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 . Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, it is rejected for the following reasons:
(i) it is unclear what the limitation “combining the depth map” means since normally one would need two things to perform a combining operation; and
(ii) the limitation “a plurality of points with another image to form a dense depth map” also fails to claim any kind of combination. It appears that the Applicant likely intended to claim “combining a plurality of points from the depth map with another image”. However, it appears the specification uses the same language that isn’t very clear. Consequently, Applicant is encouraged to point out support when making amendments to clarify the intended scope of the claim in order to avoid a new matter rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20180120424 (hereinafter Eshel).
Regarding Claim 1, Eshel discloses a method for generating a depth map for a field of view, the method comprising:
illuminating the field of view with a plurality of discrete radiation beams (FIG. 27, light beams 2722A, 2722B and 2722C);
detecting a reflected portion (FIG. 27, reflections 2724A, 2724B, 2724C) of at least some of the plurality of discrete radiation beams;
determining range information for an object within the field of view from which each reflected portion was reflected based on time of flight ([0106] describes how the LIDAR system described in the application determines distance based on time of flight);
identifying a corresponding one of the plurality of discrete radiation beams from which each reflected portion originated (FIG. 27 shows how the optical system is setup optically so light from each light source returns to a respect sensor, 2716, 2718 and 2720, which thereby associates the received light with the specific light source); and
generating a depth map comprising a plurality of points (FIG. 1C, [0125] describing point cloud output from LIDAR system), each point having:
a depth value corresponding to a determined range information for a detected reflected portion of a discrete radiation beam; and
a position within the depth map corresponding to a position of the identified corresponding one of the plurality of discrete radiation beams (FIG. 15 and [0301] describes an exemplary set of LIDAR scans in which a position and distance is tracked to pedestrian 1510).
Regarding Claim 2, Eshel discloses the method of claim 1 comprising: for each of the plurality of discrete radiation beams:
monitoring a region of a sensor that can receive reflected radiation from that discrete radiation beam (FIG. 27 shows that the monitored regions of the sensor for each discrete radiation beam correspond to sensors 2716, 2718 and 2720).
Regarding Claim 3, Eshel discloses the method of claim 2 wherein if radiation is received in the monitored region of the sensor for a given discrete radiation beam that given discrete radiation beam is identified as the corresponding one of the plurality of discrete radiation beams from which a reflected portion originated (as each beam in FIG. 27 has its own corresponding sensor, each received beam is matched with a particular radiation beam, [0510] specifically teaches a configuration in which none of the return paths are coincident, thereby eliminating risk of interference or misidentification).
Regarding Claim 4, Eshel discloses the method of claim 1 comprising: for a plurality of time intervals from emission of the plurality of discrete radiation beams:
for each of the plurality of discrete radiation beams: monitoring a region of a sensor that the reflected portion of that discrete radiation beam can be received by ([0292] describes how the output of one or more sensors is monitored for determining the presence of objects, in the context of FIG. 27, by monitoring each of sensor 2716, 2718 and 2720 the reflections of each laser would be monitored independently, [0473] in specific reference to FIG. 27, teaches that the separate FOV regions can be scanned concurrently).
Regarding Claim 5, Eshel discloses the method of claim 1 wherein determining range information for an object within the field of view from which a reflected portion was reflected based on time of flight comprises measuring a time interval from the projection of a discrete radiation beam to the detection of a reflected portion thereof (pulsed, dTOF lidar system all relay upon measuring the time interval between pulses, [0474] specifically mentions the use of pulse timing in reference to FIGS. 27 and 28).
Regarding Claim 6, Eshel discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the position of the identified corresponding one of the plurality of discrete radiation beams corresponds to an angle at which that corresponding discrete radiation beam is emitted into the field of view .
Regarding Claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a radiation source that is operable to emit a plurality of discrete radiation beams (FIG. 27, see radiation source made up of light sources 2706 – 2710);
a sensor operable to receive and detect a reflected portion of at least some of the plurality of discrete radiation beams (sensor 2716 receives the reflected light beams originally emitted by light source 2706); and
a controller (processor 2702) operable to control the radiation source and the sensor and further operable to implement any steps of the method ([0472] describes how processor 2702 implements the method of operation disclosed in method 2660 {see [0494]-[0503]}, which covers the method from claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Eshel discloses the apparatus of 12 further comprising focusing optics arranged to form an image of a field of view in a plane of the sensor (FIG. 27 shows optics for each of sensors 2716-2720 that focus incoming light on their respective sensor).
Regarding Claim 14, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 12 wherein the sensor comprises an array of sensing elements ([0581] makes clear that each of sensor 2716, 2718 and 2720 each include multiple detectors or pixels).
Regarding Claim 15, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 14 wherein each sensing element in the two dimensional array of sensing elements comprises a single-photon avalanche diode ([0119] describes the sensor as being an array of SPADs).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel.
Regarding Claim 7, Eshel teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the position within the depth map corresponding to a position of the identified corresponding discrete radiation beam is determined from calibration data. ([0510] teaches FIG. 27 could be configured with at least two coincident outbound paths, [0488] describes how the configuration of FIG. 27 could be configured with more than three light sources and could require calibration between two areas. FIG. 28 describes a configuration in which a sensor 2814 is divided into two areas corresponding to vertically offset regions 2810A and 2810B within field of view 2810).
The embodiments in FIGS. 27 and 28 are both directed to configurations for incorporating multiple light sources into a LIDAR system. As described above, [0510] describes implantation of a system with at least two coincident beams similar to the system shown in FIG. 28. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use the teaching in the next figure obvious to modify the configuration in FIG. 27 to include a second laser with at least one of lasers 2706, 2708 or 2710. For example, adding a second laser to share sensor 2716 with laser 2706 would result in region 2712A being split in half to have an upper and lower region. This would allow for faster and/or more detailed scanning of the field of view 2712.
Regarding Claim 8, Eshel discloses the method of claim 1 and the combination of FIGS. 27 and 28 as described in the rejection of claim 7 teaches further comprising determining calibration data from which the position within the depth map corresponding to a position of the each of the plurality of discrete radiation beams may be determined ([0581] makes clear that each of sensor 2716, 2718 and 2720 each include multiple detectors or pixels that would be used to help identify a position of the FOV from whence the reflected beam was incident in accordance with the calibration data for the two areas of a shared sensor as taught in [0488]).
Regarding Claim 9, Eshel teaches the method of claim 8 wherein determining calibration data comprises:
providing a flat reference surface in the field of view ([0136] describes the use of a test pattern board for sensor calibration);
illuminating the field of view with the plurality of discrete radiation beams ([0136] also describes how the LIDAR system would illuminate the board to test the system; and
detecting a position of reflected portion of each of the plurality of discrete radiation beams ([0136] describes how the system would be tested by seeing if it detects the board at the “designated distance”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel in view of Shivakumar et al, “DFuseNet: Deep Fusion of RGB and Sparse Depth Information for Image Guided Dense Depth Completion” (hereinafter Shivakumar).
Regarding Claim 10, Eshel teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising combining the depth map comprising a plurality of points with another image to form a dense depth map ([0645] of Eshel teaches the use of both a LIDAR and a camera to characterize the current driving environment & [0716] describes combining information from two or more sensors to, e.g. determine whether the road being traversed is a highway but does not specifically teach the creation of a dense depth map).
However, Shivakumar, which Applicant incorporated by reference, is still prior art based on the publication date of 7/10/2019 and teaches the use of a convolution neural network to combine LIDAR and imagery data to produce a dense depth image (see page 1 column 1 of Shivakumar).
Eshel and Shivakumar both contemplate the combination of LIDAR and imagery sensors to enhance an autonomous vehicle’s characterization of a region surrounding the vehicle. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to improve the LIDAR system taught by Eshel with the teachings of Shivakumar that provide a specific method of combining the sensor data, which is suggested in [0716] of Eshel. The teachings of Shivakumar would be particularly helpful in the case the embodiment from FIG. 27 of Eshel was incorporating the dynamic scanning methods taught in FIG. 5B of Eshel as a way of filling in data that was skipped or scanned only at a high level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights