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 .
Claim Interpretation
The examiner interprets the claim as eligible under 35 USC 101, as the claimed step of “controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR” is significantly more than an abstract idea.
The examiner interprets the term “standard position and orientation” as when the LIDAR “is placed horizontally, for example, the plane with a vertical angle of 0° of the LiDAR is parallel to the reference plane” in accordance with paragraph [0057] of the specification as published US 2024/0369692 A1.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou (WO 2021/189479 A1), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Mou” and further in view of Ju et al. (CN 109696663 A), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Ju”.
Regarding claim 1, Mou teaches a method for diagnosing a position and orientation of a LiDAR (abstract, Figs. 1-7), the method comprising:
determining first reference data of a calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in a standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]);
controlling the LiDAR to scan the object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]); and
determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0017],[0019]-[0028]).
Mou is silent regarding controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR.
However, Ju teaches a LIDAR calibration method (abstract) including controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0011], [0080]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR in order to set a base level as a calibration to calibrate the LIDAR to obtain accurate pose data.
Regarding claim 2, Mou is silent regarding wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: determining that the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation when a difference between the first reference data and the first measurement data is greater than a predetermined threshold.
However, Ju teaches wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: determining that the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation when a difference between the first reference data and the first measurement data is greater than a predetermined threshold (paragraphs [0080]-[0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: determining that the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation when a difference between the first reference data and the first measurement data is greater than a predetermined threshold in order to compare to a set value.
Regarding claim 3, Mou is silent regarding wherein the calibration object is a reference plane, the first reference data comprises a reference point cloud determined by scanning the reference plane by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises a measurement point cloud determined by scanning the reference plane by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation.
However, Ju teaches wherein the calibration object is a reference plane, the first reference data comprises a reference point cloud determined by scanning the reference plane by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises a measurement point cloud determined by scanning the reference plane by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation (paragraphs [0080]-[ 0084], [0108]-[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein the calibration object is a reference plane, the first reference data comprises a reference point cloud determined by scanning the reference plane by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises a measurement point cloud determined by scanning the reference plane by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation in order to compare to a set value.
Regarding claim 4, Mou is silent regarding wherein a scanned parameter of the reference point cloud and/or the measurement point cloud comprises at least one of: a shape of a point cloud; a number of point cloud rings, spacing between the point cloud rings, a radius of a point cloud rings, or a distance corresponding to a data point in the point cloud.
However, Ju teaches wherein a scanned parameter of the reference point cloud and/or the measurement point cloud comprises at least one of: a shape of a point cloud; a number of point cloud rings, spacing between the point cloud rings, a radius of a point cloud rings, or a distance corresponding to a data point in the point cloud (paragraphs [0080]-[0084], [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein a scanned parameter of the reference point cloud and/or the measurement point cloud comprises at least one of: a shape of a point cloud; a number of point cloud rings, spacing between the point cloud rings, a radius of a point cloud rings, or a distance corresponding to a data point in the point cloud in order to compare to a set value.
Regarding claim 5, Mou is silent regarding determining, based on the first measurement data, whether an apparatus is on a plane parallel to the reference plane, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus; and based on a determination that the apparatus is on the plane parallel to the reference plane, determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation.
However, Ju teaches determining, based on the first measurement data, whether an apparatus is on a plane parallel to the reference plane, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus; and based on a determination that the apparatus is on the plane parallel to the reference plane, determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0080]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including determining, based on the first measurement data, whether an apparatus is on a plane parallel to the reference plane, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus; and based on a determination that the apparatus is on the plane parallel to the reference plane, determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation in the point cloud in order to compare to a set value.
Regarding claim 6, Mou teaches wherein the calibration object comprises a preset structure on an apparatus located within a scanning range of the LiDAR, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus, the first reference data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when it the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation (paragraphs [0046]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Mou teaches wherein the preset structure comprises a fixed structure or another LiDAR on the apparatus (paragraphs [0046]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Mou teaches wherein the position and orientation comprises at least one of a mounting height or a mounting angle (paragraphs [0065]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 9, Mou is silent regarding wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: determining, when the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation, a deviation direction of the current position and orientation relative to the standard position and orientation.
However, Ju teaches wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: determining, when the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation, a deviation direction of the current position and orientation relative to the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0025]-[0039])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: determining, when the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation, a deviation direction of the current position and orientation relative to the standard position and orientation in order to determine the direction of offset from which a current pose of the LIDAR deviates from the standard pose when the current pose deviates from the standard pose.
Regarding claim 10, Mou teaches wherein the step of determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation comprises: arranging the LiDAR in the standard position and orientation; controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object to determine a measurement value of the LiDAR; and storing the measurement value as the first reference data (paragraphs [0050]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Mou teaches wherein the step of determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation comprises: determining whether the measurement value is within a range; and based on a determination that the measurement value is not within the range, controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in the current position and orientation to collect the first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0050]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Mou teaches wherein the step of determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: based on a determination that the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation, incrementing a number of consecutive failures; and determining whether the number of consecutive failures reaches a threshold, and sending a diagnostic data when the number of consecutive failures reaches the threshold (paragraphs [0050]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Mou is silent regarding wherein a plurality of LiDAR are arranged at different positions on an apparatus, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus, and the method further comprises: determining whether a position and orientation of the apparatus deviates from a calibration position and orientation when the plurality of LiDAR deviate from standard positions and orientations, wherein the calibration position and orientation is a position and orientation of the apparatus when determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation.
However, Ju teaches wherein a plurality of LiDAR are arranged at different positions on an apparatus, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus, and the method further comprises: determining whether a position and orientation of the apparatus deviates from a calibration position and orientation when the plurality of LiDAR deviate from standard positions and orientations, wherein the calibration position and orientation is a position and orientation of the apparatus when determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005], [0051], [0107]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein a plurality of LiDAR are arranged at different positions on an apparatus, wherein the LiDAR is fixed to the apparatus, and the method further comprises: determining whether a position and orientation of the apparatus deviates from a calibration position and orientation when the plurality of LiDAR deviate from standard positions and orientations, wherein the calibration position and orientation is a position and orientation of the apparatus when determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation in order to confirm if the pose deviates from the calibrated pose when multiple LIDARs deviate from the standard pose.
Regarding claim 14, Mou is silent regarding wherein the LiDAR comprises a plurality of detection channels, and a part of the plurality of detection channels are used to perform the method.
However, Ju teaches wherein the LiDAR comprises a plurality of detection channels, and a part of the plurality of detection channels are used to perform the method (paragraphs [0005], [0051], [0107]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein the LiDAR comprises a plurality of detection channels, and a part of the plurality of detection channels are used to perform the method in order to confirm if the pose deviates from the calibrated pose when multiple LIDARs deviate from the standard pose.
Regarding claim 15, Mou teaches a LiDAR (abstract, Figs. 1-7), comprising:
an emitter configured to emit a detection signal to a surrounding environment (paragraph [0044]);
a detector configured to receive an echo of the detection signal (paragraph [0044]); and
a processor configured to generate a point cloud of the LiDAR based on the echo (paragraphs [0017],[0019]-[0028], [0044]-[0047]) and configured to:
determine first reference data of a calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in a standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]);
control the LiDAR to scan the object in a current position and orientation to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]); and
determine, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]).
Mou is silent regarding controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR.
However, Ju teaches a LIDAR calibration method (abstract) including controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0011], [0080]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR in order to set a base level as a calibration to calibrate the LIDAR to obtain accurate pose data.
Regarding claim 16, Mou teaches an autonomous driving vehicle, comprising:
LiDAR detection system in communication with the LiDAR and configured to:
determine first reference data of a calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in a standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]);
control the LiDAR to scan the object in a current position and orientation to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]); and
determine, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]).
Mou is silent regarding a LiDAR fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle; and controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR.
However, Ju teaches a LIDAR calibration method (abstract) including a LiDAR fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle (Figs 1, 2, paragraphs [0069]-[0068]); and controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR (paragraphs [0011], [0080]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including a LiDAR fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle; and controlling the LiDAR to scan the calibration object in a current position and orientation and to collect first measurement data of the LiDAR in order to set a base level as a calibration to calibrate the LIDAR to obtain accurate pose data and to control a vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, Mou is silent regarding a vehicle detection system in communication with the LiDAR detection system and configured to: detect a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle.
However, Ju teaches a LIDAR calibration method (abstract) including a vehicle detection system in communication with the LiDAR detection system and configured to: detect a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle (paragraphs [0045], [0107]-[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including a vehicle detection system in communication with the LiDAR detection system and configured to: detect a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle in order to set a base level as a calibration to calibrate the LIDAR to obtain accurate pose data and to control a vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Mou is silent regarding wherein the calibration object comprises a preset structure on the autonomous driving vehicle located within a scanning range of the LiDAR, the LiDAR is fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle, the first reference data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation.
However, Ju teaches wherein the calibration object comprises a preset structure on the autonomous driving vehicle located within a scanning range of the LiDAR, the LiDAR is fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle, the first reference data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation (paragraphs [0005], [0051], [0107]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein the calibration object comprises a preset structure on the autonomous driving vehicle located within a scanning range of the LiDAR, the LiDAR is fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle, the first reference data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation, and the first measurement data comprises at least one of a distance or an orientation determined by scanning the preset structure by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the current position and orientation in order to confirm if the pose deviates from the calibrated pose when multiple LIDARs deviate from the standard pose.
Regarding claim 19, Mou is silent regarding wherein determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: based on a determination that the current position and orientation of the LiDAR does not deviate from the standard position and orientation, setting a number of consecutive failures to zero.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that wherein determining, based on the first reference data and the first measurement data, whether the current position and orientation of the LiDAR deviates from the standard position and orientation comprises: based on a determination that the current position and orientation of the LiDAR does not deviate from the standard position and orientation, setting a number of consecutive failures to zero is well-known in the art and one would perform the step in order to reset the calibration counter.
Regarding claim 20, Mou is silent regarding wherein a plurality of LiDAR are arranged at different positions on the autonomous driving vehicle, the LiDAR is fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle, and the LiDAR detection system configured to: determining whether a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle deviates from a calibration position and orientation when the plurality of LiDAR deviate from standard positions and orientations, wherein the calibration position and orientation is a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle when determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation.
However, Ju teaches wherein a plurality of LiDAR are arranged at different positions on the autonomous driving vehicle, the LiDAR is fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle, and the LiDAR detection system configured to: determining whether a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle deviates from a calibration position and orientation when the plurality of LiDAR deviate from standard positions and orientations, wherein the calibration position and orientation is a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle when determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation (paragraphs [0005], [0051], [0107]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Mou with the teaching of Ju by including wherein a plurality of LiDAR are arranged at different positions on the autonomous driving vehicle, the LiDAR is fixed to the autonomous driving vehicle, and the LiDAR detection system configured to: determining whether a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle deviates from a calibration position and orientation when the plurality of LiDAR deviate from standard positions and orientations, wherein the calibration position and orientation is a position and orientation of the autonomous driving vehicle when determining the first reference data of the calibration object scanned by the LiDAR when the LiDAR is in the standard position and orientation in order to confirm if the pose deviates from the calibrated pose when multiple LIDARs deviate from the standard pose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rogan (US 2015/0362587) teaches a LIDAR calibration method and could be combined with prior art of record to render at least the independent claims obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights