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 .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-18, 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCloskey (US 10698082 B2).
Regarding claim 1, McCloskey discloses a vehicle lidar network comprising: vehicles; and lidar systems in the vehicles, “FIG. 6 illustrates a plurality of vehicles 612a-612c within an environment of a vehicle 602 that includes a sensor 606, according to an example embodiment. The vehicles 602 and 612a-c may be similar to the vehicles 100, 200, 302a-302d of FIGS. 1-3. For example, the vehicle 602 may include the sensor 606 (e.g., RADAR, LIDAR, etc.) similar to the radar unit 230 and/or the lidar unit 232 of the vehicle 200.” (Page 21 Line 40). McCloskey discloses that the lidar systems are configured to emit laser beams having a number of electromagnetic properties in which the number of electromagnetic properties is selected to reduce interference caused by laser beams emitted from other lidar systems, “(93) In a second scenario, the vehicle 612b may also include a backward facing sensor (not shown) that is directed towards the sensor 606. In this scenario, for example, the vehicle 602 may adjust a modulation pattern of EM radiation from the sensor 606 to reduce interference between the sensor of the vehicle 612b and the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602.” (Page 22 Line 8).
Regarding claim 2, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses a controller system configured to select the number of electromagnetic properties to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “(89) Additionally, in some examples, the computing device at block 508 may provide the request for a combination of adjustments. For example, a frequency offset, time offset, and/or power adjustment may be indicated by the request to reduce the likelihood of particular interference effects (e.g., overload) on a front-end receiver of a radar. Additionally, in this example, BPSK encoding adjustment may also be indicated by the request to help distinguish the source of EM radiation in proximate vehicles. Other examples are possible as well.” (Page 21 Line 30).
Regarding claim 3, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses a controller system configured to change an orientation of a laser beam emitted by a lidar system in the lidar systems, wherein the changed orientation reduces the interference caused by other laser beams emitted from the other lidar systems, “The controller may also be configured to responsively initiate an adjustment of the sensor to reduce the likelihood of interference between the sensor of the vehicle and the at least one sensor of the at least one other vehicle.” (Page 15 line 39) and “Various adjustments of the sensor are possible such as adjusting a direction, power, modulation pattern, or any other parameter of the sensor to reduce interference with the at least one sensor of the at least one other vehicle.” (Page 15 Line 44).
Regarding claim 9, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the controller system is selected from one of a distributed controller system located in the vehicles or a centralized controller system in a location, “The computing device 304 may be configured as a server or any other entity arranged to carry out the functions described herein. Further, the computing device 304 may be configured to send data/requests to the vehicles 302a-302d and/or to receive data from the vehicles 302a-302d. For example, the computing device 304 may receive location information from the vehicles 302a-302d as well as sensor configurations (e.g., direction, modulation pattern, etc.), and may responsively provide requests to proximate vehicles to adjust the corresponding sensor configurations to reduce interference between the corresponding sensors.” (Page 19 Line 21).
Regarding claim 10, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1. McCloskey discloses the vehicles operate within a region, “In an example scenario, a given vehicle may be traveling along roads of a city” (Page 21 Line 35).
Regarding claim 11, McCloskey discloses vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses the lidar systems in the vehicles generate sensor data using backscatter light, “For example, the camera 110 may use a structured light technique in which the vehicle 100 illuminates an object in the environment with a predetermined light pattern, such as a grid or checkerboard pattern and uses the camera 110 to detect a reflection of the predetermined light pattern off the object. Based on distortions in the reflected light pattern, the vehicle 100 may determine the distance to the points on the object.” (Page 16 Line 23). McCloskey discloses that the sensor data is processed by a processor system located in a portion of the vehicles or in a remote location and that vehicles execute instructions received from the processor system, “The vehicles 302a-302d may include components not shown in FIG. 3, such as a user interface, a communication interface, a processor, and data storage comprising instructions executable by the processor for carrying out one or more functions relating to the data sent to, or received by, the computing device 304. Further, the functions may also relate to control of the vehicles 302a-302d or components thereof, such as sensors, etc. To that end, the functions may also include methods and systems described herein.” (Page 19 Line 8).
Regarding claim 12, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the number of electromagnetic properties is selected from at least one of a wavelength or polarity, “In scenario 900d of FIG. 9D, a frequency bandwidth of the modulation patterns 910d and 912d may be adjusted. For example, the first sensor may be adjusted to output the modulated pattern 910d having a minimum frequency of 76 GHz and a maximum frequency of 76.45 GHz, and the second sensor may be adjusted to output the modulated pattern 912d having a minimum frequency of 76.5 GHz and a maximum frequency of 77 GHz. Thus, for example, a filter such as the IF filter 710 may be configured to filter the signals for frequencies in the corresponding bandwidth.” (Page 23 Line 38).
Regarding claim 13, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 11, see claim 11 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the portion of the vehicles is selected from some or all of the vehicles, “The computing device 304 includes a communication system 306, a processor 308, and data storage 310. The communication system 306 may be any system configured to communicate with the vehicles 302a-302d, or other entities, either directly or via a communication network, such as a wireless communication network.” (Page 19 Line 37).
Regarding claim 14, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the lidar systems are configured to: determine when a backscatter light is greater than a threshold; and filter backscatter light, “the receiver may filter the incoming EM radiation based on the particular PSK scheme (e.g., to distinguish the EM radiation transmitted by the sensor from other EM radiation transmitted by other sensors of other vehicles).” (Page 20 Line 63).
Regarding claim 15, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the vehicles are selected from at least one of an aircraft, a commercial airplane, a rotorcraft, a tilt-rotor aircraft, a tilt wing aircraft, a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, an electrical vertical takeoff and landing vehicle a personal air vehicle, an air-land vehicle, an autonomous vehicle, an autonomous air-land vehicle, a surface ship, a tank, a personnel carrier, a train, a spacecraft, or a rocket, “The vehicles 302a-302d may be similar to the vehicles 100-200. For example, the vehicles 302a-302d may be partially or fully autonomous vehicles” (Page 19 Line 4).
Regarding claim 16, McCloskey discloses platforms; and lidar systems in the platforms, “FIG. 6 illustrates a plurality of vehicles 612a-612c within an environment of a vehicle 602 that includes a sensor 606, according to an example embodiment. The vehicles 602 and 612a-c may be similar to the vehicles 100, 200, 302a-302d of FIGS. 1-3. For example, the vehicle 602 may include the sensor 606 (e.g., RADAR, LIDAR, etc.) similar to the radar unit 230 and/or the lidar unit 232 of the vehicle 200.” (Page 21 Line 40). McCloskey discloses that the lidar systems are configured to emit laser beams having a number of electromagnetic properties in which the number of electromagnetic properties is selected to reduce interference caused by other laser beams emitted from other lidar systems, , “(93) In a second scenario, the vehicle 612b may also include a backward facing sensor (not shown) that is directed towards the sensor 606. In this scenario, for example, the vehicle 602 may adjust a modulation pattern of EM radiation from the sensor 606 to reduce interference between the sensor of the vehicle 612b and the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602.” (Page 22 Line Line 8).
Regarding claim 17, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 16, see claim 16 rejection. McCloskey discloses a controller system configured to select the number of electromagnetic properties to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “(89) Additionally, in some examples, the computing device at block 508 may provide the request for a combination of adjustments. For example, a frequency offset, time offset, and/or power adjustment may be indicated by the request to reduce the likelihood of particular interference effects (e.g., overload) on a front-end receiver of a radar. Additionally, in this example, BPSK encoding adjustment may also be indicated by the request to help distinguish the source of EM radiation in proximate vehicles. Other examples are possible as well.” (Page 21 Line 30).
Regarding claim 18, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the controller system is configured to: dynamically select the number of electromagnetic properties for the lidar systems in the platforms to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the platforms, “ As illustrated in FIG. 6, the vehicles 602 and 612a-612c are travelling on a road 610. Further, the vehicles 612a-612c may include sensors (not shown in FIG. 6) that may interfere with operation of the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602. Various scenarios to reduce interference between such sensors and the sensor 606 in accordance with the present disclosure are presented below.”(Page 21 Line 57). Examples of adjustments, “For example, the vehicle 602 may receive data from a server (not shown) that indicates that the sensors are directed at one another. In the scenario, the vehicle 602, for example, may adjust the direction of the sensor 606 via the mount 604 (“steering device”) to reduce such interference. For example, the mount 604 may rotate the sensor 606 slightly away from the direction of the vehicle 612a.”(Page 22 Line 1), “In this scenario, for example, the vehicle 602 may adjust a modulation pattern of EM radiation from the sensor 606 to reduce interference between the sensor of the vehicle 612b and the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602. For example, the EM radiation of the sensor of vehicle 612b may have the shape of a triangular wave, and the vehicle 602 may adjust the shape of the EM radiation from the sensor 606 to correspond to a sawtooth shape, or may adjust a slope of the triangular wave. Other examples are possible as well.” (Page 22 Line 10), and “In this scenario, the sensor of the vehicle 612c may receive signals from the sensor 606 that interfere with the sensor of the vehicle 612c. Accordingly, in the scenario, the vehicle 602 may reduce power of the EM radiation from the sensor 606 such that the EM radiation may not significantly interfere with the sensor of the vehicle 612c after traversing a given distance to the vehicle 612c.”(Page 22 Line 23). McCloskey mentions other scenarios are possible as well.
Regarding claim 23, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 16, see claim 16 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the platforms are selected from at least one of an aircraft, a commercial airplane, a rotorcraft, a tilt-rotor aircraft, a tilt wing aircraft, a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, an electrical vertical takeoff and landing vehicle a personal air vehicle, an air-land vehicle, an autonomous vehicle, an autonomous air-land vehicle, a surface ship, a tank, a personnel carrier, a train, a spacecraft, or a rocket, “The vehicles 302a-302d may be similar to the vehicles 100-200. For example, the vehicles 302a-302d may be partially or fully autonomous vehicles” (Page 19 Line 4).
Regarding claim 24, McCloskey discloses a vehicle sensor network comprising: vehicles; and electromagnetic sensor systems in the vehicles, “ FIG. 6 illustrates a plurality of vehicles 612a-612c within an environment of a vehicle 602 that includes a sensor 606, according to an example embodiment. The vehicles 602 and 612a-c may be similar to the vehicles 100, 200, 302a-302d of FIGS. 1-3. For example, the vehicle 602 may include the sensor 606 (e.g., RADAR, LIDAR, etc.) similar to the radar unit 230 and/or the lidar unit 232 of the vehicle 200” (Page 21 Line 40). McCloskey discloses that the electromagnetic sensor systems are configured to emit electromagnetic waves having a number of electromagnetic properties in which the number of electromagnetic properties is selected to reduce interference caused by other electromagnetic waves emitted from other electromagnetic sensor systems, “ As illustrated in FIG. 6, the vehicles 602 and 612a-612c are travelling on a road 610. Further, the vehicles 612a-612c may include sensors (not shown in FIG. 6) that may interfere with operation of the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602. Various scenarios to reduce interference between such sensors and the sensor 606 in accordance with the present disclosure are presented below.”( Page 21 Line 57). Examples of adjustments, “For example, the vehicle 602 may receive data from a server (not shown) that indicates that the sensors are directed at one another. In the scenario, the vehicle 602, for example, may adjust the direction of the sensor 606 via the mount 604 (“steering device”) to reduce such interference. For example, the mount 604 may rotate the sensor 606 slightly away from the direction of the vehicle 612a.”( Page 22 Line 1), “In this scenario, for example, the vehicle 602 may adjust a modulation pattern of EM radiation from the sensor 606 to reduce interference between the sensor of the vehicle 612b and the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602. For example, the EM radiation of the sensor of vehicle 612b may have the shape of a triangular wave, and the vehicle 602 may adjust the shape of the EM radiation from the sensor 606 to correspond to a sawtooth shape, or may adjust a slope of the triangular wave. Other examples are possible as well.” ((Page 22 Line 10), and “In this scenario, the sensor of the vehicle 612c may receive signals from the sensor 606 that interfere with the sensor of the vehicle 612c. Accordingly, in the scenario, the vehicle 602 may reduce power of the EM radiation from the sensor 606 such that the EM radiation may not significantly interfere with the sensor of the vehicle 612c after traversing a given distance to the vehicle 612c.”( Page 22 Line 23). McCloskey mentions other scenarios are possible as well.
Regarding claim 25, McCloskey discloses the vehicle sensor network of claim 24, see claim 24 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the electromagnetic waves are selected from at least one of a laser beam, a radio wave, a microwave beam, or an ultraviolet beam, “For example, the vehicle 602 may include the sensor 606 (e.g., RADAR, LIDAR, etc.) similar to the radar unit 230 and/or the lidar unit 232 of the vehicle 200.” ((Page 21 Line 40).
Regarding claim 26, McCloskey discloses identifying vehicles, “At block 402, the method 400 includes the vehicle receiving data from an external computing device indicative of at least one other vehicle in an environment of the vehicle that includes at least one sensor.”(Page 19 Line 55). McCloskey discloses determining a number of electromagnetic properties of laser beams emitted by lidar systems in the vehicles, “At block 502, the method 500 includes receiving data from a plurality of vehicles indicative of configuration parameters of sensors in the plurality of vehicles.” (Page 21 Line 23). McCloskey discloses changing the number of electromagnetic properties for the lidar systems to reduce interference from other lidar systems, “ In a third example implementation, the method 400 may also include modifying a modulation pattern of the EM radiation to reduce the interference. Modifying the modulation pattern, for example, may include applying a time offset to the modulation pattern, applying a frequency offset to the modulation pattern, adjusting a frequency bandwidth of the modulation pattern, and/or adjusting a shape of the modulation pattern among other possibilities.” (Page 20 Line 37).
Regarding claim 27, McCloskey discloses selecting the number of electromagnetic properties to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, ““(89) Additionally, in some examples, the computing device at block 508 may provide the request for a combination of adjustments. For example, a frequency offset, time offset, and/or power adjustment may be indicated by the request to reduce the likelihood of particular interference effects (e.g., overload) on a front-end receiver of a radar. Additionally, in this example, BPSK encoding adjustment may also be indicated by the request to help distinguish the source of EM radiation in proximate vehicles. Other examples are possible as well.” (Page 21 Line 30).”
Regarding claim 28, McCloskey discloses changing an orientation of a laser beam emitted by a lidar system in the lidar systems, wherein said changing the orientation reduces interference caused by other laser beams emitted from other lidar systems, “The controller may also be configured to responsively initiate an adjustment of the sensor to reduce the likelihood of interference between the sensor of the vehicle and the at least one sensor of the at least one other vehicle.” (Page 15 line 39) and “Various adjustments of the sensor are possible such as adjusting a direction, power, modulation pattern, or any other parameter of the sensor to reduce interference with the at least one sensor of the at least one other vehicle.” (Page 15 Line 44).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-8, 21-22, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloskey (US 10698082 B2) in further view of Torres (US 20220326374 A1).
Regarding claim 6, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 2, see claim 2 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: change a polarity of the laser beams used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems.
Torres discloses the controller system is configured to: change a polarity of the laser beams used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “ Driving scenario 4: the radar sensor device 400a finds an uncooperative radar sensor device in its environment and identifies its radar modulation parameters. [0093] In the driving scenario 4, the radar sensor device 400a can apply one of the following cooperative rules: [0094] 1) setting the sign of the frequency ramp slope opposite to the sign from the interference signal; [0095] 2) setting a polarization orthogonal to the polarization from the interference signal” (Paragraph 0085).
McCloskey discloses the vehicles lidar network of claim 2. Torres discloses changing a radar parameter to reduce interference, one of those parameters being a polarization. One of skill in the art before the filing date could of applied what is disclosed by Torres to what is disclosed by McCloskey since they are analogous arts and the result of a vehicle lidar network capable of changing polarization to reduce interference from other lidar networks would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 31, following mutatis mutandis claim 31 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6. See claim 6 rejection.
Regarding claim 7, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 2, see claim 2 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a polarity of the laser beams used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles.
Torres discloses that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a polarity used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles., “ Driving scenario 4: the radar sensor device 400a finds an uncooperative radar sensor device in its environment and identifies its radar modulation parameters. [0093] In the driving scenario 4, the radar sensor device 400a can apply one of the following cooperative rules: [0094] 1) setting the sign of the frequency ramp slope opposite to the sign from the interference signal; [0095] 2) setting a polarization orthogonal to the polarization from the interference signal” (Paragraph 0085).
McCloskey discloses the vehicles lidar network of claim 2. Torres discloses changing a radar parameter to reduce interference, one of those parameters being a polarization. One of skill in the art before the filing date could of applied what is disclosed by Torres to what is disclosed by McCloskey since they are analogous arts and the result of a vehicle lidar network capable of changing polarization to reduce interference from other lidar networks would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 32, following mutatis mutandis claim 32 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7. See claim 7 rejection.
Regarding claim 8, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 2, see claim 2 rejection. McCloskey discloses that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles, “As illustrated in FIG. 6, the vehicles 602 and 612a-612c are travelling on a road 610. Further, the vehicles 612a-612c may include sensors (not shown in FIG. 6) that may interfere with operation of the sensor 606 of the vehicle 602. Various scenarios to reduce interference between such sensors and the sensor 606 in accordance with the present disclosure are presented below.” (Page 21 Line 57) and “In a first scenario, the vehicle 612a may include a backward facing sensor (not shown) that is directed towards the sensor 606. The vehicle 602 may determine such scenario via a method such as the methods 400-500.” (Page 21-22 Line 64 Page 21 ). As discussed in the claim 4 rejection method 400, “adjusting a frequency bandwidth of the modulation pattern, and/or adjusting a shape of the modulation pattern among other possibilities.” (Paragraph 80). McCloskey does not disclose changing a polarity of the laser beams used by a second number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems.
Torres discloses changing a polarity of the laser beams used by a second number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “ Driving scenario 4: the radar sensor device 400a finds an uncooperative radar sensor device in its environment and identifies its radar modulation parameters. [0093] In the driving scenario 4, the radar sensor device 400a can apply one of the following cooperative rules: [0094] 1) setting the sign of the frequency ramp slope opposite to the sign from the interference signal; [0095] 2) setting a polarization orthogonal to the polarization from the interference signal” (Paragraph 0085).
McCloskey discloses the vehicles lidar network of claim 2. Torres discloses changing a radar parameter to reduce interference, one of those parameters being a polarization. One of skill in the art before the filing date could of applied what is disclosed by Torres to what is disclosed by McCloskey since they are analogous arts and the result of a vehicle lidar network capable of changing the number of wavelengths used by a first number of systems and changing polarization of a second number of lidar system to reduce interference from other lidar networks would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 33, following mutatis mutandis claim 33 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 8. See claim 8 rejection.
Regarding claim 21, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: change a polarity of the laser beams used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems. Torres discloses the controller system is configured to: change a polarity of the laser beams used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “ Driving scenario 4: the radar sensor device 400a finds an uncooperative radar sensor device in its environment and identifies its radar modulation parameters. [0093] In the driving scenario 4, the radar sensor device 400a can apply one of the following cooperative rules: [0094] 1) setting the sign of the frequency ramp slope opposite to the sign from the interference signal; [0095] 2) setting a polarization orthogonal to the polarization from the interference signal” (Paragraph 0085).
McCloskey discloses the vehicles lidar network of claim 17. Torres discloses changing a radar parameter to reduce interference, one of those parameters being a polarization. One of skill in the art before the filing date could of applied what is disclosed by Torres to what is disclosed by McCloskey since they are analogous arts and the result of a vehicle lidar network capable of changing polarization to reduce interference from other lidar networks would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 22, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a polarity of the laser beams used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles. Torres discloses that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a polarity used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles., “ Driving scenario 4: the radar sensor device 400a finds an uncooperative radar sensor device in its environment and identifies its radar modulation parameters. [0093] In the driving scenario 4, the radar sensor device 400a can apply one of the following cooperative rules: [0094] 1) setting the sign of the frequency ramp slope opposite to the sign from the interference signal; [0095] 2) setting a polarization orthogonal to the polarization from the interference signal” (Paragraph 0085).
McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 17. Torres discloses changing a radar parameter to reduce interference, one of those parameters being a polarization. One of skill in the art before the filing date could of applied what is disclosed by Torres to what is disclosed by McCloskey since they are analogous arts and the result of a vehicle lidar network capable of changing polarization to reduce interference from other lidar networks would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 4-5, 19-20, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloskey (McCloskey (US 10698082 B2) in further view of Morelli (WO 2022146592 A1).
Regarding claim 4, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network system of claim 2, see claim 2 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems.
Morelli discloses that the controller system is configured to: change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “For example, as depicted in FIG. 1, the object 118 may be a pedestrian, a tree, another vehicle, a road sign, and/or any other object. In some instances, the emitting device 110 may be a laser diode, and may be capable of emitting light as a continuous waveform or as a series of pulses. The emitted light 116 may also be at a particular wavelength, which may be fixed or may also be dynamic. For example, the wavelength of the emitted light 116 may be changed if it is desired to illuminate an object 118 with light in a different spectrum.” (???).
McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 2. Morelli discloses changing the wavelengths of emitted light from lidar systems. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date could have applied what is disclosed by Morelli to the vehicle lidar network disclosed by McCloskey to arrive at the claimed invention since they are analogous arts.
Regarding claim 29, following mutatis mutandis claim 29 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4. See claim 4 rejection.
Regarding claim 5, McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 2, see claim 2 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles.
Morelli discloses the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles, “For example, as depicted in FIG. 1, the object 118 may be a pedestrian, a tree, another vehicle, a road sign, and/or any other object. In some instances, the emitting device 110 may be a laser diode, and may be capable of emitting light as a continuous waveform or as a series of pulses. The emitted light 116 may also be at a particular wavelength, which may be fixed or may also be dynamic. For example, the wavelength of the emitted light 116 may be changed if it is desired to illuminate an object 118 with light in a different spectrum.” (???).
McCloskey discloses the vehicle lidar network of claim 2. Morelli discloses changing the wavelengths of emitted light from lidar systems. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date could have applied what is disclosed by Morelli to the vehicle lidar network disclosed by McCloskey to arrive at the claimed invention since they are analogous arts.
Regarding claim 30, following mutatis mutandis claim 30 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5. See claim 5 rejection.
Regarding claim 19, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems.
Morelli discloses that the controller system is configured to: change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “For example, as depicted in FIG. 1, the object 118 may be a pedestrian, a tree, another vehicle, a road sign, and/or any other object. In some instances, the emitting device 110 may be a laser diode, and may be capable of emitting light as a continuous waveform or as a series of pulses. The emitted light 116 may also be at a particular wavelength, which may be fixed or may also be dynamic. For example, the wavelength of the emitted light 116 may be changed if it is desired to illuminate an object 118 with light in a different spectrum.” (Paragraph 0019).
McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 2. Morelli discloses changing the wavelengths of emitted light from lidar systems. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date could have applied what is disclosed by Morelli to the lidar network disclosed by McCloskey to arrive at the claimed invention since they are analogous arts.
Regarding claim 20, McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 17, see claim 17 rejection. McCloskey does not disclose that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems during operation of the vehicles.
Morelli discloses that the controller system is configured to: dynamically change a number of wavelengths used by a number of the lidar systems to reduce the interference from the other lidar systems, “For example, as depicted in FIG. 1, the object 118 may be a pedestrian, a tree, another vehicle, a road sign, and/or any other object. In some instances, the emitting device 110 may be a laser diode, and may be capable of emitting light as a continuous waveform or as a series of pulses. The emitted light 116 may also be at a particular wavelength, which may be fixed or may also be dynamic. For example, the wavelength of the emitted light 116 may be changed if it is desired to illuminate an object 118 with light in a different spectrum.” (Paragraph 0019).
McCloskey discloses the lidar network of claim 2. Morelli discloses changing the wavelengths of emitted light from lidar systems. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date could have applied what is disclosed by Morelli to the lidar network disclosed by McCloskey to arrive at the claimed invention since they are analogous arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSH CHARLES GARDINER whose telephone number is (571)270-0634. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/JOSH CHARLES GARDINER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights