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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 12 and 14 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0181810 A1) in view of Levinson et al. (Patent No.: US 9,916,703 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20; Tan teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system for a vehicle, and vehicle system (LIDAR systems for vehicle based object tracking/avoidance systems) comprising:
a laser source configured to generate a laser beam (Collimated beam 100, FIG. 1);
a detector array (Laser array 110, FIG. 1) including a plurality of photodetectors (one or more photodetectors ¶ 17) respectively configured to detect return light resulting from the laser beam reflecting off one or more objects in an environment of the vehicle (laser beam reflecting off object 220, FIG. 2 and ¶ 24); and
one or more processors (Control circuitry 330, FIG. 3) configured to:
access a feedback data signal indicative of a condition change in the environment of the vehicle (time delay between transmitted pulse and received pulse to determine object distance, speed ¶¶ 3, 19-21 and using to signal to create haptic feedback ¶ 29).
Tan is silent to the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle and to generate one or more adjustment parameters configured to dynamically adjust one or more components of the LIDAR system based on the condition change. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Levinson teaches an autonomous vehicle configured with a LIDAR system (See Abstract and FIG. 3A) similar to Tan. More specifically, a LIDAR self-calibration unit 3156 (FIG. 31) is described to be used for a 3D mapping engine and that subsequently may output the information to a teleoperator UI, Simulator, fleet, route data generator (3168, FIG. 31) for use. Furthermore, based on LIDAR sensor information and abnormal sensor measurement, the calibration parameter/unit may be utilized to modify the multi-beam LIDAR sensor based on the parameter (See Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle LIDAR system taught by Tan to be an autonomous vehicle and to generate one or more adjustment parameters configured to dynamically adjust one or more components of the LIDAR system based on the condition change as taught by Levinson to enhance the ability for collision free travel and providing for comfortable user experience (col. 15, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Tan discloses the LIDAR system, wherein the one or more
adjustment parameters comprises a laser intensity associated with the laser source (multiple scan patterns/planes, single to multiple planes or different scan patterns suggesting intensity ¶ 24).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tan discloses the LIDAR system and autonomous vehicle wherein the one or more adjustment parameters comprises a detector sensitivity of the detector array (photodetector sensitivity ¶ 39).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Levinson teaches the LIDAR system and autonomous vehicle, wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a change in an amount of traffic in the environment of the autonomous vehicle (traffic related information, col. 19, lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan to wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a change in an amount of traffic in the environment of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Levinson to enhance vehicle navigation to a destination (col. 19, lines 29-33).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Levinson teaches the LIDAR system and autonomous vehicle, wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a change in speed of the autonomous vehicle (col. 11, lines 53-54).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan to wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a change in speed of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Levinson to enhance vehicle navigation to a destination (col. 19, lines 29-33).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Levinson teaches the LIDAR system and autonomous vehicle, wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a change in probability of encountering a potential hazard (col. 13, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan to wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a change in probability of encountering a potential hazard as taught by Levinson to enhance collision avoidance for the vehicle (col. 13, lines 1-24).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Levinson teaches the LIDAR system and autonomous vehicle, wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a weather condition change (weather related conditions; col. 7, lines 58-62).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan to wherein the condition change in the environment of the autonomous vehicle comprises a weather condition change as taught by Levinson to enhance safe-stop trajectory (col. 7, lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 10, Tan discloses the LIDAR system, wherein the feedback data
signal is received from a data processing system on-board the autonomous vehicle that is configured to determine the condition change (310, 320, 330; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Tan discloses the LIDAR system, wherein the feedback data
signal is further indicative of a data pattern obtained from the detector array (¶ 24).
Regarding claim 19, Tan teaches the vehicle, further comprising: a data processing system configured to receive LIDAR data from the LIDAR system and to identify objects in an environment of the vehicle (220, FIG. 2 and ¶¶ 24-26).
Tan is silent to an autonomous vehicle control system configured to control at
least one or more of a steering system, a braking system, or an acceleration system of the autonomous vehicle based on the objects. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Levinson teaches an autonomous vehicle configured with a LIDAR system (See Abstract and FIG. 3A) similar to Tan. More specifically, the autonomous vehicle may be maneuvered for collision free travel based on an obstacle map. A planner may transmit steering, propulsion and braking commands to motion controller based on the obstacle map (col. 10, lines 41-60).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan to be an autonomous vehicle control system configured to control at least one or more of a steering system, a braking system, or an acceleration system of the autonomous vehicle based on the objects as taught by Levinson to enhance collision avoidance for the vehicle.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0181810 A1) in view of Levinson et al. (Patent No.: US 9,916,703 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Cantin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0309914 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cantin teaches the LIDAR system, wherein the one or more adjustment parameters comprises a pulse rate associated with the laser source (Lidar function, equivalent pulse rate ¶ 51).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan and Levinson to wherein the one or more adjustment parameters comprises a pulse rate associated with the laser source as taught by Cantin to enhance LIDAR detection range (¶ 51).
Regarding claim 13, Cantin teaches the autonomous vehicle, wherein the one or more
adjustment parameters comprises a pulse rate, a scan rate, or a laser intensity associated with the laser source (Lidar function, equivalent pulse rate ¶ 51).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan and Levinson to wherein the one or more adjustment parameters comprises a pulse rate associated with the laser source as taught by Cantin to enhance LIDAR detection range (¶ 51).
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0181810 A1) in view of Levinson et al. (Patent No.: US 9,916,703 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keller et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0176990 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Keller teaches the LIDAR system, wherein the one or more
adjustment parameters comprises a scan rate associated with the laser source (¶ 17).
It would have been obvious to modify Tan and Levinson to wherein the one or more
adjustment parameters comprises a scan rate associated with the laser source as taught by Keller to enhance obstacle detection (¶ 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663