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 .
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 18 March 2024, claims foreign priority to CN Application No. 202111113771.8, filed on 23 September 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (lDS) submitted on 05/01/2024 and 01/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, “the time window and a reference” should read --a time window and a reference--.
Regarding claim 15, “the time window and a reference” should read --a time window and a reference--.
Regarding claim 16, “transmitter unit” should read –transmitter--.
Regarding claim 20, “each of stored light” should read --each of the stored light--.
Claims 17-20 are further objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 8, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kudla (US 20210223374 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kudla discloses a system for stain detection on a light cover of a LiDAR (Fig. 4, LIDAR sensor module 400; window 31; ¶¶ 69, 73), comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit a laser pulse to the light cover of the LiDAR (Fig. 4, illumination unit 10 and MEMS mirror 12; ¶ 69, illumination unit 10 “transmits TX laser beams,” and MEMS mirror 12 “scans TX laser light beams across a field of view”);
a receiver configured to receive a stray light pulse corresponding to the laser pulse and convert a light signal into an electrical signal (Fig. 4, photodetector array 15 / receiver chip 22 receiving backscattered light 2; ¶¶ 80-81, if dirt exists on TX portion 31a, a portion of the laser beam is backscattered and “the backscattered light 2 is detected by the photodetector array 15” and the photodetector array “generates an electrical signal”); and
a determinator coupled to the transmitter and the receiver (Fig. 2, system controller 23 coupled to transmitter unit 21 and receiver unit 22; ¶ 55) and configured to determine, based on a characteristic of the stray light pulse, whether a stain is on the light cover of the LiDAR (Fig. 4, system controller 23; ¶¶ 81-83, determines dirt based on ToF/amplitude of backscattered light 2 by comparing to a threshold).
Regarding claim 13, Kudla discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the determinator is configured to: compare a receiving time of the stray light pulse with a time window (Fig. 4, system controller 23; backscattered light 2; ¶¶ 81, 83, the controller compares ToF with a threshold time, where the threshold time is a “short time frame”), and based on a determination that the receiving time of the stray light pulse is within the time window, determine that the stain is on the light cover of the LiDAR (Fig. 4, window 31 / TX portion 31a; ¶ 83, “a condition that the time-of-flight is less than the threshold time, the system controller 23 determines that there is dirt present on the TX portion 31a of the window 31”).
Regarding claim 16, Kudla discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the LiDAR comprises a scanner configured to scan the laser pulse transmitted by the transmitter unit to a target space (Fig. 4, MEMS mirror 12; ¶ 69, illumination unit 10 transmits TX laser beams and MEMS mirror 12 “scans TX laser light beams across a field of view”; ¶ 25, successive light pulses in different scanning directions scan the field of view), and wherein the system further comprises: a position determinator coupled to the transmitter and the scanner and configured to determine a scanning position of the LiDAR corresponding to the stray light pulse (Fig. 2, MEMS driver 25 and system controller 23; ¶ 56, MEMS driver 25 senses mirror rotation position and provides position information to system controller 23, and the controller triggers illumination unit 10 based on that position information), and wherein the determinator is coupled to the position determinator and configured to: determine a position of the stain on the light cover based on the scanning position of the LiDAR corresponding to the stray light pulse (Fig. 4, system controller 23, MEMS mirror 12, window 31; ¶¶ 78, 84, when dirt is detected, the rotation angle corresponding to the transmitted beam is used to determine the corresponding sub-area of window 31).
Claim 1 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 12. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 12.
Claims 2-3 are methods corresponding to the system of claim 13. Accordingly, claims 2-3 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 13.
Claim 8 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 16. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla in view of Li (CN 111551946 A).
Regarding claim 14, Kudla discloses the system of claim 12, and further discloses: a [circuit] coupled between the receiver and the determinator and configured to determine a pulse feature parameter of the stray light pulse (Fig. 2, receiver circuit 24 between photodetector array 15 and system controller 23; ¶¶ 57-64, converts analog detector signals to digital data that “includes amplitude information corresponding to the intensity of the reflected signal pulse”), wherein the determinator is configured to: determine, based on the pulse feature parameter of the stray light pulse, whether the stain is on the light cover of the LiDAR (¶¶ 88-91, controller compares amplitudes to a threshold and detects dirt, where it’s position is determined from the angle associated with the return).
Kudla does not disclose employment of a “waveform feature analyzer.” However, Li teaches the limitation in Fig. 2, waveform extraction unit 25 connected to laser receiving unit 22, ADC 26 connected to waveform extraction unit 25, and processing/comparator circuitry 23/27 downstream. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kudla and adopt the waveform feature analyzer of Li with a reasonable expectation of success in order to distinguish between the cover-reflected signal from the received lidar return, thereby improving reliability of cover contamination detection and lidar ranging measurement accuracy (Li, ¶¶ 5, 78-79, 83).
Regarding claim 15, Kudla in view of Li teaches the system of claim 14, and further teaches: wherein the pulse feature parameter comprises at least one of peak intensity, pulse width, or waveform integral value of the stray light pulse (Li, Fig. 4, V0; ¶¶ 80, 85, V0 is “the peak value of the laser signal reflected by the clean light-transmitting cover 24”; and reflection intensity “is not limited to the voltage value of the reflected signal, but can also be the width of the signal or the area of the signal”), and wherein the determinator is configured to: based on a determination that an increment of the pulse feature parameter is greater than a preset threshold, determine that the stain is on the light cover of the LiDAR (Li, Fig. 4, V0/V1; ¶¶ 73-74, 80-83, an alarm threshold is set according to reflected cover signal, wherein “the more serious the contamination, the stronger the reflection,” and dirt is determined when the reflection intensity is greater than V1), wherein the increment is calculated based on a present value of the pulse feature parameter of the stray light pulse within the time window and a reference value of the pulse feature parameter of the stray light pulse within the time window when no stain is on the light cover (Li, Fig. 4, T0, S2, V0/V1; ¶¶ 78-83, extract cover reflection signal within the T0 window and comparing present intensity to threshold V1, where V1 is based on the clean cover peak V0, therefore testing whether the present intensity exceeds V1 is equivalent to testing whether its increment over V0 exceeds V1-V0). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Kudla in view of Li with the additional teachings of Li with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect dirt-induced increases in cover reflection and provide severity-based contamination alarms, thereby improving reliability of cover contamination detection and reducing the risk of degraded lidar ranging measurements caused by cover contamination (Li, ¶¶ 74, 80-83).
Claim 5 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 14. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 14.
Claims 6-7 are methods corresponding to the system of claim 15. Accordingly, claims 6-7 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 15.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla in view of Guo (CN 111429400 A).
Regarding claim 17, Kudla discloses the system of claim 16. Although Kudla in ¶¶ 78, 84 discloses determining the contamination position on window 31 from scanner position, Kudla is silent as to confirming that position across a plurality of continuous frames. Specifically, Kudla does not disclose: wherein the determinator is configured to: based on a determination from a plurality of continuous frames that the stain exists at a same position of the light cover, determine that the same position is the position of the stain on the light cover. Guo teaches in Fig. 1, steps S101-S104; ¶¶ 35-44, acquiring point cloud data, identifying obstacles, determine suspected obstructions near the LiDAR window, and determine obstruction/dirt when reflected intensity exceeds a preset threshold. Guo in ¶ 52 further teaches acquiring “multi-frame point cloud data collected by multiple scans of a lidar” and identifying obstacles “located within a preset distance” of the window and having “similar positional distributions in at least two adjacent frames” as suspicious obstructions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kudla with the teachings of Guo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid false positives from transient objects that fall off or move away, thereby improving the contamination detection accuracy (Guo, ¶ 52).
Claim 9 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 17. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 17.
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla in view of Guo further in view of Chung (US 20220075072 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kudla in view of Guo teaches the system of claim 16, however does not teach: an echo quantity counter coupled to the position determinator and the determinator and configured to count a quantity of stray light pulses corresponding to the stain on the light cover within a preset angle range, and wherein the determinator is configured to: based on a determination that the quantity of stray light pulses corresponding to the stain on the light cover within the preset angle range is greater than a pulse quantity threshold, determine that the stain is on the light cover, and determine the preset angle range as a position range comprising the position of the stain on the light cover, and based on a determination from a plurality of continuous frames that the stain is on the light cover within the preset angle range, determine the preset angle range as the position range comprising the position of the stain on the light cover. Chung teaches: an echo quantity counter coupled to the position determinator and the determinator and configured to count a quantity of stray light pulses corresponding to the stain on the light cover (¶¶ 57-59, contamination “may produce echo signal” and invalid detection events are identified in “blocks of consecutive detection directions”; ¶¶ 23, 61-62, processing circuitry counts “all invalid detection events for the laser source may be collected” and “finding consecutive detection events with sufficient number of detection events”) within a preset angle range (¶ 59, “a range of azimuthal angles having a beginning azimuthal angle and an end azimuthal angle”), and wherein the determinator is configured to: based on a determination that the quantity of stray light pulses corresponding to the stain on the light cover within the preset angle range is greater than a pulse quantity threshold, determine that the stain is on the light cover (¶¶ 57-58, blocks of invalid events larger than the “predetermined block size threshold” indicate obstruction; ¶ 61-62, blocks of invalid detection events “consistently detected and… large enough” accumulated into an obstruction indicator), and determine the preset angle range as a position range comprising the position of the stain on the light cover (¶¶ 59, 61, each block of invalid detection events is associated with “a range of azimuthal angles” and each recorded block representing contamination is associated with “a range of detection directions”), and based on a determination from a plurality of continuous frames that the stain is on the light cover within the preset angle range, determine the preset angle range as the position range comprising the position of the stain on the light cover (¶ 61, continuous frames used for confirmation “as the spinning or scanning of the laser sources repeats in time” and the obstruction is fixed relative to the LiDAR and “the corresponding blocks of invalid detection events would repeat,” where each recorded block representing contamination may be associated with “a laser ID and a range of detection directions recorded in the log”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kudla in view of Guo with the teachings of Chung with a reasonable expectation of success in order to identify events corresponding to fixed obstructions on the lidar cover while filtering out insignificant or erroneous events, thereby reducing false positives and improving detection reliability and localization of contamination, providing an early indicator of performance degradation and facilitating timely correction (Chung, ¶¶ 2-3, 38-39, 46, 58-59, 61-62).
Claims 10-11 are methods corresponding to the system of claim 18. Accordingly, claims 10-11 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 18.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla in view of Shand (US 20190195990 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kudla discloses the method of claim 3, and further discloses: wherein the time window comprises a fixed time window and [1: …], and wherein the fixed time window is determined by a geometric size and an internal structure of the LiDAR (¶ 76, threshold time is a fixed “short time frame” corresponding to the internal lidar geometry corresponding to light path from illumination unit 10 to MEMS mirror 12 to window 31 to detector 45, e.g., 0.5 ns for about 7.5 cm of travel distance), and [2: …]. Kudla does not disclose: (1) [the time window comprises] “a dynamic time window”; and, (2) “the dynamic time window is dynamically adjusted based on the receiving time of the stray light pulse.” However, Shand teaches a controller which determines a light pulse schedule including a listening time window (Fig. 1B, controller 150; ¶¶ 81-84) and dynamically adjusts a subsequent time window based on the time t2 at which reflected light is received (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 89-92), corresponding to the dynamic time window. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kudla with the teachings of Shand with a reasonable expectation of success in order to dynamically adjust the time window around actual, observed backscatter timing, thereby improving LiDAR scan efficiency and providing for higher resolution sensing within the same acquisition time period (Shand, ¶¶ 26-27, 89-93).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Regarding claim 19, neither Kudla, Guo, nor Chung teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the determinator comprises a multibit storage table, and wherein each column of the multibit storage table is configured to store light cover stain determination results within a same preset angle range during a continuous multi-frame scanning of the LiDAR, and each row of the multibit storage table is configured to store light cover stain determination results within each preset angle range during a single-frame scanning of the LiDAR. Neither Li nor Shand remedy the deficiencies of Kudla, Guo, and Chung.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include:
Ozaki (WO 2021065998 A1) discloses a LiDAR device that receives window reflected clutter light and determines window dirt based on received intensity at a flight time corresponding to the light path to the window, including the employment of thresholds, scan/pixel position information, and multi-frame confirmation. However, Ozaki is silent towards a multibit storage table structure in which columns stores window contamination results having the same angle range across continuous frames, and where rows store angle range results within a single frame, as recited in claim 19.
Schwarz (US 20200033449 A1) discloses a LiDAR that emits a pulse through a window cover and receives a window reflected pulse, measuring its timing and peak intensity, and uses that intensity to detect or alert for an unclean or damaged window, including angle information from a spinning mirror. However, Schwarz is silent towards the multibit storage table structure in which rows and columns store stain determination results by preset angle range across single frame and continuous multiframe scans, as recited in claim 19.
Otomo (JP 3669320 B2) discloses a laser distance measuring device that transmits laser pulses, receives scattered light caused by dirt on a front cover, and determines cover contamination using a time separated scattered light region and intensity thresholds. However, Otomo is silent towards the multibit storage table structure in which columns store contamination determinations of the same angle range over continuous multi-frame scans and rows store determinations for each angle range within a single frame, as recited in claim 19.
In sum, the prior art made of record teach or suggest various aspects of the invention, but none in a way that would fully anticipate or render obvious all limitations as specifically recited in claim 19. Accordingly, claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 20 would be allowable by virtue of claim dependency.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights