Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/27/2026, have been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because new art, not used in the previous rejection, is brought in to teach the elements of amended claims 1, 10, 19, 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 8, 10-12, 17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20170273161 A1) in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 20180284245 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches [Note: what Nakamura fails to clearly teach is strike-through]
A ranging controller configured to be adapted to a movable object and control a ranging device to measure a distance to a reflection point by detecting a reflection light reflected from the reflection point to which a scan light is emitted, the ranging controller comprising: (This disclosure relates to an object detection apparatus and a moveable apparatus. (paragraph 0003)) (At step S204, the measurement control unit 2601 determines whether the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information. If the analyzer 2606 does not output the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S207, and if the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S205. (paragraph 0299) At step S205, the target area setting unit 2602 sets a target area based on the cluster information.(paragraph 0300) At step S206, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area to at least any one of the light receiving unit, the light emission unit, and the signal processing unit. For example, For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301)) and execute the calibration based on a detection result of the reflection light acquired in the calibration mode. (At step S207, under the control of the measurement control unit 2601, the LIDAR including the light emission unit, the light receiving unit, and the signal processing unit performs the range finding operation to acquire distance information. (paragraph 0302))
LaChapelle teaches,
a processor configured to: determine whether an execution condition for executing a calibration of the ranging device is satisfied; (The controller is configured to detect a triggering event for performing calibration, (paragraph 0007))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of LaChapelle into the invention of Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of LaChapelle and Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure calibration should be conducted.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging controller according to Claim 1, wherein the calibration mode is higher in the resolution than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging controller according to Claim 1, wherein the calibration mode is lower in the scan speed than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura fails to teach wherein the ranging device is further configured to acquire a distance image having distance information in each pixel by detecting the reflection light through a plurality of light receiving elements included in each pixel, and the processor is further configured to execute the calibration mode being smaller in number of the plurality of light receiving elements in each pixel than the normal ranging mode.
In the same field of endeavor, LaChapelle teaches wherein the ranging device is further configured to acquire a distance image having distance information in each pixel by detecting the reflection light through a plurality of light receiving elements included in each pixel, (In an example implementation, the receiver 140 includes one or more avalanche photodiodes (APDs) or one or more single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs). In another implementation, the receiver 140 includes one or more PN photodiodes (e.g., a photodiode structure formed by a p-type semiconductor and a n-type semiconductor) or one or more PIN photodiodes (e.g., a photodiode structure formed by an undoped intrinsic semiconductor region located between p-type and n-type regions). (paragraph 0059)) and the processor is further configured to execute the calibration mode being smaller in number of the plurality of light receiving elements in each pixel than the normal ranging mode. (The active region 166 may refer to an area over which receiver 164 may receive or detect input light. The active region may have any suitable size or diameter d, such as for example, a diameter of approximately 25 μm, 50 μm, 80 μm, 100 μm, 200 μm, 500 μm, 1 mm, 2 mm, or 5 mm. (paragraph 0078) The prior art refers to an active region meaning there is a portion of the receiver that is not receiving light. Since this can be controlled they could choose to have an area that is smaller during calibration than normal detection.)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of LaChapelle into the invention of Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of LaChapelle and Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to have less ambient light being captured to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura teaches [Note: what Nakamura fails to clearly teach is strike-through]
A ranging control method executed by a processor to control a ranging device to measure a distance to a reflection point by detecting a reflection light reflected from the reflection point to which a scan light is emitted, the ranging device configured to be adapted to a movable object, the ranging control method comprising: (This disclosure relates to an object detection apparatus and a moveable apparatus. (paragraph 0003)) (At step S204, the measurement control unit 2601 determines whether the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information. If the analyzer 2606 does not output the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S207, and if the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S205. (paragraph 0299) At step S205, the target area setting unit 2602 sets a target area based on the cluster information.(paragraph 0300) At step S206, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area to at least any one of the light receiving unit, the light emission unit, and the signal processing unit. For example, For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301)) and a calibration process that executes the calibration based on a detection result of the reflection light acquired in the calibration mode. (At step S207, under the control of the measurement control unit 2601, the LIDAR including the light emission unit, the light receiving unit, and the signal processing unit performs the range finding operation to acquire distance information. (paragraph 0302))
LaChapelle teaches,
a determination process that determines whether an execution condition for executing a calibration of the ranging device is satisfied; (The controller is configured to detect a triggering event for performing calibration, (paragraph 0007))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of LaChapelle into the invention of Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of LaChapelle and Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure calibration should be conducted.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging control method according to Claim 10, wherein the calibration mode is higher in the resolution being than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging control method according to Claim 10, wherein the calibration mode further is lower in the scan speed than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura fails to teach wherein the ranging device is further configured to acquire a distance image having distance information in each pixel by detecting the reflection light through a plurality of light receiving elements included in each pixel, and the mode execution process controls the ranging device to execute the calibration mode being smaller in number of the plurality of light receiving elements in each pixel than the normal ranging mode.
In the same field of endeavor, LaChapelle teaches wherein the ranging device is further configured to acquire a distance image having distance information in each pixel by detecting the reflection light through a plurality of light receiving elements included in each pixel, (In an example implementation, the receiver 140 includes one or more avalanche photodiodes (APDs) or one or more single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs). In another implementation, the receiver 140 includes one or more PN photodiodes (e.g., a photodiode structure formed by a p-type semiconductor and a n-type semiconductor) or one or more PIN photodiodes (e.g., a photodiode structure formed by an undoped intrinsic semiconductor region located between p-type and n-type regions). (paragraph 0059)) and the mode execution process controls the ranging device to execute the calibration mode being smaller in number of the plurality of light receiving elements in each pixel than the normal ranging mode. (The active region 166 may refer to an area over which receiver 164 may receive or detect input light. The active region may have any suitable size or diameter d, such as for example, a diameter of approximately 25 μm, 50 μm, 80 μm, 100 μm, 200 μm, 500 μm, 1 mm, 2 mm, or 5 mm. (paragraph 0078) The prior art refers to an active region meaning there is a portion of the receiver that is not receiving light. Since this can be controlled they could choose to have an area that is smaller during calibration than normal detection.)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of LaChapelle into the invention of Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of LaChapelle and Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to have less ambient light being captured to increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura teaches [Note: what Nakamura fails to clearly teach is strike-through]
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions configured to, when executed by a processor to control a ranging device being adapted to a movable object to measure a distance to a reflection point by detecting a reflection light reflected from the reflection point to which a scan light is emitted, cause the processor to execute: (This disclosure relates to an object detection apparatus and a moveable apparatus. (paragraph 0003)) (At step S204, the measurement control unit 2601 determines whether the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information. If the analyzer 2606 does not output the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S207, and if the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S205. (paragraph 0299) At step S205, the target area setting unit 2602 sets a target area based on the cluster information.(paragraph 0300) At step S206, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area to at least any one of the light receiving unit, the light emission unit, and the signal processing unit. For example, For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301)) and a calibration process that executes the calibration based on a detection result of the reflection light acquired in the calibration mode. (At step S207, under the control of the measurement control unit 2601, the LIDAR including the light emission unit, the light receiving unit, and the signal processing unit performs the range finding operation to acquire distance information. (paragraph 0302))
LaChapelle teaches,
a determination process that determines whether an execution condition for executing a calibration of the ranging device is satisfied; (The controller is configured to detect a triggering event for performing calibration, (paragraph 0007))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of LaChapelle into the invention of Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of LaChapelle and Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure calibration should be conducted.
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura further teaches
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 19, wherein the calibration mode is higher in the resolution than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 21, Nakamura teaches [Note: what Nakamura fails to clearly teach is strike-through]
A ranging device configured to measure a distance to a reflection point by detecting a reflection light reflected from the reflection point to which a scan light is emitted and further configured to be adapted to a movable object, the ranging device comprising: (This disclosure relates to an object detection apparatus and a moveable apparatus. (paragraph 0003(At step S204, the measurement control unit 2601 determines whether the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information. If the analyzer 2606 does not output the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S207, and if the analyzer 2606 outputs the cluster information, the sequence proceeds to step S205. (paragraph 0299) At step S205, the target area setting unit 2602 sets a target area based on the cluster information.(paragraph 0300) At step S206, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area to at least any one of the light receiving unit, the light emission unit, and the signal processing unit. For example, For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301)) and execute the calibration based on a detection result of the reflection light acquired in the calibration mode. (At step S207, under the control of the measurement control unit 2601, the LIDAR including the light emission unit, the light receiving unit, and the signal processing unit performs the range finding operation to acquire distance information. (paragraph 0302))
LaChapelle teaches,
a processor configured to determine whether an execution condition for executing a calibration is satisfied, (The controller is configured to detect a triggering event for performing calibration, (paragraph 0007))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of LaChapelle into the invention of Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of LaChapelle and Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure calibration should be conducted.
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging device according to Claim 21, wherein the calibration mode is higher in the resolution than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 23, Nakamura further teaches
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 19, wherein the calibration mode is lower in the scan speed than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 24, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging device according to Claim 21, wherein the calibration mode is lower in the scan speed than the normal ranging mode. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Regarding claim 25, Nakamura further teaches
The ranging controller according to claim 1, wherein the scan speed of the scan light emitted in the calibration mode is greater than zero. (For example, the measurement control unit 2601 performs the detection precision enhancement process of the target area by increasing the light emission intensity set for the target area, by setting the shorter light emission cycle for the target area, by increasing the number of times of accumulating the plurality of the received light signals for the target area, and/or by reducing the frame rate set for the target area. (paragraph 0301))
Claims 4-7, 9, 13-16, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20170273161 A1) in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 20180284245 A1) in further view of Kazuki (WO 2020203657).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where the movable object has entered a calibration area in which execution of the calibration mode is permitted.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where the movable object has entered a calibration area in which execution of the calibration mode is permitted. (Subsequently, the information processing apparatus 100 determines whether the target vehicle is present in the region where the calibration can be performed based on the information of the region FV 3 (paragraph 0023))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for confirmation that calibration can be conducted.
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura further teaches limit a ranging range of the calibration mode to a specified range within the ranging area, and the prescribed calibration target exists in the specified range. (The output beam of light 125 is directed downrange toward a remote target 130 located a distance D from the lidar system 100 and at least partially contained within a field of regard of the system 100. Depending on the scenario and/or the implementation of the lidar system 100, D can be between 1 m and 1 km, for example. (paragraph 0025)) modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where a prescribed calibration target exists in a ranging area;
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where a prescribed calibration target exists in a ranging area; (The acquisition unit 192 receives, by V2X communication (road-to-vehicle communication), whether a specific object having a feature point capable of executing calibration corresponding to two or more sensors is present in an acquirable range around the host vehicle. (paragraph 0047))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce extra information when conducting calibration.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakamura further teaches
The ranging controller according to Claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to set at least one of an amplitude of the specified range or the scan speed of the scan light, such that a scan period of the calibration mode is within an allowable period range in which a scan period of the normal ranging mode lies. (The maximum range of lidar system 100 may be any suitable distance, such as for example, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m, 500 m, or 1 km. As a specific example, a lidar system with a 200-m maximum range may be configured to sense or identify various targets located up to 200 m away. (paragraph 0036))
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the reflection point includes one or more reflection points having a distance from the movable object within an allowable distance range, and the processor is further configured to determine that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where number of the reflection points exceeds a predetermined number.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the reflection point includes one or more reflection points having a distance from the movable object within an allowable distance range, (The acquisition unit 192 receives, by V2X communication (road-to-vehicle communication), whether a specific object having a feature point capable of executing calibration corresponding to two or more sensors is present in an acquirable range around the host vehicle. (paragraph 0047)) and the processor is further configured to determine that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where number of the reflection points exceeds a predetermined number. (Accordingly, the information processing apparatus according to the present disclosure can acquire feature points necessary for calibration between sensors from a specific object. (paragraph 0127))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for multiple points for calibration for better accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to cause a notification device to execute notification related to execution of the calibration mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the processor is further configured to cause a notification device to execute notification related to execution of the calibration mode. (Then, the control unit 33 transmits a notification indicating that the target vehicle is present to the information processing apparatus 100 mounted on the vehicle having a positional relationship in which the calibration can be performed. (paragraph 0030))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to let you know when calibration can be conducted.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 10 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the determination process determines that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where the movable object has entered a calibration area in which execution of the calibration mode is permitted.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the determination process determines that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where the movable object has entered a calibration area in which execution of the calibration mode is permitted. (Subsequently, the information processing apparatus 100 determines whether the target vehicle is present in the region where the calibration can be performed based on the information of the region FV 3 (paragraph 0023))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for confirmation that calibration can be conducted.
Regarding claim 14, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 10 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura further teaches the mode execution process limits a ranging range of the calibration mode to a specified range within the ranging area, and the prescribed calibration target exists in the specified range. (The output beam of light 125 is directed downrange toward a remote target 130 located a distance D from the lidar system 100 and at least partially contained within a field of regard of the system 100. Depending on the scenario and/or the implementation of the lidar system 100, D can be between 1 m and 1 km, for example. (paragraph 0025)) modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the determination process determines that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where a prescribed calibration target exists in a ranging area,
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the determination process determines that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where a prescribed calibration target exists in a ranging area, (The acquisition unit 192 receives, by V2X communication (road-to-vehicle communication), whether a specific object having a feature point capable of executing calibration corresponding to two or more sensors is present in an acquirable range around the host vehicle. (paragraph 0047))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce extra information when conducting calibration.
Regarding claim 15, modified Nakamura further teaches
The ranging control method according to Claim 14, the mode execution process sets at least one of an amplitude of the specified range or the scan speed of the scan light, such that a scan period of the calibration mode is within an allowable period range in which a scan period of the normal ranging mode lies. (The maximum range of lidar system 100 may be any suitable distance, such as for example, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m, 500 m, or 1 km. As a specific example, a lidar system with a 200-m maximum range may be configured to sense or identify various targets located up to 200 m away. (paragraph 0036))
Regarding claim 16, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 10 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura fails to teach wherein the reflection point includes one or more reflection points having a distance from the movable object within an allowable distance range, and the determination process determines that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where number of the reflection points exceeds a predetermined number.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches wherein the reflection point includes one or more reflection points having a distance from the movable object within an allowable distance range, (The acquisition unit 192 receives, by V2X communication (road-to-vehicle communication), whether a specific object having a feature point capable of executing calibration corresponding to two or more sensors is present in an acquirable range around the host vehicle. (paragraph 0047)) and the determination process determines that the execution condition is satisfied in a case where number of the reflection points exceeds a predetermined number. (Accordingly, the information processing apparatus according to the present disclosure can acquire feature points necessary for calibration between sensors from a specific object. (paragraph 0127))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for multiple points for calibration for better accuracy.
Regarding claim 18, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 10 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura fails to teach a notification process that controls a notification device to execute notification related to execution of the calibration mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches a notification process that controls a notification device to execute notification related to execution of the calibration mode. (Then, the control unit 33 transmits a notification indicating that the target vehicle is present to the information processing apparatus 100 mounted on the vehicle having a positional relationship in which the calibration can be performed. (paragraph 0030))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to let you know when calibration can be conducted.
Regarding claim 26, modified Nakamura teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however modified Nakamura further teaches and determine whether the movable object has stopped in response to determining that the movable object has entered the calibration area. (In one example implementation, the lidar system performs calibration in response to determining that the vehicle is stopped (paragraph 0124)) modified Nakamura fails to teach determine, based on a current position of the movable object, whether the movable object has entered the calibration area;
In the same field of endeavor, Kazuki teaches determine, based on a current position of the movable object, whether the movable object has entered the calibration area; (Subsequently, the information processing apparatus 100 determines whether the target vehicle is present in the region where the calibration can be performed based on the information of the region FV 3 (paragraph 0023))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kazuki into the invention of modified Nakamura. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose LiDAR for object detection. The combination of Kazuki and modified Nakamura would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure calibration can be conducted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN J SLAUGHTER whose telephone number is (571)388-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ETHAN JAKOB SLAUGHTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
