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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 8 and 13 recites “which of the emitted lidar pulses should be reflected on the detected object when the detected object is tracked”. Not clear from the claim, is the reflected necessary to the limitation?
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.
Claim 8, 9, 12, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig et al (US 20210025997) in view of Fiona (US 20230236317).
In regards to claim 8, Rosenzweig discloses a method comprising:
emitting, by a lidar sensor, lidar pulses (Rosenzweig [0002] “use LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment” accordingly emitting lidar/laser pulses, interpreted as laser pulses);
detecting, by the lidar sensor, reflections of the emitted lidar pulses (Rosenzweig Fig. 1A sensing unit ref. 106);
detecting an object, from which the emitted lidar pulses are reflected, in surroundings of the lidar sensor (Rosenzweig abstract discloses “reflected from an object external to the LIDAR system”, detecting obstacles);
tracking the detected object over several time cycles (Rosenzweig [0010] discloses “scanning a field of view”, “control positioning of the at least one light deflector to deflect light from the at least one light source along a scanning pattern to scan the field of view”, thus the object in the field of view is detected/followed over a scanning pattern that occurs of time cycles);
determining, considering a distance of the detected object to the lidar sensor and a geometry of the detected object (Rosenzweig [0039] “determine a distance”, [0091] discloses “other aspects of object 208, such as shape, color, material, etc. may also be determined”, [0096]), which of the emitted lidar pulses should be reflected on the detected object when the detected object is tracked (Rosenzweig [0187] “the remedial action may include modifying an illumination scheme of the at least one light source. For example, modifying the illumination scheme may include at least one of stopping light emission of the at least one light source, altering an illumination level of the at least one light source, or changing a number of pulses per pixel of the group of detectors”, the distance is used in determination of degradation, distance information including that of determining geometry);
while Rosenzweig discloses determining a failure of the Lidar detectors with obstruction [0139], Rosenzweig does not expressly disclose: determining a failure rate specifying how often an expected reflection of the emitted lidar pulses reflected on the detected object is not detected within a predetermined period of time.
Fina teaches a sensor degradation rate based on the obstruction of the sensor such that the sensor is not able to detect over a period of time ([0125] “If the sensor degradation rate is a known function of the rain rate (for example, a linear aperture fouling relationship), a time-based aperture fouling model may be found… the appropriate frequency or time between cleaning actuation may be set by the maximum allowable fouled state of the aperture”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rosenzweig with Fina by providing the means to determine a sensor is obstructed and the rate at which this obstruction will proceed such that lidar pulses reflected on the detected object is not detected within a predetermined period of time in order to allow the device to use alternate detectors or warning users of degraded sensors.
Rosenzweig as combined further discloses:
determining, based on the failure rate and the distance to the detected object, a degradation of the lidar sensor (Rosenzweig based on the failure/failure rate of sensor, the sensor is determined a blocked/degraded).
In regards to claim 9, Rosenzweig discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the determined degradation of the lidar sensor is a reduction in range of the lidar sensor (Rosenzweig [0185] discloses reduction is thresholds/ranges).
In regards to claim 12, Rosenzweig discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining a range of the lidar sensor from a reflection intensity of the emitted lidar pulses reflected on the detected object and from the distance of the lidar sensor to the detected object (Rosenzweig [0187], Fig. 8A, “FIG. 8A is a diagram illustrating different signal changes indicative of performance degradation”).
In regards to claim 13, Rosenzweig discloses a method for operating a vehicle or robot, the method comprising: detecting, by the vehicle or robot using a lidar sensor, surroundings of the vehicle or robot (Rosenzweig [0002]); determining a degradation of the lidar sensor by emitting, by the lidar sensor, lidar pulses (Rosenzweig abstract, [0187]); detecting, by the lidar sensor, reflections of the emitted lidar pulses (Rosenzweig Fig. 1A sensing unit ref. 106);detecting an object, from which the emitted lidar pulses are reflected, in surroundings of the lidar sensor (Rosenzweig abstract discloses “reflected from an object external to the LIDAR system” , detecting obstacles); tracking the detected object over several time cycles (Rosenzweig [0010] discloses “scanning a field of view”, “control positioning of the at least one light deflector to deflect light from the at least one light source along a scanning pattern to scan the field of view”, thus the object in the field of view is detected/followed over a scanning pattern that occurs of time cycles);
determining, considering a distance of the detected object to the lidar sensor and a geometry of the detected object, which of the emitted lidar pulses should be reflected on the detected object when the detected object is tracked (Rosenzweig [0039], [0091], [0187] “the remedial action may include modifying an illumination scheme of the at least one light source. For example, modifying the illumination scheme may include at least one of stopping light emission of the at least one light source, altering an illumination level of the at least one light source, or changing a number of pulses per pixel of the group of detectors”, the distance is used in determination of degradation, distance information including that of determining geometry”);
Rosenzweig does not expressly disclose: determining a failure rate specifying how often an expected reflection of the emitted lidar pulses reflected on the detected object is not detected within a predetermined period of time;
Fina teaches a sensor degradation rate based on the obstruction of the sensor such that the sensor is not able to detect over a period of time ([0125] “If the sensor degradation rate is a known function of the rain rate (for example, a linear aperture fouling relationship), a time-based aperture fouling model may be found… the appropriate frequency or time between cleaning actuation may be set by the maximum allowable fouled state of the aperture”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rosenzweig with Fina by providing the means to determine a sensor is obstructed and the rate at which this obstruction will proceed such that lidar pulses reflected on the detected object is not detected within a predetermined period of time in order to allow the device to use alternate detectors or warning users of degraded sensors.
Rosenzweig as combined further discloses:
determining, based on the failure rate and the distance to the detected object, a degradation of the lidar sensor (Rosenzweig based on the failure/failure rate of sensor, the sensor is determined a blocked/degraded); and operating, based on data detected by the lidar sensor, the vehicle or robot in an automatic operation, considering the determined degradation of the lidar sensor (Rosenzweig [0055] LIDAR system 100 may be used in autonomous or semi-autonomous road-vehicles).
Claim 10, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen, Fina as applied to claim 8, 13 above, and further in view of Kurata et al (US 20160282874).
In regards to claim 10, Rosenzweig discloses the method of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the failure rate is determined for each receiver pixel of the lidar sensor.
Kurata teaches using each pixel value for determining sensor degradation ([0093], [0094] discloses evaluation value dependent upon the number of valid and invalid pixels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rosenzweig with Kurata by providing the means for each receiver pixel is used in determining a failure rate for sensor degradation in order to allow for greater accuracy in determining how much of the sensor is obstructed.
In regards to claim 14, Rosenzweig as combined discloses the method of claim 13, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the automatic operation is an automatic driving operation in which a driving speed of the vehicle or robot is reduced with increasing degradation of the lidar sensor.
Kurata teaches lowering the speed of a vehicle in response to degraded or impaired sensor on the vehicle ([020] “when performance degradation occurs with the sensor, evaluation of a type or a performance of a utilizable sensor is performed, whereby degeneration operation in a state in which the speed and the steering angle are limited can be performed in accordance with the evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rosenzweig with Kurata by providing the means for the autonomous vehicle in automatic operation in which a driving speed of the vehicle or robot is reduced with increasing degradation of the lidar sensor in order to reduce risk of damage to vehicle.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen, Fina, Kuata as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Aoki et al (US 20220237765).
In regards to claim 11, Rosenzweig discloses the method of claim 10, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising: determining a defect or ageing of a respective one of the receiver pixels by comparing the determined failure rate of the respective receiver pixel with determined failure rates of adjacent receiver pixels depending on the distance to the detected object.
Aoki teaches, for determining defective pixel using an abnormality determination unit, which compare values for pixels to be within a predefine range indicating they are without defect ([0037] “abnormality determination unit 44 compares the correlation values calculated by the correlation value calculation unit 42 for the subregions 302, 312, 322 with the predefined range, and if the correlation values are out of the predefined range, determines that there is an abnormality in either of the camera 10 and the LiDAR device 20”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rosenzweig with Aoki by providing the means for determining a defect of a respective one of the receiver pixels by comparing the respective receiver pixel with adjacent receiver pixels depending on the distance to the detected object in order to allow for the device to use different sensor regions. Further, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to substitute the means of Rosenzweig as combined Aoki for determining a defect in adjacent pixels and pixel regions as the use of correlation values may be updated for different vehicle models, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights