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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 30 June 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection regarding claim 7 has been overcome in view of the amendment.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) regarding claims 1, 14, and 19 has been overcome in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 30 June 2026 has been fully considered but is moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 20 when two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing. Applicant may cancel the claim or amend the claim to present it in a distinct scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2015/0168556 A1 previously cited “ZHU”), in view of Hart (US 2022/0176947 A1 newly cited “HART”).
Regarding claim 1, ZHU discloses (Examiner’s note: What ZHU does not disclose is ) an integrated circuit, comprising: a measurement circuit configured to electrically couple to at least one sensor (the sensor unit 202 is mounted atop example vehicle 200 and includes one or more sensors configured to detect information about an environment surrounding example vehicle 200 [0061]) and to perform multiple separate types of measurements of or associated with an object (the LIDAR may be configured to perform a first scan of the environment, and associating the laser data points of the plurality of laser data points with one or more objects in the environment. The LIDAR may then be configured to perform a second scan of the environment, and determine laser data points that match to the one or more objects based on a location of an object represented by the laser data points [0089]) in an environment with reduced or obscured information, wherein the reduced or obscured information is in a visual band of frequencies (the vehicle is in an environment that has a foggy weather condition [0021]), detect information about an environment surrounding example vehicle 200 [0061]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HART teaches a first latency time 416 from the bottom scene area capture time 408 to the time 418 of bottom of scene area processing outputs, and a second latency time 420 from the top scene area capture time 410 to the time 422 of top of scene area outputs [0047 & FIG. 4]. Specifically, HART teaches that since objects in the bottom of the scene are typically closer, the results for those objects (such as person 104) will be produced first. Having the results for those objects (bottom of image objects which are typically closer to the cameras) sooner will decrease the reaction time as compared to waiting for the image of the entire scene area to be fully processed or as compared to processing the top portion first. Therefore, with this method of reading, decisions with regard to objects that are closer are likely to have a shorter reaction time than objects further away. Since the distance to closer objects is less than the distance to more remote objects, the time to take corrective action to avoid collision with such objects is less than for the remote objects [0046].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of HART, because doing so would reduce the risk of a collision or object impact. This will have a higher probability of detecting the closer objects first with the least latency by using the sensor data with the least delay, as recognized by HART.
Regarding claim 2, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the separate types of measurements comprise different measurements (the LIDAR may be configured to perform a first scan of the environment, and associating the laser data points of the plurality of laser data points with one or more objects in the environment. The LIDAR may then be configured to perform a second scan of the environment, and determine laser data points that match to the one or more objects based on a location of an object represented by the laser data points [ZHU 0089], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the separate types of measurements comprise time-of-arrival (TOA) measurements (time-stamping receipt of the reflected signals allows for associating each reflected signal (if any is received at all) with the most recently emitted laser pulse, and measuring the time delay between emission of the laser pulse and reception of the reflected light. The time delay provides an estimate of the distance to the reflective feature by scaling according to the speed of light in the intervening atmosphere [ZHU 0073]).
Regarding claim 4, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the separate types of measurements comprise radar measurements, or LiDAR measurements (the sensor unit 202 may include any combination of cameras, RADARs, LIDARs, range finders, and acoustic sensors [ZHU 0061]); (possible sensor types and mounting locations include the LIDAR unit 206 and laser rangefinder unit 208 [ZHU 0061]).
Regarding claim 5, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the environment with reduced or obscured information comprises fog or a cloud (the vehicle is in an environment that has a foggy weather condition [ZHU 0021]).
Regarding claim 6, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the separate types of measurements are performed using multiple paths having different path lengths in at least the one sensor or the integrated circuit (in operation, the LIDAR rotates and (e.g., periodically) emits laser beams [ZHU 0073]); (adjusting beam steering optics to direct the laser beam up or down from the x-y plane on its next sweep of the scene [ZHU 0073]).
Regarding claim 12, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the separate types of measurements correspond to a field of view that is a subset of a scan region of at least the one sensor (adjusting beam steering optics to direct the laser beam up or down from the x-y plane on its next sweep of the scene [ZHU 0073]); (sampling point locations in planes above and below the x-y plane [ZHU 0073]).
Regarding claim 14, ZHU discloses an electronic device, comprising: an integrated circuit, wherein the integrated circuit comprises a measurement circuit configured to electrically couple to at least one sensor (the sensor unit 202 is mounted atop example vehicle 200 and includes one or more sensors configured to detect information about an environment surrounding example vehicle 200 [0061]) and to perform multiple separate types of measurements of or associated with an object (the LIDAR may be configured to perform a first scan of the environment, and associating the laser data points of the plurality of laser data points with one or more objects in the environment. The LIDAR may then be configured to perform a second scan of the environment, and determine laser data points that match to the one or more objects based on a location of an object represented by the laser data points [0089]) in an environment with reduced or obscured information, wherein the reduced or obscured information is in a visual band of frequencies (the vehicle is in an environment that has a foggy weather condition [0021]), detect information about an environment surrounding example vehicle 200 [0061]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HART teaches a first latency time 416 from the bottom scene area capture time 408 to the time 418 of bottom of scene area processing outputs, and a second latency time 420 from the top scene area capture time 410 to the time 422 of top of scene area outputs [0047 & FIG. 4]. Specifically, HART teaches that since objects in the bottom of the scene are typically closer, the results for those objects (such as person 104) will be produced first. Having the results for those objects (bottom of image objects which are typically closer to the cameras) sooner will decrease the reaction time as compared to waiting for the image of the entire scene area to be fully processed or as compared to processing the top portion first. Therefore, with this method of reading, decisions with regard to objects that are closer are likely to have a shorter reaction time than objects further away. Since the distance to closer objects is less than the distance to more remote objects, the time to take corrective action to avoid collision with such objects is less than for the remote objects [0046].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of HART, because doing so would reduce the risk of a collision or object impact. This will have a higher probability of detecting the closer objects first with the least latency by using the sensor data with the least delay, as recognized by HART.
Regarding claim 15, ZHU/ HART discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the separate types of measurements comprise time-of-arrival (TOA) measurements (time-stamping receipt of the reflected signals allows for associating each reflected signal (if any is received at all) with the most recently emitted laser pulse, and measuring the time delay between emission of the laser pulse and reception of the reflected light. The time delay provides an estimate of the distance to the reflective feature by scaling according to the speed of light in the intervening atmosphere [ZHU 0073]).
Regarding claim 16, ZHU/ HART discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the separate types of measurements are performed using multiple paths having different path lengths in at least the one sensor or the integrated circuit (in operation, the LIDAR rotates and (e.g., periodically) emits laser beams [ZHU 0073]); (adjusting beam steering optics to direct the laser beam up or down from the x-y plane on its next sweep of the scene [ZHU 0073]).
Claim(s) 7-8, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU, in view of HART, and Mei et al. (US 2017/0031015 A1 previously cited “MEI”), and further in view of Templeton et al. (US 9,383,753 B1 previously cited “TEMPLETON”).
Regarding claim 7, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MEI teaches that the autonomous driving module 120, the ground point filtering module, the obstacle candidate identification module, the obstacle filtering module, the object speed filtering module, and/or the processor 110 can be configured to analyze information/data captured by the sensor system 125 with respect to objects [0061]. The vehicle 100 can include an object speed filtering module. The object speed filtering module can be configured to associate speed data with the one or more obstacle candidates. Such speed data can be obtained from any suitable source, such as the sensor system 125 and, more particularly, the one or more radar sensors 127. The object speed filtering module can be configured to filter the obstacle candidates to remove obstacle candidates that are moving at or above a predetermined speed threshold [0060].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of MEI, because doing so would minimize incorrect sensor data associations, as recognized by MEI. In addition, both of the prior art references, ZHU and MEI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, operation of sensor system in vehicles.
ZHU, as modified, discloses the invention as set forth herein, but does not disclose
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TEMPLETON teaches that regions to scan with enhanced angular resolution can be automatically identified by analyzing the point cloud information from one or more previous scans and/or the current scan [col. 5, lines 39-42]. An enhanced resolution region can be indicated by identifying a feature in motion [col. 5, lines 49-50]. Additionally, TEMPLETON discloses adaptively adjusting an angular resolution of a LIDAR device by adjusting a pulse rate of the LIDAR device [col. 18, lines 27-29]. The LIDAR device is driven to provide an angular resolution at a sufficiently high refresh rate to be relevant to real time navigational decisions for an autonomous vehicle. Thus, the LIDAR 128 can be configured to capture one or more laser point clouds of the environmental scene at predetermined time intervals, such as 100 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 10 frames per second), 33 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 30 frames per second), 1 millisecond, 1 second, etc. [col. 17, lines 1-10].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of TEMPLETON, because doing so would dynamically scan vehicle’s surrounding environment for enhanced target detection, as recognized by TEMPLETON. In addition, both of the prior art references, ZHU and TEMPLETON, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, sensor(s) providing environmental information for autonomous vehicle navigation.
Regarding claim 8, ZHU/ HART/ MEI/ TEMPLETON discloses the integrated circuit of claim 7, wherein the data streams include a first data stream and a second data stream (regions to scan with enhanced angular resolution can be automatically identified by analyzing the point cloud information from one or more previous scans and/or the current scan [TEMPLETON col. 5, lines 39-42], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 7); and wherein the first data stream has a higher spatial frequency and a lower sampling rate than the second data stream (the LIDAR device is driven to provide an angular resolution at a sufficiently high refresh rate to be relevant to real time navigational decisions for an autonomous vehicle. Thus, the LIDAR 128 can be configured to capture one or more laser point clouds of the environmental scene at predetermined time intervals, such as 100 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 10 frames per second), 33 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 30 frames per second), 1 millisecond, 1 second, etc. [TEMPLETON col. 17, lines 1-10], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 17, ZHU/ HART discloses the electronic device of claim 14,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MEI teaches that the autonomous driving module 120, the ground point filtering module, the obstacle candidate identification module, the obstacle filtering module, the object speed filtering module, and/or the processor 110 can be configured to analyze information/data captured by the sensor system 125 with respect to objects [0061]. The vehicle 100 can include an object speed filtering module. The object speed filtering module can be configured to associate speed data with the one or more obstacle candidates. Such speed data can be obtained from any suitable source, such as the sensor system 125 and, more particularly, the one or more radar sensors 127. The object speed filtering module can be configured to filter the obstacle candidates to remove obstacle candidates that are moving at or above a predetermined speed threshold [0060].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of MEI, because doing so would minimize incorrect sensor data associations, as recognized by MEI.
ZHU, as modified, discloses the invention as set forth herein, but does not disclose
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TEMPLETON teaches that regions to scan with enhanced angular resolution can be automatically identified by analyzing the point cloud information from one or more previous scans and/or the current scan [col. 5, lines 39-42]. An enhanced resolution region can be indicated by identifying a feature in motion [col. 5, lines 49-50]. Additionally, TEMPLETON discloses adaptively adjusting an angular resolution of a LIDAR device by adjusting a pulse rate of the LIDAR device [col. 18, lines 27-29]. The LIDAR device is driven to provide an angular resolution at a sufficiently high refresh rate to be relevant to real time navigational decisions for an autonomous vehicle. Thus, the LIDAR 128 can be configured to capture one or more laser point clouds of the environmental scene at predetermined time intervals, such as 100 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 10 frames per second), 33 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 30 frames per second), 1 millisecond, 1 second, etc. [col. 17, lines 1-10].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of TEMPLETON, because doing so would dynamically scan vehicle’s surrounding environment for enhanced target detection, as recognized by TEMPLETON.
Regarding claim 19, ZHU discloses a method for performing separate types of measurements, comprising: by an electronic device that comprises or is electrically coupled to at least one sensor (the sensor unit 202 is mounted atop example vehicle 200 and includes one or more sensors configured to detect information about an environment surrounding example vehicle 200 [0061]): performing the separate types of measurements of or associated with an object (the LIDAR may be configured to perform a first scan of the environment, and associating the laser data points of the plurality of laser data points with one or more objects in the environment. The LIDAR may then be configured to perform a second scan of the environment, and determine laser data points that match to the one or more objects based on a location of an object represented by the laser data points [0089]) in an environment with reduced or obscured information, wherein the reduced or obscured information is in a visual band of frequencies (the vehicle is in an environment that has a foggy weather condition [0021]), and device (detect information about an environment surrounding example vehicle 200 [0061]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HART teaches a first latency time 416 from the bottom scene area capture time 408 to the time 418 of bottom of scene area processing outputs, and a second latency time 420 from the top scene area capture time 410 to the time 422 of top of scene area outputs [0047 & FIG. 4]. Specifically, HART teaches that since objects in the bottom of the scene are typically closer, the results for those objects (such as person 104) will be produced first. Having the results for those objects (bottom of image objects which are typically closer to the cameras) sooner will decrease the reaction time as compared to waiting for the image of the entire scene area to be fully processed or as compared to processing the top portion first. Therefore, with this method of reading, decisions with regard to objects that are closer are likely to have a shorter reaction time than objects further away. Since the distance to closer objects is less than the distance to more remote objects, the time to take corrective action to avoid collision with such objects is less than for the remote objects [0046].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of HART, because doing so would reduce the risk of a collision or object impact. This will have a higher probability of detecting the closer objects first with the least latency by using the sensor data with the least delay, as recognized by HART.
ZHU, as modified, discloses the invention as set forth herein, but does not disclose
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MEI teaches that the autonomous driving module 120, the ground point filtering module, the obstacle candidate identification module, the obstacle filtering module, the object speed filtering module, and/or the processor 110 can be configured to analyze information/data captured by the sensor system 125 with respect to objects [0061]. The vehicle 100 can include an object speed filtering module. The object speed filtering module can be configured to associate speed data with the one or more obstacle candidates. Such speed data can be obtained from any suitable source, such as the sensor system 125 and, more particularly, the one or more radar sensors 127. The object speed filtering module can be configured to filter the obstacle candidates to remove obstacle candidates that are moving at or above a predetermined speed threshold [0060].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of MEI, because doing so would minimize incorrect sensor data associations, as recognized by MEI.
ZHU, as modified, discloses the invention as set forth herein, but does not disclose
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TEMPLETON teaches that regions to scan with enhanced angular resolution can be automatically identified by analyzing the point cloud information from one or more previous scans and/or the current scan [col. 5, lines 39-42]. An enhanced resolution region can be indicated by identifying a feature in motion, a feature not present in a baseline map of the scene, or a distant feature [col. 5, lines 49-51]. Additionally, TEMPLETON discloses adaptively adjusting an angular resolution of a LIDAR device by adjusting a pulse rate of the LIDAR device [col. 18, lines 27-29]. The LIDAR device is driven to provide an angular resolution at a sufficiently high refresh rate to be relevant to real time navigational decisions for an autonomous vehicle. Thus, the LIDAR 128 can be configured to capture one or more laser point clouds of the environmental scene at predetermined time intervals, such as 100 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 10 frames per second), 33 milliseconds (for a refresh rate of 30 frames per second), 1 millisecond, 1 second, etc. [col. 17, lines 1-10].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of TEMPLETON, because doing so would dynamically scan vehicle’s surrounding environment for enhanced target detection, as recognized by TEMPLETON.
Regarding claim 20, ZHU/ HART/ MEI/ TEMPLETON discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the separate types of measurements comprise radar measurements, or LiDAR measurements (the sensor unit 202 may include any combination of cameras, RADARs, LIDARs, range finders, and acoustic sensors [ZHU 0061]); (possible sensor types and mounting locations include the LIDAR unit 206 and laser rangefinder unit 208 [ZHU 0061]).
Regarding claim 21, ZHU/ HART/ MEI/ TEMPLETON discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the separate types of measurements comprise radar measurements, or LiDAR measurements (the sensor unit 202 may include any combination of cameras, RADARs, LIDARs, range finders, and acoustic sensors [ZHU 0061]); (possible sensor types and mounting locations include the LIDAR unit 206 and laser rangefinder unit 208 [ZHU 0061]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU, in view of HART, and further in view of Tsadka et al. (US 2022/0381919 A1 newly cited “TSADKA”).
Regarding claim 9, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TSADKA teaches that controller(s) 108, 160 control operation of sensor 102 to provide a first mode with a higher frame rate and lower resolution and a second mode with a lower frame rate with higher resolution with both modes generating the same number of data points. For example, LiDAR sensor 102 may operate in the first mode generating X points/scan at 100 scans/s or the second mode with 10X points/scan at 10 scans/s for the same FOV 104. Both scan modes will produce the same number of points per second, with software control of the tradeoff between resolution and scan frequency [0046].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of TSADKA, because doing so would provide resolution and detection range while meeting power and system requirements, as recognized by TSADKA.
Regarding claim 10, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TSADKA teaches that controller(s) 108, 160 control operation of sensor 102 to provide a first mode with a higher frame rate and lower resolution and a second mode with a lower frame rate with higher resolution with both modes generating the same number of data points. For example, LiDAR sensor 102 may operate in the first mode generating X points/scan at 100 scans/s or the second mode with 10X points/scan at 10 scans/s for the same FOV 104. Both scan modes will produce the same number of points per second, with software control of the tradeoff between resolution and scan frequency [0046].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of TSADKA, because doing so would provide resolution and detection range while meeting power and system requirements, as recognized by TSADKA.
Claim(s) 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU, in view of HART, and further in view of Shand et al. (US 2022/0187448 A1 newly cited “SHAND”).
Regarding claim 13, ZHU/ HART discloses the integrated circuit of claim 1. ZHU further discloses that the laser point cloud includes many points for each pulse emitted from the LIDAR device; reflected signals may indicate actual locations of reflective objects, whereas failing to receive reflected signals indicate an absence of sufficiently reflective objects within a particular distance along the line of sight of the laser [0078]. However, ZHU/ HART does not disclose that
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHAND teaches that the method 400 includes receiving information identifying an environmental condition surrounding the vehicle. The environmental condition can be or include at least one of fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain [0072]. Furthermore, SHAND also teaches that the server can decide that, in view of the environmental condition(s) surrounding at least the vehicle 100, the range of interest should be a particular range [0080]. The method 400 includes adjusting at least one return light control parameter for at least a portion of the field of view based on the determined range of interest. Examples of the at least one return light control parameter can include a return light detection time period, sampling rate, and/or filtering threshold [0082].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of SHAND, because doing so would improve object detection in the environment such as outdoors for an autonomous vehicle with a high level of confidence, as recognized by SHAND.
Regarding claim 18, ZHU/ HART discloses the electronic device of claim 14. ZHU further discloses that the laser point cloud includes many points for each pulse emitted from the LIDAR device; reflected signals may indicate actual locations of reflective objects, whereas failing to receive reflected signals indicate an absence of sufficiently reflective objects within a particular distance along the line of sight of the laser [0078]. However, ZHU/ HART does not disclose that
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHAND teaches that the method 400 includes receiving information identifying an environmental condition surrounding the vehicle. The environmental condition can be or include at least one of fog, mist, snow, dust, or rain [0072]. Furthermore, SHAND also teaches that the server can decide that, in view of the environmental condition(s) surrounding at least the vehicle 100, the range of interest should be a particular range [0080]. The method 400 includes adjusting at least one return light control parameter for at least a portion of the field of view based on the determined range of interest. Examples of the at least one return light control parameter can include a return light detection time period, sampling rate, and/or filtering threshold [0082].
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 ZHU to include the teachings of SHAND, because doing so would improve object detection in the environment such as outdoors for an autonomous vehicle with a high level of confidence, as recognized by SHAND.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lutter et al. (US 2003/0201929 A1 previously cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a multi-sensor system 12 that includes different sensors 16 and 18 that are both integrally attached to or integrally formed into the substrate 14 [0012 & FIG. 1]; different multi-sensor systems 12A-12D are used for monitoring different zones around a vehicle 60 [0029].
Bradley et al. (US 2022/0055549 A1 newly cited) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details that features for each high-priority aspect can be determined before features are determined for any low-priority aspect. In another example, the priority classification system can classify each object into one of a plurality of priority categories and/or rank each object relative to each other object [0025]. One technical effect and benefit of the present disclosure is reduced latency for determining features for higher priority aspects (e.g., objects and/or regions of interest) which are more likely to impact a motion plan for an autonomous vehicle than low-priority aspects [0071].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights