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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/06/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because applicant or representative of applicant has not signed the 1449. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al., (US 2015/0332102 A1) referred to as LU hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, BASEREF shows a device including:
a camera unit with a first field of view (Paragraphs [0009], [0011] and [0030]);
a LiDAR unit with a second field of view (Paragraphs [0009], [0011] and [0030]);
and a control unit communicatively coupled to the camera unit and the LiDAR unit (Paragraphs [0009], [0014], [0017] and [0024);
wherein the first field of view and the second field of view are directed to at least partially coincide (Paragraphs [0011] and [0030]);
wherein a part where the fields of view coincide forming a field of control view of the device (Paragraphs [0011], [0030] and [0024]);
wherein the control unit is configured to receive from the camera unit image data captured in the first field of view (Paragraph [0014] shows wherein the vision camera acquires image frames, and the vision processing algorithm processes the images.);
wherein the control unit is configured to detect from the image data objects that are in the field of control view of the device and belong to a class of vulnerable road users including, but not limited to, humans and animals (Paragraphs [0016], [0023] and [0032]);
and wherein the control unit is configured to control operation of the LiDAR unit based on said detection of objects (Paragraphs [0014], [0024] and [0025]).
Regarding claim 2, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the control unit is configured to determine a control function to be implemented by the LiDAR unit in response to detecting from the image data at least one object that is in the field of control view of the device and belongs to the class of vulnerable road users (Paragraphs [0014], [0024] and [0025] disclose that the vision processing algorithm identifies objects and provides coordinates to the Lidar steering unit; the Lidar is then directed to specific objects of interest.).
Regarding claim 3, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the control unit is configured to determine distance to at least one object that is in the field of control view of the device and belongs to the class of vulnerable road users (Paragraphs [0009], [0014], [0015], [0017] and [0025] wherein the Lidar measures object distance after the camera identifies the object, and the system is described as measuring distance to pedestrians and other objects.) and use information on these distances to determine a control function to be implemented by the LiDAR unit (Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0024], [0025] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the camera unit is a gated camera configured to forward to the control unit image data items each including data collected from a predetermined range of distance from the device (Paragraphs [0028] and [0033] disclose gated accumulation.).
Regarding claim 5, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 4 above, wherein the control unit is configured to detect from at least one image data item an object that belongs to the class of vulnerable road users (Paragraphs [0014], [0016], [0023], [0032]);
and wherein the control unit is configured to select the control operation to be implemented by the LiDAR unit and timing for the control operation according to the detection in the at least one image data item (Paragraphs [0014], [0024], [0025], [0026] wherein the system uses detected objects and their priority scores to assign more “staring” time and more frequent distance updates to selected objects.).
Regarding claim 10, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the class of vulnerable road users includes humans and animals (Paragraphs [0016], [0023], [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU in view of Laur et al., (US 2017/0057497 A1) referred to as LAUR hereinafter.
Regarding claim 7, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but LAUR does specifically show wherein the control unit is configured to determine posture of at least one object that is in the field of control view of the device and belongs to the class of vulnerable road users (Paragraphs [0013], [0016], [0020], [0022], [0024]) and use information on the determined posture to determine a control function to be implemented by the LiDAR unit (Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0030] disclose controlling based on analysis.).
Both LU and LAUR are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they use light based object detection for driving purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LU in the spirit of LAUR because it prioritizes objects based on danger indicators such as proximity, relative speed, lane position, cut-in behavior, or pedestrian trajectory ([0018]-[0021]). The Lidar beam is then steered to dwell longer on higher-priority objects, improving update rate and measurement confidence ([0019]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 8, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 7 above, however failing to but LAUR does specifically show wherein the control unit includes a neural network configured to detect objects that are in the field of control view of the device and belong to the class of vulnerable road users (Paragraphs [0013] and [0028]).
Both LU and LAUR are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they use light based object detection for driving purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LU in the spirit of LAUR because it prioritizes objects based on danger indicators such as proximity, relative speed, lane position, cut-in behavior, or pedestrian trajectory ([0018]-[0021]). The Lidar beam is then steered to dwell longer on higher-priority objects, improving update rate and measurement confidence ([0019]-[0024]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU in view of LAUR as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wilmer et al., (US 2019/0310349 A1) referred to as WILMER hereinafter.
Regarding claim 9, LU in view of LAUR shows the limitations as per Claim 8 above, however failing to but WILMER does specifically show wherein the neural network is a convolutional neural network (Paragraph [0016] discloses a CNN.).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because it would have been obvious to substitute a generic neural network in the prior art with a convolutional neural network (CNN), noting that it is common knowledge in current (at or before the effective filing date) that CNNs are a type of neural network and are commonly used for image processing or similar tasks.
Claim(s) 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU in view of LAUR as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WILMER.
Regarding claim 11, LU in view of LAUR shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but WILMER does specifically show wherein the LiDAR unit is configured to transmit laser beams with at least two power levels, wherein one of the two power levels is lower than the other power level (Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0031] and [0035] describe both varying laser intensity and lower-intensity regions.);
wherein the LiDAR unit is configured to switch between the power levels based on a control command received from the control unit (Paragraphs [0018], [0020], [0030], [0031], [0034] and [0035]);
and wherein the control unit is configured to provide control commands to the LiDAR unit based on the detection of objects that are in the field of control view of the device and belong to the class of vulnerable road users (Paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0027], [0033], [0034], [0035] and [0037]).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, LU in view of LAUR and in further view of WILMER shows the limitations as per Claim 11 above, wherein the LiDAR unit is configured to transmit laser beams with at least a first power level and a second power level, wherein the first power level is lower than the second power level (WILMER: Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0031], [0035] disclose higher and reduced intensity laser output.);
and wherein the control unit is configured to provide to the LiDAR unit a control command adjusting the LiDAR unit to transmit with the first power level in response to detecting from the image data an object that is in the field of control view of the device and belongs to the class of vulnerable road users (WILMER: Paragraphs [0017], [0018], [0020], [0027], [0034], [0035], [0037] wherein the controller reduces intensity toward protected objects in response to object detection.).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 13, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 12 above, wherein the control unit is configured to provide to the LiDAR unit a control command adjusting the LiDAR unit to transmit with the second power level in response to detecting from the image data that the object no longer exists in the field of control view of the device (WILMER: Paragraphs [0017], [0018], [0020], [0031], [0035] disclose higher intensity for non-protected areas and greater laser intensity toward areas away from protected objects.)
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 14, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 11 above, wherein the LiDAR unit is configured to transmit laser beams with at least a first power level and a second power level, wherein the first power level is lower than the second power level (WILMER: Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0031] and [0035] describe both varying laser intensity and lower-intensity regions.);
wherein the control unit is configured to provide to the LiDAR unit a control command adjusting the LiDAR unit to transmit with the first power level in response to detecting from the image data an object that is in the field of control view of the device and belongs to the class of vulnerable road users (WILMER: Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0031] and [0035] wherein the controller lowers intensity toward protected objects based on detection.);
and wherein the control unit is configured to provide to the LiDAR unit a control command adjusting the LiDAR unit to transmit with the second power level in response to detecting from the image data that there is no object that belongs to the class of vulnerable road users in the field of control view of the device (WILMER: Paragraphs [0014], [0017], [0018], [0020], [0031] and [0035] describes how higher intensity can be projected to areas away from protected objects.).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 11 above, wherein the first power level provides a classified eye-safe mode of operation (WILMER: Paragraphs [0001] and [0017] expressly note traditional lidar is limited by eye-safety, and the system reduces intensity toward protected objects to improve safety.).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the LiDAR unit includes a solid state LiDAR (WILMER: Paragraphs [0019], [0038] and [0040] all show solid state devices.).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Regarding claim 17, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 16 above, wherein the field of control view of the device is defined from an overlap between an angle of view of the camera unit and an angle of view of the LiDAR unit (WILMER: Paragraphs [0015], [0019] and [0032] wherein the imaging field of view and projected point pattern / modulated beam overlap in the same object region.) and includes a predefined range of distances from the device (WILMER: Paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0021], [0036] discuss distance to protected objects and risk based on distance, but not a field of control view defined by a predetermined distance range.).
All of LU, LAUR and WILMER are in the same field of endeavor in that they deal with road-based pedestrian or object detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify LU in view of LAUR in the spirit of WILMER because application addresses the need to detect people or other vision-sensitive objects and reduce laser exposure only toward those objects rather than across the entire field (Paragraphs [0002], [0014]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights