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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (lDS) submitted on 04/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “coupled to the at least the laser light source” should read
--coupled to at least the laser light source--.
Regarding claim 5, “the measurement point” should read
--a measurement point--.
Regarding claim 7, “the array of emitter elements are configured” should read
--the array of emitter elements is configured--.
Further regarding claim 7, “the array of sensor elements are configured” should read --the array of sensor elements is configured--.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17-18, “precedes and it is temporally adjacent” should read --precedes and is temporally adjacent--.
Regarding claim 10, “precedes and it is temporally adjacent” should read
--precedes and is temporally adjacent--.
Regarding claim 12, “where laser scanning method comprises” should read
--wherein the laser scanning method comprises--.
Regarding claim 12, “a first sweep along the slow-scan axis” should read --a first sweep along a slow-scan axis--.
Regarding claim 15, “method of claim 12 further” should perhaps read
--method of claim 12, further--.
Regarding claim 18, “method of claim 12,wherein” should read
--method of claim 12, wherein--.
Regarding claim 20, “coupled to the at least the laser light source” should read
--coupled to at least the laser light source--.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are further objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 13-17 of copending Application No. 18/433,818 (reference application) in view of Baron (US 20210278756 A1).
Claim 1 of the reference application recite all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application except:
“an optical assembly, the optical assembly including beam scanning optics to scan the laser light pulses in a scan field, where the scan field includes a slow-scan axis and a fast-scan axis”;
[generate a first plurality of distance measurements] “during a first sweep along the slow-scan axis”; and,
[generate a second plurality of distance measurements] “during a second sweep along the slow-scan axis based on times-of-flight of detected reflections.”
However, Baron teaches limitation (1) in Fig. 1, scanning mirror assembly 114 and scanning mirror 116 scanning output beam 134 along raster scan trajectory 140 over field of view 128; ¶ 21 identifies the vertical axis as the slow-scan axis and the horizontal axis as the fast-scan axis. Barron further teaches limitation (2) in Fig. 1, raster scan trajectory 140; ¶ 21, vertical top to bottom sweep and triangular vertical sweep; ¶ 29, scanning down during a bidirectional triangular slow scan; and limitation (3) in ¶ 21, opposite direction portion of the triangular slow-axis waveform having no flyback; ¶ 29, scanning up during the bidirectional triangular slow scan. 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 apparatus of reference application claim 1 with the teachings of Baron with a reasonable expectation of success in order to scan laser pulses over a two-dimensional field using fast- and slow-scan axes and a triangular slow-axis waveform without flyback, thereby yielding a system with improved spatial coverage and scan continuity (Baron, ¶¶ 20-21, 26, 28).
Claim 12 of the instant application is a method corresponding to apparatus claim 1 of the instant application, and is therefore similarly analyzed and provisionally rejected over claim 13 of the reference application in view of Baron.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 14-17 of the reference patent recites the same limitations as dependent claims 2-10 and 13-16 of the instant application in view of Baron. Accordingly, instant claims 2-10 and 13-16 are not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites that the controller is adapted to “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The phrase “corresponding measurement points” is indefinite because the claim does not specify which of the previously recited measurement points are the “corresponding measurement points.” Specifically, it is unclear whether the points correspond to: (1) the “first measurement points”; (2) the “second measurement points"; (3) both the first measurement points and second measurement points; (4) “measurement points in the scan field”; or (5) a subset of first and second measurement points. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 46, 57, 60, 62-68.
Claim 2 recites that the controller is adapted “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recites the controller is adapted “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The scope of claim 2 is unclear because claim 2 again recites determining “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points,” but does not specify whether the radial velocity estimates determined in claim 2 are the same radial velocity estimates recited in claim 1, or whether claim 2 determines additional radial velocity estimates. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “corresponding measurement points” of claim 2 are the same corresponding measurement points recited in claim 1, or a different set of measurement points. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the first measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 34, 71-78.
Claim 3 recites that the controller is adapted “to determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 46, 57, 60, 62-68.
Claim 3 further recites that the controller is adapted “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the first measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 71-78.
Further regarding claim 3, claim 1 requires the controller to compare first sweep distance estimates with second sweep distance measurements. Claim 3 recites that this comparison is performed “by being adapted to” interpolate the second sweep distance measurements and compare the resulting second sweep distance estimate with first sweep distance measurements. The latter operation is a distinct, reverse direction comparison. It is unclear whether claim 3 recites the reverse direction comparison as an additional controller operation or is the manner in which the first direction comparison is performed. The specification does not support the first direction comparison comprising of the reverse direction comparison. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “measurement points by being adapted” to recite --measurement points, and is further adapted--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 72-78.
Claim 12 recites “first measurement points,” “second measurement points,” and determining “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The claim does not identify which previously recited measurement points are the corresponding measurement points. Specifically, it is unclear whether the radial velocity estimates are determined for: (1) the first measurement points; (2) the second measurement points; (3) both sets of measurement points; or (4) a subset of points first and second measurement points. Consequently, the set of measurement points for which radial velocity estimates are determined is unclear. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 46, 57, 60, 62-68.
Claim 13 recites determining “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” Claim 12, from which claim 13 depends, also recites determining radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points. The scope of claim 13 is unclear because claim 13 again recites determining “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points,” but does not specify whether the radial velocity estimates determined in claim 13 are the same radial velocity estimates recited in claim 12, or whether claim 13 determines additional radial velocity estimates. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “corresponding measurement points” of claim 13 are the same corresponding measurement points recited in claim 12, or a different set of measurement points. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the first measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 34, 71-78.
Claim 14 recites “determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 46, 57, 60, 62-68.
Claim 14 further recites “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the first measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 71-78.
Claim 14 further recites that comparing first sweep distance estimates with second sweep distance measurements “comprises” interpolating the second sweep distance measurements and performing the reverse direction comparison. The reverse direction comparison is a separate operation from the first direction comparison. It is therefore unclear whether the second interpolation and reverse direction comparison are components of the first direction comparison or additional method steps. The specification does not support the first direction comparison comprising of the reverse direction comparison. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “comprises” to recite --is performed and the method further comprises--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 72-78.
Claim 20 recites that the controller is adapted to “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The claim previously recites measurement points in the scan field, first measurement points scanned during the forward sweep, and second measurement points scanned during the return sweep. It is unclear whether the “corresponding measurement points” are directed to the first measurement points, the second measurement points, both sets of measurement points, all measurement points in the scan field, or a subset of both measurement points. Consequently, the set of measurement points for which the radial velocity estimates are determined is unclear. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” to recite --determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, consistent with Spec. ¶¶ 46, 57, 59-60, 62-68.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are further rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici (US 20220342047 A1) in view of Maheshwari (US 20220107414 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moscovici discloses an apparatus (Fig. 2A, LIDAR system 100; ¶¶ 56, 58) comprising:
a laser light source configured to produce laser light pulses (Fig. 2A, projecting unit 102; ¶ 56, emitting light pulses having “a pulse width of between about 2 ns and about 100 ns”);
an optical assembly, the optical assembly including beam scanning optics to scan the laser light pulses in a scan field (Fig. 2A, optical assembly 202B and outbound deflector 114A; ¶ 56, deflector 114A directs projected light in FOV 120), where the scan field includes a slow-scan axis and a fast-scan axis (Fig. 10B; ¶ 192, deflector rotates “more slowly about its vertical scan axis than about its horizontal scan axis”);
a detector to detect reflections of the laser light pulses from measurement points in the scan field (Fig. 2A, sensing unit 106 detecting reflected light 206; ¶ 56); and
at least one controller coupled to the at least the laser light source and the detector (Fig. 2A, processors 118 interconnected through bus 212 with projecting unit 102 and sensing unit 106; ¶ 58), the at least one controller adapted to:
scan first measurement points with laser light pulses to generate a first plurality of distance measurements during a first sweep along the slow-scan axis based on times-of-flight of detected reflections (Fig. 10B, odd-line group P1-P12; ¶¶ 146, 149; ¶ 147, TOF calculations determine distances and generates point cloud); [1: …];
scan second measurement points with laser light pulses to generate a second plurality of distance measurements during a second sweep along the slow-scan axis based on times-of-flight of detected reflections (Fig. 10B, even-line group P13-P26; ¶¶ 146, 149; ¶ 147, TOF distance calculations); and
compare [2: first plurality of distance measurements] to distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points (¶ 147, comparing first/second scan line information to determine velocity; ¶ 150, comparing point cloud points P1/P13, P4/P16, P3/P15 to determine “relative velocity”).
Moscovici does not disclose:
(1) “interpolate first distance measurements in the first plurality of distance measurements to determine a first plurality of distance estimates”; and,
(2) [compare] “distance estimates in the first plurality of distance estimates” [to second plurality of distance measurements].
However, Maheshwari teaches limitation (1), specifically: “positions of features in the first set… may be interpolated or otherwise transformed before computing velocities” (¶ 100), where the feature positions include the distance measurements (¶ 60). 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 at least one controller of Moscovici such that first distance measurements were interpolated prior to velocity determination, as taught by Maheshwari, since such an implementation constitutes application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR rationale D; MPEP §2143(D)). The incorporation of interpolation before velocity computation, as taught by Maheshwari in ¶ 100 and applied to LiDAR positions containing “a distance value and two angular values” under Maheshwari ¶ 60, represents a predictable solution for reducing range differences attributable to the interlaced scans sampling different portions of an object rather than to actual object motion, an ambiguity expressly identified by Moscovici in ¶¶ 135-143, 149-150. The interpolation would thereby predictably reduce range differences caused by scans sampling different portions of an object rather than by actual object motion, yielding more accurate and reliable velocity calculations. The skilled artisan would have recognized the benefits of such a modification and the update would have been pursued and accomplished with predictable results.
The combination of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari further teaches limitation (2), where Moscovici teaches in ¶¶ 147, 150 comparing information from first and second interlaced scan-line sets to determine radial velocity from TOF point cloud distance values. As previously modified by Maheshwari, the first set distance values of Moscovici would be interpolated distance estimates, and therefore the combination of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the comparison of the first plurality of distance estimates to second plurality of distance measurements.
Regarding claim 6, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the laser light source comprises a transmitting unit with an array of emitter elements and wherein the detector comprises a receiving unit with an array of sensor elements (Moscovici, Fig. 2A, projecting unit 102 comprising laser diode 202A; ¶ 56, laser diode 202A may comprise “two or more laser diodes coupled together”) and wherein the detector comprises a receiving unit with an array of sensor elements (Moscovici, Fig. 2A, sensing unit 106 comprising sensor 116, as further detailed in Fig. 4A detector array 400 having detection elements 402).
Regarding claim 8, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the apparatus further comprises a time-of-flight (TOF) circuitry responsive to the detector to determine distances to the measurement points in the scan field from the detected reflections (Moscovici, Fig. 4A, processor 408 receiving outputs derived from detector array 400 and determining TOF; ¶ 92; ¶147, TOF calculations determine distances and generates point cloud).
Regarding claim 9, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first sweep along the slow-scan axis precedes and it is temporally adjacent to the second sweep along the slow-scan axis (Moscovici, ¶ 143, first scan group acquired in a first 33 ms window and the second group acquired in the “second, subsequent 33 millisecond window”).
Regarding claim 11, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first sweep along the slow-scan axis comprises a forward sweep and wherein the second sweep along the slow-scan axis comprises a return sweep (Maheshwari, ¶ 63, scan lines scanned “in a reverse direction during the second pass vis-à-vis the first pass”; ¶ 113, scanning “a portion of the FOR in a downward raster and then redirect[ing] a beam upward and rescan[ning] a previously scanned portion.” 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 first sweep of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari with the further teachings of Maheshwari with a reasonable expectation of success in order to rescan an overlapping region within a single frame, thereby yielding a system with reduced time for determining object velocity and obviating the need for multiple full-frame scans (Maheshwari, ¶¶ 20, 24, 63, 113).
Regarding claim 20, Moscovici discloses an apparatus (Fig. 2A, LIDAR system 100, executing the Fig. 10B pattern; ¶¶ 145, 160) comprising:
a laser light source configured to produce laser light pulses (Fig. 2A, light source 112; ¶ 56);
an optical assembly (Fig. 2A, scanning unit 104), the optical assembly including at least one scanning mirror to scan the laser light pulses in a scan pattern over a scan field (Fig. 2A, outbound deflector 114A; ¶ 56; ¶ 160, “2-D scanning mirror” scans the Fig. 10B pattern), where the scan field includes a slow-scan axis and a fast-scan axis (Fig. 10B; ¶ 192, slower vertical and faster horizontal mirror rotation);
a detector to detect reflections of the laser light pulses from measurement points in the scan field (Fig. 2A, sensing unit 106; ¶ 56);
at least one controller coupled to at least the laser light source, the at least one scanning mirror and the detector (Fig. 2A, processors 118 coupled through bus 212 to projecting unit 102, scanning unit 104, and sensing unit 106; ¶ 58), the at least one controller adapted to:
scan first measurement points with laser light pulses to generate a first plurality of distance measurements [1: …] based on times-of-flight of detected reflections (Fig. 10B, odd-line group P1-P12; ¶¶ 147, 149); [2: …];
scan second measurement points with laser light pulses to generate a second plurality of distance measurements (Fig. 10B, even-line group P13-P26; ¶¶ 143, 147, 149) [3: …]; and
compare [4: first plurality of distance measurements] to distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points (¶ 147, comparing first/second scan line information to determine velocity; ¶ 150, comparing point cloud points P1/P13, P4/P16, P3/P15 to determine “relative velocity”).
Moscovici does not disclose:
(1) [scan first measurement points] “during a forward sweep along the slow-scan axis”;
(2) “interpolate first distance measurements in the first plurality of distance measurements to determine a first plurality of distance estimates”;
(3) [scan second measurement points] “during a return sweep along the slow-scan axis based on times-of-flight of detected reflections, and where the return sweep along the slow-scan axis is temporally adjacent and in opposite direction of the forward sweep along the slow-scan axis”; and,
(4) [compare] “distance estimates in the first plurality of distance estimates” [to second plurality of distance measurements].
However, Maheshwari teaches limitations (1) and (3), specifically: ¶ 113, teaching a first downward raster followed by an upward rescan of the scanned region; and ¶¶ 86-88, teaching reversing the actuation direction of the scanning mirror motor during a second scan instance “immediately following” the first, with the two measurement sets traversing in “opposite directions.” 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 scan sweeps of Moscovici so that the first measurement set is acquired during a forward slow-axis sweep and the second set during a temporally adjacent, opposite direction return sweep, as taught by Maheshwari, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to rescan an overlapping region within a single frame, thereby yielding a system with reduced time for determining object velocity and obviating the need for multiple full-frame scans (Maheshwari, ¶¶ 20, 24, 63, 113).
Maheshwari further teaches limitation (2), specifically: “positions of features in the first set… may be interpolated or otherwise transformed before computing velocities” (¶ 100), where the feature positions include the distance measurements (¶ 60). 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 at least one controller of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari such that first distance measurements were interpolated prior to velocity determination, as additionally taught by Maheshwari, since such an implementation constitutes application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (KSR rationale D; MPEP §2143(D)). The incorporation of interpolation before velocity computation, as taught by Maheshwari in ¶ 100 and applied to LiDAR positions containing “a distance value and two angular values” under Maheshwari ¶ 60, represents a predictable solution for reducing range differences attributable to the interlaced scans sampling different portions of an object rather than to actual object motion, an ambiguity expressly identified by Moscovici in ¶¶ 135-143, 149-150. The interpolation would thereby predictably reduce range differences caused by scans sampling different portions of an object rather than by actual object motion, yielding more accurate and reliable velocity calculations. The skilled artisan would have recognized the benefits of such a modification and the update would have been pursued and accomplished with predictable results.
The combination of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari further teaches limitation (4), where Moscovici teaches in ¶¶ 147, 150 comparing information from first and second interlaced scan-line sets to determine radial velocity from TOF point cloud distance values. As previously modified by Maheshwari, the first set distance values of Moscovici would be interpolated distance estimates, and therefore the combination of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the comparison of the first plurality of distance estimates to second plurality of distance measurements.
Claim 12 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 1.
Claim 17 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 9.
Claim 19 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 11. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 11.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Maheshwari further in view of Horn (“Rigid Body Motion from Range Image Sequences,” published 1991)1.
Regarding claim 4, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to determine a surface-normal velocity from at least one of the radial velocity estimates. Horn teaches the limitation in Appendix A.2, where the normal velocity component is defined as Vn = Rt (i ⋅ n), where Rt is the range rate, i is the unit vector, and n is the unit surface normal. 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 at least one controller of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari with the teachings of Horn with the motivation to determine the normal component of velocity and provide surface orientation awareness and motion information in order to improve range image motion recovery and obstacle detection and avoidance (Horn, p. 1, Abstract & Introduction; p. 7, Implementation).
Regarding claim 5, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to determine a surface-normal velocity from at least one of the radial velocity estimates by being adapted to: determine a surface-normal vector of a surface at a measurement point; and project the at least one radial velocity estimate onto the surface-normal vector. Horn teaches determination of a surface-normal velocity from at least one of the radial velocity estimates (Appendix A.2, where the normal velocity component is defined as Vn= Rt (i ⋅ n), where Rt is the range rate / velocity, i is the unit vector, and n is the unit surface normal) by being adapted to: determine a surface-normal vector of a surface at a measurement point (Appendix A.7: “Estimating the Surface Normal,” computes a normal from range/depth derivatives for planar or spherical range sampling); and project the at least one radial velocity estimate onto the surface-normal vector (Appendix A.2, Vn = Rt (i ⋅ n), i.e., range rate / velocity Rt along ray direction i projection onto surface normal n). 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 at least one controller of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari with the teachings of Horn with the motivation to determine the normal component of velocity and provide surface orientation awareness and motion information in order to improve range image motion recovery and obstacle detection and avoidance (Horn, p. 1, Abstract & Introduction; p. 7, Implementation).
Claim 15-16 are methods corresponding to the apparatus of claims 4-5. Accordingly, claims 15-16 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claims 4-5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Maheshwari further in view of Kiehn (US 20180259624 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 6, however does not teach: wherein the array of emitter elements are configured in a first focal-plane array arrangement and wherein the array of sensor elements are configured in a second focal-plane arrangement. Kiehn teaches: wherein the array of emitter elements are configured in a first focal-plane array arrangement (Fig. 1a, transmission matrix 10 with transmitting elements 12; ¶¶ 67-68; ¶ 30, transmission matrix is a “focal plane array,” i.e., transmitting elements in the focal plane of an optical transmission system; ¶ 53, transmitting elements of the transmission matrix are arranged in the focal plane of the optical transmission system) and wherein the array of sensor elements are configured in a second focal-plane arrangement (Fig. 1b, reception matrix 50 with receiving elements 52; ¶¶ 69-70; ¶ 35, reception matrix has the form of a “focal plane array,” i.e., receiving elements in the focal plane of a receiving optical system; ¶ 53, receiving elements of the reception matrix are arranged in the focal plane of the receiving optical system). 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 array of emitter elements and array of sensor elements of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari with the teachings of Kiehn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide for scanning without any mechanical moving components, thereby yielding a more compact scanner system with enhanced transmitter-receiver alignment (Kiehn, ¶¶ 31-32, 36, 54).
Claim 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Maheshwari further in view of Danziger (US 20190107607 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the second sweep along the slow-scan axis precedes and it is temporally adjacent to the first sweep along the slow-scan axis. Danziger teaches the limitation in Fig. 27, sub-scan 200A/odd scan lines; Fig. 28, sub-scan 200B/even scan lines; ¶¶ 154, 161, 166-167: interlaced sub-scans may be scanned sequentially, e.g., scan sub-scan 200A then 200B or vice versa, where scanning in sequence means a succeeding sub-scan begins only after the preceding sub-scan is completed. 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 apparatus of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari with the teachings of Danziger with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide for higher frame rate object monitoring and tracking, yielding a system with greater sensing granularity of target location, direction and speed (Danziger, ¶¶ 159-161, 171-173).
Claim 18 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 would be allowable if: (1) amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); (2) rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (3) the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome by establishing patentable distinctness or by filing a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
With respect to claim 2, Moscovici in view of Maheshwari fails to teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to: interpolate second distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine a second plurality of distance estimates; and compare distance estimates in the second plurality of distance estimates to distance measurements in the first plurality of distance measurements to determine [additional] radial velocity estimates for corresponding [ones of the first] measurement points. Neither Kiehn, Danziger, nor Horn remedies the deficiencies of Moscovici in view of Maheshwari.
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:
Maila (US 20200043176 A1) which discloses a lidar system with a laser source, scanner, receiver, and controller that generates time-of-flight point cloud depth data and uses depth differences at temporally separated scan lines to estimate relative velocity. However, Maila does not teach the reciprocal interpolation technique of claim 2, specifically interpolating a second sweep’s distance measurements into a second set of distance estimates and comparing those second sweep estimates back against first sweep measurements to determine corresponding radial velocity estimates.
Englard (US 20190180502 A1) which discloses a vehicle lidar system with a laser source, scanner optics generating point clouds from scan lines, photodetector, controller for time-of-flight distance determination, and interpolation-based scan data normalization. However, Englard does not teach the specific reciprocal interpolation operation of claim 2, specifically interpolating a second sweep’s distance measurements and comparing those second sweep estimates back to first sweep distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates.
Yepes (“Estimation of Looming from LiDAR,” published Feb 2022)2 which discloses the processing of lidar point cloud data from consecutive scans and uses interpolation to estimate relative range over time. However, Yepes does not teach the reciprocal operation of claim 2 of interpolating the second sweep’s distance measurements into second distance estimates and comparing those estimates back against the first sweep’s distance measurements to generate corresponding radial velocity estimates.
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 2. Accordingly, claim 2 would be allowable : (1) amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); (2) rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (3) the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome by establishing patentable distinctness or by filing a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321. Claim 3 would be allowable for the same reason as claim 2. Claims 14-15 are methods corresponding to apparatus claims 2-3 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
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
1 Horn & Harris, “Rigid Body Motion from Range Image Sequences,” CVGIP: Image Understanding, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 1-13, January 1991.
2 J. D. Yepes and D. Raviv, “Estimation of Looming from LiDAR," arXiv:2202.10972v1 published Feb. 22, 2022.
Prosecution Insights