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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “time intervals between any two adjacent emissions of the plurality of the primary laser beams are different;” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Limitation “similarity values between each of the candidate TOF values of the first echo beam and a TOF value of at least one adjacent echo beam” is unclear. It is important to note that TOF is single time which is basically directly proportional to the distance to the object. Similarity between to times of flight is unclear terminology and can mean difference between two distances , ratio between two distances, distances corresponding to same object,, also it can mean corresponding to short distance region, or medium distance region or long distance region. Nowhere in specification Applicant provides defined explanation to the term.
Also Limitation “true TOF” is unclear. What does term “true” means .. all of the measurements are true measurements.
Examiner Interpretation is that similarity is just two tof correspond to the same object or within the threshold distance, term true meaning the average distance to the object.
Another problem rises from limitation “time intervals between any two adjacent emissions of the plurality of the primary laser beams are different”. Applicant requires plurality of beams. Two beams can be considered plurality, but between two beams only one time interval is present. In this case limitation “time intervals between any two adjacent emissions of the plurality of the primary laser beams are different” loses its meaning.
Also limitation ” the at least two emitted primary laser beams include a first laser beam and a second laser beam, and the first laser beam and the second laser beam are adjacent to each other;” is unclear. Does the limitation mean that we have at 4 beams (2 for first primary beam, and 2 for second primary beam), or only 2 beams is enough.
Also it is unclear what does Applicant mean by “partial overlap between reception analysis regions” , does it mean that the beams should have spatial overlap or time overlap(having overlapping listening region).
Also It is unclear what Applicant means by adjacent beams. Does Applicant mean adjacency inspatial or time domain?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 10545240 B2 in view of D2 US 20220291391 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 12 D1 teaches
1. A LiDAR detection method, comprising:
emitting a plurality of primary laser beams, (fig. 5 with fig. 9 multiple sensors 360 generate at least two beams)
wherein:there is at least partial overlap between reception analysis regions of at least two of the emitted primary laser beams, ( col 7 lines 32-39)
and the reception analysis region of the primary laser beam starts from emission time of the primary laser beam and has duration of a TOF (time-of-flight) value corresponding to a maximum detection distance of the primary laser beam;(col 1 line 29-65)
time intervals between any two adjacent emissions of the plurality of the primary laser beams are different; and(col 9 line 22-46 due to the fact that pulses have variable repetition rate at least two adjacent set of pulses will have different intervals between each other)
the at least two emitted primary laser beams include a first laser beam and a second laser beam, and the first laser beam and the second laser beam are adjacent to each other; (col 9 line 22-46 due to the fact that pulses have variable repetition rate at least two adjacent set of pulses will have different intervals between each other)
receiving a first echo beam;(implicit)
when the first echo beam is received in an overlapping region of reception analysis regions of the first laser beam and the second laser beam, ( col 7 lines 32-39)
determining candidate TOF values of the first echo beam based on emission time of the first laser beam, emission time of the second laser beam, and reception time of the first echo beam; ( col 7 lines 32-39 implicit)
but does not explicitly teach while D2 teaches
obtaining similarity values between each of the candidate TOF values of the first echo beam and a TOF value of at least one adjacent echo beam of the first echo beam; and(overlapping beams in abstract are detected [0099] determines the average distance of multiple frames and similarity is that the distance correspond to the object )
determining a true TOF value([0099] determines the average distance of multiple frames )
) of the first echo beam from the candidate TOF values of the first echo beam based on the similarity values.[00241-0243]
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one adjacent echo beam of the first echo beam comprises at least one adjacent echo beam received before the first echo beam; or the at least one adjacent echo beam of the first echo beam comprises the at least one adjacent echo beam
received before the first echo beam and at least one adjacent echo beam received after the first echo beam. [0099]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D2 in order to calculate average distance to the object using multiple frames.
Although D1 does not teach D2 teaches
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the true TOF value of the first echo beam from the candidate TOF values of the first echo beam based on the similarity values comprises:
when the similarity value is less than a preset threshold, determining that a candidate TOF value of the first echo beam corresponding to the similarity value less than the preset threshold is the true TOF value of the first echo beam.[0240-0246]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D2 in order to calculate average distance to the object using multiple frames.
13. A LiDAR, comprising:
a processor; and
a storage having executable codes stored thereon, wherein when executed by the processor, the executable codes cause the processor to execute the method according to claim 1.(implicit fig. 1)
14. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable codes stored thereon,wherein when executed by a processor of an electronic apparatus, the executable codes cause the processor to execute the method according to claim 1.(implicit fig. 1)
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein when none of the similarity values is less than the preset threshold, the first echo beam is determined as noise.(implicit/Obvious if distances do not match between frames means that peak was not real object)
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of the primary laser beams are sequentially emitted at intervals of an emission period T plus or minus an offset duration randomly generated, and any two adjacent primary laser beams correspond to different offset durations.
D1 teaches variable rate and example above is just one of obvious ways to generate variable rate of firing and can be considered a design choice.
Conclusion
The rest of the claims may become allowable depending on the amendment which would clarify independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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 at (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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights