enabling the sensing device to provide the requested representation to the requesting processor, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Crouch, in view of Arakawa and Steinberg, teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the one or more sensing devices are mounted on a mobile object.
Crouch teaches a high-resolution Doppler LIDAR system 320 mounted on vehicle 310 and further teaches multiple high-resolution Doppler LIDAR systems 340 mounted on the vehicle ([0090]- [0091], [0094], Figs. 3A-3B).
Crouch further teaches detecting an abnormality in the mobile object itself. Specifically, Crouch determines whether the speed information of the vehicle is reliable and determines that the speed is “not OK” when, for example, the odometer disagrees with the speed determined from the LIDAR point cloud. When the speed information is determined not to be reliable, Crouch determines the vehicle speed using the 3D point cloud data ([0103], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to transmit the request for the desired LIDAR measurement-data format upon detection of Crouch's unreliable vehicle condition because Crouch teaches that the LIDAR point cloud information is needed in response to that detected condition to determine the vehicle speed. Transmitting the request when that condition is detected would predictably provide the measurement data required for that determination when needed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Arakawa and Valois et al. (US 2018/0067198 A1, “Valois”).
Regarding claim 19, Crouch, in view of Arakawa, fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 14 comprising: generating parameters for calibrating the sensing device based on the measurement data; and transmitting the parameters to the sensing device.
Valois teaches a vehicle sensor calibration system including a LIDAR sensor, wherein sensor data generated by the LIDAR sensor are analyzed using a mathematical model to determine a set of calibration parameters for calibrating the sensor ([0014]- [0015], [0034]- [0038]; Fig. 4). Valois further teaches transmitting the resulting calibration parameters to the sensor system for automatic calibration ([0016]; Fig. 4; claims 3 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Crouch's LIDAR sensing system to employ the calibration technique of Valois by analyzing measurement data generated by the LIDAR sensor to determine calibration parameters and transmitting those parameters back to the sensing system for calibration. Crouch relies on accurate range, position, and Doppler measurements for vehicle localization and control, while Valois teaches that calibration based on actual LIDAR sensor data improves sensor precision and accuracy and permits automatic adjustment of the LIDAR system. The modification would have amounted to applying Valois's known LIDAR calibration technique to Crouch's known vehicle mounted LIDAR system for its established purpose of maintaining accurate sensor measurements, with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamada et al. (US 20160170020 A1), teaches On-board radar apparatus and region detection method
Sebastian et al. (US 9134402 B2), teaches System and Method for Calibrating Video and Lidar Subsystems
Miksa et al. (US 20140379254 A1), teaches Positioning system and method for use in a vehicle navigation system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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 on (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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights