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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2023 was considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roos (US 2020/0241139 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Roos discloses a laser radar device ([0002]), comprising:
a transmission unit that is configured to transmit laser light that has been subjected to frequency modulation ([0032]: “The system 100 may be a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) system, e.g. an FMCW LiDAR system 100, and/or a laser radar (ladar) system.”), so that a preset modulation period includes an up modulation section in which frequency increases as time elapses and a down modulation section in which frequency decreases as time elapses ([0035]: “Any of a variety of patterns of multiple chirps may be used including, but not limited to, triangle waves and/or sawtooth waves. The chirp rates of multiple chirps may be positive (“up chirp”) or negative (“down chirp”) and may have the same or different magnitude.”);
a reception unit that is configured to receive the laser light that has been transmitted from the transmission unit and reflected by an object and mixes the received laser light and the laser light transmitted from the transmission unit to generate a beat signal ([0048]: “When combined at combiner 112, the LO and Rx optical fields may interfere to produce an interference signal, which may also be referred to as a beat note.”);
a fine section setting unit that is configured, for an up beat signal waveform indicating time change of a beat signal amplitude, which is an amplitude of the beat signal, of an up beat signal, which is the beat signal in the up modulation section and a down beat signal waveform indicating time change of the beat signal amplitude of a down beat signal, which is the beat signal in the down modulation section, to set a plurality of fine sections within time ranges of the up beat signal waveform and the down beat signal waveform ([0055]: “Examples of methods and systems described herein may process multiple temporal segments of an interference signal. Each of the temporal segments may have a bandwidth (e.g., a segmented bandwidth) which is less than the total bandwidth of the Rx and/or LO chirp bandwidth. Any number of temporal segments may be used including 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or another number of temporal segments.”);
a fine section extraction unit that is configured to, for each of the up beat signal waveform and the down beat signal waveform, extract at least one fine section satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that the beat signal amplitude in the fine section is high ([0050]: “For these, and possibly other examples, the Rx and LO may not sufficiently overlap in time (where the overlap time may equal to T−τ) which may adversely affect the interference signal update rate, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the measurable range, or the achievable range resolution. The SNR may be adversely affected because the temporal duration of overlap between the Rx and LO up chirp waveforms, for instance, may be reduced, which may decrease the effective integration time to T−τ, which may result in greater noise.”; The examiner here maps a ‘high amplitude beat signal’ to one that has a large SNR. ), from among the set plurality of fine sections ([0055]: “ Any number of temporal segments may be used including 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or another number of temporal segments.”; )
a peak detection unit that is configured to, for each of the up beat signal waveform and the down beat signal waveform ([0063]: “Processing of multiple temporal segments to determine an object velocity may be performed by differencing the beat note frequency from an interference signal segment from an up chirp with the beat note frequency from an interference signal segment from a down chirp.” Establishes that beat frequencies are calculated for both up and down chirp segments.), subject the beat signal in the extracted fine section to frequency analysis to calculate a fine section frequency spectrum ([0048]: “A Fourier transform of the interference signal (which may be performed, e.g., by processor 118 of FIG. 1 and/or other circuitry), may provide a frequency of the beat note, which may be referred to as a beat frequency.”), which is a frequency spectrum in the fine section, and detect a peak frequency, which is a peak in the fine section frequency spectrum ([0055]: “A distance to an object may be determined by any of a variety of methods including those involving determining a beat note frequency corresponding to a certain temporal segment of an interference signal, in which a distance to an object may be determined with knowledge of the chirp rate. A frequency may be determined by any method including, but not limited to curve fitting, peak finding, fringe counting, and/or slope determination (e.g. for Hilbert transforms)”);
and a distance calculation unit that is configured to calculate a distance to the object based on the peak frequency detected by the peak detection unit ([0048]: “The beat frequency may be given by f.sub.heat=κτ, where κ is the chirp rate and τ may be linearly proportional to the distance of the object.”; [0055])
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Roos further discloses wherein the fine section setting unit sets each of the plurality of fine sections so that part of the fine section overlaps with at least one of the other fine sections ([0009]: “In some examples, the at least one of the first set of temporal segments and the at least one of the second set of temporal segments may overlap temporally.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos in view of Nakanishi (WO 2007/032234 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Roos further discloses that the fine section extraction unit extracts one fine section satisfying the extraction condition, for each of the up beat signal waveform and the down beat signal waveform ([0063]: “Processing of multiple temporal segments to determine an object velocity may be performed by differencing the beat note frequency from an interference signal segment from an up chirp with the beat note frequency from an interference signal segment from a down chirp.” Establishes that beat frequencies are calculated for both up and down chirp segments.).
Roos suggests but does not explicitly teach and Nakanishi does teach wherein the extraction condition is that the beat signal amplitude is the maximum ([0068]: “the peak detector 25 extracts sampling data having the maximum amplitude and acquires the time position of this sampling data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nikanishi to extract a maximum amplitude segment into the system of Roos. In the context of using an FMCW lidar system to find distances and velocities, it is well known in the art that a beat signal with a larger amplitude will yield a larger SNR on any subsequent calculations, which will result in more precise determinations of distance and velocity. This is a highly desirable result, and may, for example promote safer operation of autonomous vehicles.
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Roos further discloses the laser radar device further comprises:
a search section setting unit that is configured to, for each of the up beat signal and the down beat signal, set a search section that is a frequency range including the peak frequency detected by the peak detection unit ([0048]: “ A Fourier transform of the interference signal (which may be performed, e.g., by processor 118 of FIG. 1 and/or other circuitry), may provide a frequency of the beat note, which may be referred to as a beat frequency.” It is well-known in the art to restrict frequency results to only those below the Nyquist frequency, which maps to setting a frequency range in which search for the peak frequency will occur.) ;
and a spectrum calculation unit that is configured to, for each of the up beat signal waveform and the down beat signal waveform, subject the beat signal in a whole section of the time range to frequency analysis, to calculate a whole section frequency spectrum that is the frequency spectrum in the whole section ([0048]: “FIG. 2A shows an example plot of the LO and Rx optical frequencies as functions of time. In the example of FIG. 2A, both the LO and Rx signals are chirped—e.g., their frequency changes over time and over a bandwidth B.”; [0048]: “A Fourier transform of the interference signal (which may be performed, e.g., by processor 118 of FIG. 1 and/or other circuitry), may provide a frequency of the beat note, which may be referred to as a beat frequency. FIG. 2B illustrates an example plot of signal strength vs. frequency for a Fourier transform of an interference signal.”; ), and
the distance calculation unit detects, for each of the up beat signal and the down beat signal, the peak frequency in the search section in the whole section frequency spectrum, to calculate a distance to the object ([0048]: “In certain examples, the processor 118 may determine a distance to an object by solving for R and using known or measured values of a chirp rate, the speed of light, and a beat frequency of an interference signal described herein.”).
Roos further discloses that the fine section extraction unit extracts one fine section satisfying the extraction condition, for each of the up beat signal waveform and the down beat signal waveform ([0063]: “Processing of multiple temporal segments to determine an object velocity may be performed by differencing the beat note frequency from an interference signal segment from an up chirp with the beat note frequency from an interference signal segment from a down chirp.” Establishes that beat frequencies are calculated for both up and down chirp segments.).
Roos suggests but does not explicitly teach and Nakanishi does teach wherein the extraction condition is that the beat signal amplitude is the maximum ([0068]: “the peak detector 25 extracts sampling data having the maximum amplitude and acquires the time position of this sampling data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nikanishi to extract a maximum amplitude segment into the system of Roos. In the context of using an FMCW lidar system to find distances and velocities, it is well known in the art that a beat signal with a larger amplitude will yield a larger SNR on any subsequent calculations, which will result in more precise determinations of distance and velocity. This is a highly desirable result, and may, for example promote safer operation of autonomous vehicles.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos in view of Nakanishi (WO 2006/123499 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Roos suggests but does not explicitly teach and Nakanishi does teach wherein for each of the plurality of fine sections, the fine section extraction unit divides the fine section into a plurality of amplitude fluctuation verification sections and verifies the beat signal amplitude for each of the plurality of amplitude fluctuation verification sections ([0012]: “The standard deviation of the amplitude is obtained for a predetermined time (section) of the beat signal, and the standard deviation is calculated. A threshold value is determined by adding a predetermined value or multiplying by a predetermined coefficient, and the presence or absence of interference of the beat signal (the presence of spike noise on the beat signal) according to the presence or absence of an amplitude larger than the threshold value.”; [0066]: “However, the standard deviation computing unit 13 may determine the standard deviation of window-function-processed sampling data sequence, which is the FFT target.”; Window functions are typically slid across the data in a similar fashion to a boxcar average, thus resulting in numerous standard deviations calculated for each time interval.) to extract the fine section satisfying the extraction condition ([0034]: “The standard deviation of the amplitude is obtained for a predetermined time (section) of the beat signal, and the standard deviation is calculated. A threshold value is determined by adding a predetermined value or multiplying by a predetermined coefficient, and the presence or absence of interference of the beat signal (the presence of spike noise on the beat signal) according to the presence or absence of an amplitude larger than the threshold value.”; [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakanishi to calculate standard deviations for verifying the beat signal amplitude into the device of Roos. Nikanishi notes in [0020] that “since a spike noise caused by interference exceeds the threshold even if amplitude of the spike noise to be superposed on the beat signal is relatively small, presence or absence of interference can be certainly detected.” This allows for better retrievals of distance and velocity by more clearly determining which intervals have interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to discloses an FMCW LiDAR apparatus which extracts sections of the time-domain beat signal in descending order of beat signal amplitude. The base reference Roos teaches the other limitations of Claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeya (WO 2011/158800 A1) discloses extracting extreme values of the beat frequency amplitude in descending order, but lacks any discussion of sub-intervals or beat signal amplitudes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights