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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2026, 06/05/2024, and 02/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 10-17, 20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bush et al., US 20230062298 A1 (“Bush”).
Regarding claim 1, Bush teaches a method for reducing interference in a light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system (Fig. 8 and [0041], method 800 for LIDAR interference detection and mitigation), the method comprising:
receiving noise by a light detector of the LiDAR system (Fig. 8 and [0041], the method 800 begins in a receiving operation 802 when incident light is received at a detector);
determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from at least one other LiDAR system (Fig. 8 and [0041], identification operation 804, a determination of whether there is light interference, e.g., from another LiDAR system or a light jamming source, is made); and
in accordance with a determination that the detected noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system, de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system (Fig. 8 and [0042], if interference is detected in identification operation 804, then a query operation 808 interrogates whether an augmented reference value (RA) should be used to mitigate interference […] then the scan profile generator may calculate an augmented reference value (RA), e.g., a random profile dither, that will probabilistically step away from the interfering signal. [0043] If augmented reference values (RA) are determined appropriate, either in response to a new incidence of interference or a prior use of a compression or stretching technique, a scan profile of reference values (R) is generated in a generation operation 810, wherein the reference values (RA) are augmented values that differ from the nominal values in order to mitigate the interference).
Regarding claim 2, Bush teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving noise by the light detector of the LiDAR system further comprises:
detecting scattered light formed based on transmission light from the at least one other LiDAR system ([0025] Interference in LiDAR systems may occur when the reflected signal received at the detector contains information from another source which is not known to the LiDAR or otherwise not compensated for).
Regarding claim 3, Bush teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a field-of-view of the LiDAR system and a field-of-view of the at least one other LiDAR system at least partially overlap ([0025] For mechanical scanning LiDAR systems, the detection window during which interference may occur will correspond to a given region of space at a particular moment in time within the field of view of the LiDAR sensors. [0026] For example, passive interference could occur due to the presence of other LiDAR systems which are interrogating a shared space).
Regarding claim 4, Bush teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a light steering mechanism of the LiDAR system and a light steering mechanism of the at least one other LiDAR system have at least one operational characteristic that is substantially the same ([0026] Interference occurs when there is an intersection between the spatio-temporal attributes of the interference source and the sampling trajectory of the sensors of a LiDAR device).
Regarding claim 5, Bush teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the at least one operational characteristic comprises one or more of a rotational speed, a scanning direction, a scan pattern, a scanning azimuthal angle, a scanning elevation angle, laser light energy, and a pulse repetition rate (Figs. 3A-3C and [0029], theta (ϴ) refers to the horizontal angle of light across the field of view as reflected off a horizontal scan mirror. Phi (Φ) refers to the vertical angle of light across the field of view as reflected off a vertical scan mirror. Time (TL) is the sampling window time at the detector in the LiDAR device and is a function of the laser fire timing).
Regarding claim 6, Bush teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
comparing a shape of a collective noise points of the received noise in a point cloud of the LiDAR system with a shape of one or more nearby objects in the point cloud (Fig. 7 and [0038], Trajectory parameters of light received at the detector(s) 710 of the LiDAR device are passed to an optical interference identifier 712 to recognize or detect possible interference optical interference based upon characteristics of detected light signals. For one example embodiment of interference detection, the identifier 712 may maintain a statistical model of the scene or structure of objects captured within the LiDAR field of view based on previously capture measurements spanning one or more frames. This model may be built using one or more of a variety of forms, for example, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), point clustering, etc.); and
determining that the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system if the shape of the collective noise points resembles the shape of the one or more nearby objects ([0038] The model can then be used to predict the likelihood that subsequent measurements taken correspond to structure in the scene versus spurious measurements that may be the result of interfering light sources. Spurious measurements can then be further subcategorized into, for example, interference or noninterference based on a predefined set of interference characteristics stored in a table. These characteristics may include predefined point cluster geometries across multiple frame measurements, for example, one or more streaks of points, the positions of which do not follow expected trajectories across multiple sequential frames).
Regarding claim 10, Bush teaches the method of claim 1, wherein de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system comprises at least one of: de-synchronizing a first light source of the LiDAR system and a second light source of the at least one other LiDAR system, and de-synchronizing a first light steering mechanism of the LiDAR system and a second light steering mechanism of the at least one other LiDAR system ([0037] change the rotational and pivot speeds of the mirrors and/or change the timing of the laser pulses to alter the spatio-temporal sampling trajectories to mitigate the interference).
Regarding claim 11, Bush teaches the method of claim 10, wherein de-synchronizing the first light source of the LiDAR system and the second light source of the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
adjusting timings of firing cycles of the LiDAR system such that scattered pulses formed based on transmission light from the at least one other LiDAR system fall outside of detection windows of the LiDAR system (Fig. 5C and [0033], depicts an example of a timing offset between sampling windows. This offset could coincide with similar timing offsets in the firing of the laser pulses or could merely skip sampling of some of the laser pulses in an attempt to avoid the interfering signals).
Regarding claim 12, Bush teaches the method of claim 10, wherein de-synchronizing the first light steering mechanism of the LiDAR system and the second light steering mechanism of the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
determining, based on a first value of an operational characteristic of the first light steering mechanism, a second value that is different from the first value ([0033] application of dithering via offsets to the nominal sampling trajectories and timing of sampling); and
adjusting the operational characteristic of the first light steering mechanism from the first value to the second value (Fig. 5A and [0033], an example horizontal angular offset in the scanned field of view wherein a portion of the field of view may be skipped in one cycle of the scan, e.g., by instantaneously increasing the rotational speed (dθ/dt) of the horizontal scanning mirror between light pulses).
Regarding claim 13, Bush teaches the method of claim 12, further comprises: adjusting the operational characteristic of the LiDAR system from the second value back to the first value (Fig. 5A and [0033], then slowing the rotational speed slightly to end the facet at the normal end of the scanning field of view. In this example, the rotational speed may then return to nominal for the next cycle).
Regarding claim 14, Bush teaches the method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the operational characteristic of the first light steering mechanism from the first value to the second value is performed within a predetermined time period (Fig. 5A and [0033], return to nominal for the next cycle).
Regarding claim 15, Bush teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the operational characteristic comprises at least one of a rotation speed of a polygon mirror and a movement speed of an oscillating mirror (Fig. 5A and [0033], adjusting rotational speed (dθ/dt) of the horizontal scanning mirror. Fig. 5B and [0033], adjusting pivot speed (dϕ/dt) of the vertical scanning mirror).
Regarding claim 16, Bush teaches the method of claim 15, wherein determining the second value that is different from the first value comprises:
obtaining the first value representing a current rotation speed of a polygon mirror of the first light steering mechanism (Fig. 5A and [0033], application of dithering via offsets to the nominal sampling trajectories);
determining the second value representing a new rotation speed of the polygon mirror ([0032] dither may take the form of randomization of the sampling trajectory or orientation in space, consistent but non-nominal offsets of the sampling orientation or sampling windows, or randomized offsets of timing of the sampling windows among others); and
adjusting the rotation speed of the polygon mirror to the second value (Fig. 5A and [0033], example horizontal angular offset in the scanned field of view wherein a portion of the field of view may be skipped in one cycle of the scan, e.g., by instantaneously increasing the rotational speed (dθ/dt) of the horizontal scanning mirror between light pulses and then slowing the rotational speed slightly to end the facet at the normal end of the scanning field of view).
Regarding claim 17, Bush teaches the method of claim 16, wherein determining the second value representing the new rotation speed of the polygon mirror comprises:
determining a time delay between the LiDAR system and the at least one other LiDAR system (Fig.7 and [0036], The LIDAR interference detection and mitigation system 700 mitigates interference by altering the characteristics, e.g., spatio-temporal scanning profile trajectory parameters, of the LiDAR scanner trajectories and sensor sampling orientation [...] or in addition, the LIDAR interference detection and mitigation system 700 may model sensor sampling trajectories for known LiDAR sensors which can interfere and uses those models to adjust the sampling trajectory to mitigate interference);
calculating an angular adjustment value of the polygon mirror based on the time delay (Fig.7 and [0039], scan profile generator 714, which functions to calculate the base trajectory and pulse timing values for the controller 702. The calculations performed by the scan profile generator 714 are primarily based upon configuration parameters 716 that determine the locations of each light pulse in the sequence of light pulses to create a desired raster scan profile across the field of view. Typical configuration parameters 716 may include frame rate, scans per second, horizontal/vertical resolution, etc.); and
determining the second value based on the first value and the angular adjustment value ([0039] if the optical interference identifier 712 detects interference in received light, the interference state output is ingested by the scan profile generator 714 to adjust the reference values (R). Upon receiving an indication of a state of interference, the scan profile generator 714 will deploy predefined or adaptively defined modifications to the reference values (R) to avoid reception of light interference at the detector(s) 710 in future samples for a window of time).
Regarding claim 20, Bush teaches the method of claim 10, wherein de-synchronizing the first light steering mechanism of the LiDAR system and the second light steering mechanism of the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
adjusting a scan pattern of the LiDAR system to introduce or modify one or more regions of interest (ROIs) in a field-of-view of the LiDAR system ([0028] The goal is to recognize interference and then cause the LiDAR device to randomly step away from the pattern of the other, interfering LiDAR device. For interference sources that occupy a subset of the spatio-temporal characteristics of a LiDAR sensor sampling trajectory, it may be possible to mitigate the extent of interference by altering the characteristics of the LiDAR sensor sampling trajectory. For example, changes could be made to the location of sample outside of the normal raster scan pattern; the density of light pulses in certain areas of the field of view could be algorithmically altered to shift the focus location; the timing of laser pulses could be changed (e.g., closer together, further apart, randomized); sampling of detected reflections could be altered to sample particular locations at particular times; etc.).
Regarding claim 22, Bush teaches a LiDAR system for reducing interference in the LiDAR system (Fig. 9, processing system 900), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 9 and [0046], There may be one or more processors 902),
a memory device (Fig. 9, memory 908), and
processor-executable instructions stored in the memory device, the processor-executable instructions comprising instructions for:
receiving noise by a light detector of the LiDAR system;
determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from at least one other LiDAR system (Fig. 9 and [0045], The processing system 900 is capable of executing a computer program product embodied in a tangible computer-readable storage medium to execute a computer process. [0046] The described technology is optionally implemented in software loaded in memory 908, a storage unit 912, and/or communicated via a wired or wireless network link 914. [0047] Computer program products containing mechanisms to effectuate the systems and methods in accordance with the described technology may reside in the memory section 908 or on the storage unit 912 of such a system 900); and
in accordance with a determination that the detected noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system, de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system ([0045] The processing system 900 may be useful in implementing the described technology. [0047] Computer program products containing mechanisms to effectuate the systems and methods in accordance with the described technology may reside in the memory section 908 or on the storage unit 912 of such a system 900).
Regarding claim 24, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform a process including (Fig. 9 and [0045], The processing system 900 is capable of executing a computer program product embodied in a tangible computer-readable storage medium to execute a computer process. [0046] The described technology is optionally implemented in software loaded in memory 908, a storage unit 912, and/or communicated via a wired or wireless network link 914):
receiving noise by a light detector of a LiDAR system;
determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from at least one other LiDAR system; and
in accordance with a determination that the detected noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system, de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system ([0047] Computer program products containing mechanisms to effectuate the systems and methods in accordance with the described technology may reside in the memory section 908 or on the storage unit 912 of such a system 900).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush et al., US 20230062298 A1 (“Bush”) in view of Meissner et al., US 11415671 B2 (“Meissner”).
Regarding claim 7, Bush teaches the method of claim 1. However, Bush does not expressly disclose: wherein a first outgoing pulse is transmitted by the at least one other LiDAR system, wherein a second outgoing pulse is transmitted by the LiDAR system, and wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
detecting a first return pulse and a second return pulse after the second outgoing pulse is transmitted, wherein the first return pulse is scattered by an object in an external environment based on the first outgoing pulse, and wherein the second return pulse is scattered by the object in the external environment based on the second outgoing pulse; and
determining, based on the detection of the first return pulse and the second return pulse, whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system.
Meissner teaches a LiDAR sensor method wherein a first outgoing pulse is transmitted by the at least one other LiDAR system, wherein a second outgoing pulse is transmitted by the LiDAR system, and wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system comprises (Fig. 3 and [32], an interference scenario; the beam 316 is reflected by target 308. Interference beams 314 and 318, which are indirectly and directly received from other sources):
detecting a first return pulse and a second return pulse after the second outgoing pulse is transmitted, wherein the first return pulse is scattered by an object in an external environment based on the first outgoing pulse, and wherein the second return pulse is scattered by the object in the external environment based on the second outgoing pulse (Fig. 5 and [40], LIDAR method (block diagram) 500. Step 510 denotes acts of generating a first detector signal at a first delay time after emitting a first light pulse and generating a second detector signal at the first delay time after emitting a second light pulse); and
determining, based on the detection of the first return pulse and the second return pulse, whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system (Fig. 5 and [44], LIDAR method (block diagram) 500. The processor (step 520) is configured to generate a combined signal 522. Fig. 7 and [50], the processor 520 can additionally or alternatively be configured to detect the presence of an interferer based on the combined signal. In this case, the detector signals can be combined according to an interference detection scheme along the pulse repetition. For example, the processor can be configured to compute a measure of a variation, such as the variance or the standard deviation, between the first and the at least one second detectors signal along the pulse repetitions as the combined signal 522).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR interference mitigation method disclosed by Bush, by incorporating additional software instructions to detect interference based on multiple return pulses, as taught by Meissner. This is simply an obvious variation in the system design that is known and predictable in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 8, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush et al., US 20230062298 A1 (“Bush”) in view of Mark Shand, US 11561281 B2 (“Shand”).
Regarding claim 8, Bush teaches the method of claim 1. However, Bush does not expressly disclose: wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system comprises: configuring the LiDAR system to operate as a receiver without transmitting light; and determining that the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system when the LiDAR system continues to detect return pulses.
Shand teaches a LIDAR interference mitigation method wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system (Fig.10 and [155], a flowchart diagram of a method 1000) comprises:
configuring the LiDAR system to operate as a receiver without transmitting light (Fig. 10 and [156], At block 1002, the method 1000 may include deactivating one or more light emitters within a light detection and ranging (lidar) device during a firing cycle); and
determining that the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system when the LiDAR system continues to detect return pulses (Fig.10 and [157], At block 1004, the method 1000 may include identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device. Identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device may include determining, for each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the one or more light emitters deactivated during the firing cycle, whether a light signal was detected during the firing cycle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR interference mitigation method disclosed by Bush, by incorporating additional software instructions to selectively deactivate the light emitters in order to assess whether interference is influencing the measurements, as taught by Shand. This is simply an obvious variation in the system design that is known and predictable in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding claim 21, Bush teaches the method of claim 1. However, Bush does not expressly disclose: wherein de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system comprises: rotating a housing of the LiDAR system to change a field-of-view of the LiDAR system.
Shand teaches a LIDAR interference mitigation method wherein de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
rotating a housing of the LiDAR system to change a field-of-view of the LiDAR system ([108] The lidar device 500 may include one or more actuators that are configured to rotate, adjust, or otherwise move the light emitters and detectors (e.g., in an azimuthal direction and/or elevation direction). Fig. 8A and [149], depicts two regions of disinterest 812. When the lidar device 500 is azimuthally oriented (e.g., by one or more actuators of the lidar device 500) such that light signals will be emitted toward the regions of disinterest 812, one or more of the light emitters 502 may be selectively deactivated and the corresponding light detector(s) 504 may be used for interference detection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR interference mitigation system disclosed by Bush, by incorporating one or more actuators to rotate or adjust the field of view of the LIDAR system in order to de-synchronize the system, as taught by Shand. This is simply an obvious variation in the system design that is known and predictable in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding claim 23, Bush teaches a LiDAR system (Fig. 7 and [0036], block diagram of LIDAR interference detection and mitigation system 700), wherein the LiDAR system is configured to perform a method, the method comprising:
receiving noise by a light detector of the LiDAR system (Fig. 7 and [0038], light received at the detector(s) 710 of the LiDAR);
determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from at least one other LiDAR system (Fig.7, optical interference identifier 712); and
in accordance with a determination that the detected noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system, de-synchronizing the LiDAR system with the at least one other LiDAR system (Fig. 7 and [0036], The LIDAR interference detection and mitigation system 700 mitigates interference by altering the characteristics, e.g., spatio-temporal scanning profile trajectory parameters, of the LiDAR scanner trajectories and sensor sampling orientation by one or more of the methods described. For example, in some implementations the LIDAR interference detection and mitigation system 700 may dither scanning profile trajectories or a sample timing window for detecting LiDAR signal at a LiDAR sensor or stretch or compress a scanning profile trajectory for at least one of the sample angle and sample window timing).
Bush does not expressly disclose a vehicle comprising a LiDAR system, the LiDAR system comprising one or more processors and memory.
Shand teach a vehicle comprising a LiDAR system, the LiDAR system comprising one or more processors and memory (Fig.1 and [35], a functional block diagram illustrating example vehicle 100, computer system 112, Processor 113, Data Storage 114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and integrate the LIDAR interference mitigation system disclosed by Bush into the vehicle system, as taught by Shand. This is simply an obvious variation in the system design that is known and predictable in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush et al., US 20230062298 A1 (“Bush”) in view of Allen et al., US 20210103055 A1 (“Allen”).
Regarding claim 9, Bush teaches the method of claim 1. However, Bush does not expressly disclose: wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system comprises: comparing a point cloud of the LiDAR system with data captured from other sensors; and determining that the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system when noise appears in the point cloud but not in the data captured from the other sensors.
Allen teaches a LIDAR method for detecting cross-talk interference wherein determining whether the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
comparing a point cloud of the LiDAR system with data captured from other sensors ([0025] In some embodiments, the perception software can take into account other factors (e.g., weather conditions), as well as other sensor data (e.g., camera data and radar data), in addition to the quality factor values); and
determining that the received noise is caused by interference from the at least one other LiDAR system when noise appears in the point cloud but not in the data captured from the other sensors ([0056] According to some embodiments, the perception software may combine the LiDAR sensor data (e.g., point cloud data with associated quality factor values) with other sensor data for detecting obstacles. The other sensor data may include, for example, camera data and radar data. For instance, a point from the LiDAR sensor may have a relatively low-quality factor value, yet that point is consistent with weak signals from a radar or a camera. The perception software can take data from all sensors into consideration, and may determine that the point in question represents an obstacle. Also, claim#10: The LiDAR system of claim 7 wherein determining whether the respective point is a false point due to interference is further based on camera data or radar data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR interference mitigation system & method disclosed by Bush, by incorporating additional sensors (e.g; camera and/or radar), and updating the software instructions to utilize such auxiliary sensor data to assess whether interference is influencing the measurements, as taught by Allen. This is simply an obvious variation in the system design that is known and predictable in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush et al., US 20230062298 A1 (“Bush”) in view of Guang Yang, WO 2018112888 A1 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 18, Bush teaches the method of claim 17. However, Bush does not expressly disclose: wherein determining the time delay between the LiDAR system and the at least one other LiDAR system comprises: determining a number of noise counts in a frame based on the detected noise; determining whether the number of noise counts exceeds a threshold noise count; and determining the time delay in accordance with a determination that the number of noise counts exceeds a threshold noise count.
Yang teaches a LIDAR scanning method wherein determining the time delay between the LiDAR system and the at least one other LiDAR system comprises:
determining a number of noise counts in a frame based on the detected noise (Fig. 5 and [0122], counting module 5041, used to increase the number of interference times by one when there is an identification code other than the first in the laser signal reflected at the current scanning point);
determining whether the number of noise counts exceeds a threshold noise count (Fig. 5 and [0123], statistical module 5042, used to obtain the probability value based on the number of interference and scans. [0126] Once the probability value reaches a preset threshold at a certain scanning moment, the LiDAR can quickly delay the scanning interval); and
determining the time delay in accordance with a determination that the number of noise counts exceeds a threshold noise count (Fig.5 and [ 0124, 0114], The delay unit 505 is used to preset the scan interval delay duration when the probability value reaches a preset threshold. [0102] When these probability values reach a preset threshold, the LiDAR delays the scanning interval by a preset duration before continuing to perform the scanning function. Therefore, the laser signals emitted by LiDAR can be staggered from other laser signals in scanning time, effectively preventing interference from other laser signals reflected from the current scanning point).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR interference mitigation method disclosed by Bush, by incorporating additional software instructions to count the interreference noise measurements, and adjust measurement time delay to avoid interference, as taught by Allen. This is simply an obvious variation in the system design that is known and predictable in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding claim 19, Bush in view of Yang teach the method of claim 18. Yang further teaches wherein the number of noise counts decreases as a value of the time delay increases ([0015] LiDAR interactions set preset thresholds. When these probability values reach the preset threshold, the LiDAR delays the scanning interval by a preset duration before proceeding with scanning. It should be noted that as interfering Lidars become in closer proximity, the number interference counts will increase).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALIL ALI AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-4:30pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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.
/KHALIL ALI AHMAD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights