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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 4-7 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 4 recites “the LIDAR data for a scan zone indicating a radial velocity between an object in the scan zone and the LIDAR data”. Not clear what the radial velocity is between, the object and the lidar data? Should this read the radial velocity is between the object and the lidar system?
Claim 6 recites a similar limitation and is similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites “to identify a subject one of the scan zones that contains an object”. Not clear. Should subject one be read as a first subject?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the subject scan zone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, what is the subject scan zone? Is this the same as the previously recited scan zone? What is the difference?
Claim 5 recites “causing a preliminary LIDAR system to concurrently output multiple system output signals”. Not clear what is meant by “to concurrently output multiple system output signals.” Concurrently with what? Concurrently with a TOF counter or with a vehicle being driven?
Claim 6 recites a similar limitation and is similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the distance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one or more lidar systems". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “processing the preliminary LIDAR data so as to identify subject one of the scan zones”. Not clear. Should subject one be read as a first subject?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the subject scan zone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, what is the subject scan zone? Is this the same as the previously recited scan zone? What is the difference?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the distance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1, 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by LaChapelle (US 20220043149).
In regards to claim 1, LaChapelle discloses a system, comprising:
a LIDAR system configured to output a system output signal, the system output signal having a divergence angle greater than or equal to 0.10 ([0051] “an output beam of light 125 emitted by light source 110 may be a collimated optical beam having any suitable beam divergence, such as for example, a full-angle beam divergence of approximately 0.5 to 10 milliradians (mrad)”),
the LIDAR system being configured to receive a system return signal ([0043] discloses received beam), the system return signal including light from the system output signal that was reflected by an object located outside of the LIDAR system ([0044] “receiver 140 may receive or detect photons from input beam 135 and produce one or more representative signals”); and
light combiners that each combine light from the system return signal with light from a reference signal so as to generate a composite light signal beating at a beat frequency (seen at least in Fig. 20 combiners ref. 420a, 420b, [0253] “The frequency-detection circuit 600 may determine one or more frequencies of a beat signal resulting from coherent mixing of LO light 430 and input light 135”, [0280] “a receiver 140 of a lidar system 100 may be configured to determine one or more frequencies of one or more beat signals”).
In regards to claim 3, LaChapelle discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system output signal is a continuous wave (LaChapelle [0048] “light source 110 may include a continuous-wave (CW) or quasi-CW laser diode”).
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 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Armstrong-Crews et al (US 12216474; referred after as Armstrong).
In regards to claim 2, LaChapelle discloses the system of claim 1,
LaChapelle does not expressly disclose: wherein the LIDAR system includes a LIDAR system controller configured to calculate a radial velocity between the LIDAR system and the object.
Armstrong teaches a lidar system which determines radial velocity (C5:37 “the functionality of a ToF and coherent lidar sensor(s) is combined into a single (e.g., hybrid) unit capable of determining both the distance to and the radial velocity of the reflecting object”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, LaChapelle with Armstrong by providing the means the LIDAR system includes a LIDAR system controller configured to calculate a radial velocity between the LIDAR system and the object in order to provide greater data for use in evaluating the object.
LaChapelle as combined further discloses:
and to not calculate a distance between the LIDAR system and the object (Armstrong flowchart Fig. 6 control process does not determine distance in process steps).
Claim 4, 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong in view of Asghari et al (20200158830) in view of Mahajan (US 20200333439).
In regards to claim 4, Armstrong discloses a device detection system, comprising:
a LIDAR system configured to concurrently output multiple system output signals (Fig. 4 ref. 402) and scan the system output signals across a detection space (as seen at least in Fig. 4 ref. 402), the LIDAR system configured to calculate LIDAR data for multiple different scan zones within the detection space (as suggested in Fig. 4, lidar scan), the LIDAR data for a scan zone indicating a radial velocity between an object in the scan zone and the LIDAR data (C3:37 “A coherent lidar allows to associate a radial velocity with the return points of the point cloud.”),
the LIDAR system including a LIDAR data processor (ref. 130) configured to process the LIDAR data so as to identify a subject one of the scan zones that contains an object (C3:7 discloses within each frame contain return points, “A set of points within a given frame can be referred to as a “point cloud.” A point cloud can include returns from multiple objects”);
an aerial surveillance system configured to transmit one or more system output signals such that the one or more system output signals transmitted from the aerial surveillance system define an identification region within the detection space (Fig. 4 discloses aerial surveillance system, ref. 406, and detection space into which it scans, C2:59 “a lidar device can cover an entire 360-degree view by using a series of consecutive sensing frames identified with timestamps”, larger degree view/identification region, identification region/sensing frame); and
Armstrong does not expressly disclose:
one or more actuators configured to move the aerial surveillance system so as to steer the identification region within the detection space;
Asghari teaches a Lidar scanning head which is moved by actuators (at least Fig. 10B ref. 500, [0145] discloses movement provided by actuators).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Armstrong with Asghari by providing the one or more actuators configured to move the aerial surveillance system so as to steer the identification region within the detection space as is well known in the art to allow scanner coverage of a chosen field of view.
While Armstrong as combined further discloses:
a steering controller configured such that in response to the identification of the subject scan zone the one or more actuators are operated so as to move the aerial surveillance system (Asghari [0144] “The core electronics can use one or both of these rotational movements to steer the LIDAR output signals from one sample region to the next”).
Armstrong does not expressly disclose: to move the aerial surveillance system such that the identification region overlaps the subject scan zone.
Mahajan teaches a lidar system in which scan a detection space and whose scans overlap (as seen at least in Figs. 1A and 1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Armstrong with Mahajan by providing the means to move the aerial surveillance system such that the identification region overlaps the subject scan zone in order to allow the system increase coverage for objects within the identification region.
In regards to claim 5, Armstrong discloses a method of operating a device detection system, comprising:
causing a preliminary LIDAR system to concurrently output multiple system output signals and scan the system output signals across a detection space (C2:59 “a lidar device can cover an entire 360-degree view by using a series of consecutive sensing frames identified with timestamps”, larger degree view/identification region, identification region/sensing frame),
calculating preliminary LIDAR data for multiple different scan zones within the detection space, the preliminary LIDAR data for a scan zone indicating a radial velocity between an object in the scan zone and the one or more LIDAR systems (C3:37 “A coherent lidar allows to associate a radial velocity with the return points of the point cloud”),
processing the preliminary LIDAR data so as to identify subject one of the scan zones that contains an object (C3:7 discloses within each frame contain return points, “A set of points within a given frame can be referred to as a “point cloud.” A point cloud can include returns from multiple objects”); and
transmitting one or more system output signals such that the one or more system output signals define an identification region within the detection space (C3:7 discloses within each frame contain return points, “A set of points within a given frame can be referred to as a “point cloud.” A point cloud can include returns from multiple objects”); and
Armstrong does not expressly disclose:
in response to the identification of the subject scan zone, operating one or more actuators configured to move the aerial surveillance system.
Asghari teaches a Lidar scanning head which is moved by actuators (at least Fig. 10B ref. 500, [0145] discloses movement provided by actuators).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Armstrong with Asghari by providing the means for in response to the identification of the subject scan zone, operating one or more actuators configured to move the aerial surveillance system in order to provide scanner coverage of a chosen field of view.
While Armstrong as combined further discloses:
a steering controller configured such that in response to the identification of the subject scan zone the one or more actuators are operated so as to move the aerial surveillance system (Asghari [0144] “The core electronics can use one or both of these rotational movements to steer the LIDAR output signals from one sample region to the next”).
Armstrong does not expressly disclose: such that the movement of the aerial surveillance system causes the identification region to overlap the subject scan zone.
Mahajan teaches a lidar system in which scan a detection space and whose scans overlap (as seen at least in Figs. 1A and 1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Armstrong with Mahajan by providing the means for the movement of the aerial surveillance system to cause the identification region to overlap the subject scan zone in order to allow the system increase coverage for objects within the identification region.
Claim 6, 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asghari et al (US 20200158830) ion view of Mahajan (US 20200333439).
In regards to claim 6, Asghari discloses a device detection system, comprising:
a preliminary LIDAR system configured to concurrently output multiple system output signals and scan the system output signals output from the preliminary LIDAR system across a detection space (Fig. 5, multiple refs. 330 which may be considered a preliminary or secondary lidar system, field of view in direction of arrows indicate detection space), the preliminary LIDAR system configured to calculate preliminary LIDAR data for multiple different scan zones within the detection space ([0024] “The LIDAR core cards can use this change in direction to scan the LIDAR output signals to multiple different sample regions in a field of view”),
the preliminary LIDAR data for a scan zone indicating a radial velocity between an object in the scan zone and the preliminary LIDAR data ([0024] “the LIDAR core cards can include electronics that employ light from the LIDAR output signals to generate LIDAR data (radial velocity and/or distance between a reflecting object and the LIDAR system)”), the preliminary LIDAR system including a LIDAR data processor configured to process the preliminary LIDAR data so as to identify a subject one of the scan zones that contains an object ([0029] “The LIDAR output signal travels away from the chip and is reflected by objects in the path of the LIDAR signal”, the reflected signal indicates/identifies a subject and subjects radial velocity); and
a secondary LIDAR system configured to transmit one or more system output signals and to scan the one or more system output signals transmitted from the secondary LIDAR system across the subject scan zone (Fig. 5, multiple refs. 330 which may be considered a preliminary or secondary lidar system, field of view in direction of arrows indicate detection space),
Asghari does not expressly disclose: the secondary LIDAR system configured to calculate LIDAR data for multiple data regions that each at least partially overlaps the subject scan zone,
Mahajan teaches a first and second lidar systems which scan a detection space and calculate lidar data for this space and whose scans overlap (as seen at least in Figs. 1A and 1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Asghari with Mahajan by providing the means for the secondary LIDAR system to calculate LIDAR data for multiple data regions that each at least partially overlaps the subject scan zone in order to provide greater coverage of areas to sense objects within these areas.
Asghari as combined further discloses:
the LIDAR data for each data region indicating the radial velocity and/or the distance between the object in the data region and the secondary LIDAR system (Asghari ([0024] “the LIDAR core cards can include electronics that employ light from the LIDAR output signals to generate LIDAR data (radial velocity and/or distance between a reflecting object and the LIDAR system)”).
In regards to claim 7, Asghari discloses a method of operating a device detection system, comprising:
causing a preliminary LIDAR system to concurrently output multiple system output signals and scan the system output signals across a detection space (Fig. 5, multiple refs. 330 which may be considered a preliminary or secondary lidar system, field of view in direction of arrows indicate detection space), calculating preliminary LIDAR data for multiple different scan zones within the detection space ([0024] “The LIDAR core cards can use this change in direction to scan the LIDAR output signals to multiple different sample regions in a field of view”), the preliminary LIDAR data for a scan zone indicating a radial velocity between an object in the scan zone and the one or more LIDAR systems ([0024] “the LIDAR core cards can include electronics that employ light from the LIDAR output signals to generate LIDAR data (radial velocity and/or distance between a reflecting object and the LIDAR system)”), processing the preliminary LIDAR data so as to identify subject one of the scan zones that contains an object ([0029] “The LIDAR output signal travels away from the chip and is reflected by objects in the path of the LIDAR signal”, the reflected signal indicates/identifies a subject and subjects radial velocity); and causing a secondary LIDAR system to transmit one or more system output signals and to scan the one or more system output signals across the subject scan zone (Fig. 5, multiple refs. 330 which may be considered a preliminary or secondary lidar system, field of view in direction of arrows indicate detection space),
Asghari does not expressly disclose: calculating LIDAR data for multiple data regions that each at least partially overlaps the subject scan zone,
Mahajan teaches a first and second lidar systems which scan a detection space and calculate lidar data for this space and whose scans overlap (as seen at least in Figs. 1A and 1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Asghari with Mahajan by providing the means for calculating LIDAR data for multiple data regions that each at least partially overlaps the subject scan zone in order to provide greater coverage of areas to sense objects within these areas.
Asghari as combined further discloses:
the LIDAR data for a data region indicating the radial velocity and/or the distance between the object in the data region and the secondary LIDAR system ([0024] “the LIDAR core cards can include electronics that employ light from the LIDAR output signals to generate LIDAR data (radial velocity and/or distance between a reflecting object and the LIDAR system)”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display Lidar systems which are used to determine distance and velocity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights