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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 03/14/2022. However, Applicant has filed neither a certified copy nor a translation of the CN202210244895.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner further acknowledges Applicant’s claim for priority based on an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty on 01/20/2023. However, Applicant has filed neither a certified copy nor a translation of the WO/2023/173938 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 32-34, 38, and 43-46 are 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.
Claim 32 recites “a first echo pulse in the first group of echo pulses and a second echo pulse in the second group of echo pulses.” It is unclear if either
the first echo pulse is first in the first group of echo pulses and the second echo pulse is second in the second group of echo pulses, or
the first and second echo pulses can be any pulse in their respective groups.
This renders Claim 32 indefinite. This applies to Claim 44, mutatis mutandis. Claims 33 and 45, which recite “the first group of detection pulses comprises a first ranging pulse” and “the second group of detection pulses comprises a second ranging pulse,” are similarly rejected, mutatis mutandis. Dependent Claims 34 and 46 fail to resolve the issues present in Claims 33 and 45 and are thus summarily rejected. For examination, the first and second echo pulses, and first and second ranging pulses, can be any pulse in their respective groups.
Claim 38 recites “… determining the stable-position echo pulses as the effective echo pulse… when a difference value or a ratio value… exceeds a predetermined threshold.” This is indefinite for the following reasons:
How multiple stable-position echo pulses can be determined as one effective echo pulse is unclear. Furthermore, the language “determining… as” is not understandable, making interpretation difficult. The most likely corresponding written description indicates that the effective echo pulse is selected from the stable-position echo pulses [0112].
For examination, Claim 38 is interpreted as reciting the following: The method of claim 33, wherein determining the effective echo pulse comprises:
calculating a difference value or a ratio value of amplitudes of the stable-position echo pulses of the channel in the first detection orientation and the second detection orientation;
selecting, based on the difference value or the ratio value, a stable echo pulse to be the effective echo pulse.
Claim 43 recites “wherein the first light-emitting time sequence is configured to cause the first group of echo pulses to be distributed in sub-intervals… unoccupied and closest, and the second light-emitting time sequence is configured to cause the second group of echo pulses to be distributed in the sub-intervals.” Sub-intervals cannot be both occupied and unoccupied, and cannot be unoccupied if the first group of echo pulses are distributed into them, rendering Claim 43 indefinite. For examination, the closest sub-interval, the length of which is at least a maximum pulse width (Claim 42), is unoccupied by any echo pulse.
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) 30-37 and 44-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Marx (US 2021/0396845).
Regarding Claim 30, Marx discloses A method for controlling a LiDAR, comprising:
determining, for a group of channels in the LiDAR [0085, #302-308 of Fig. 3; 132-150, CH1-4 of Figs. 6A-B], a first light-emitting time sequence [0132-0139, #602-608 in Fig. 6A] and a second light-emitting time sequence [0140-0150, #652-658 in Fig. 6B] for lasers of the group of channels [0085], wherein the first light-emitting time sequence is different from the second light-emitting time sequence [0132-0150, compare #602-608 in Fig. 6A to #652-658 in Fig. 6B], the lasers of the group of channels are configured to emit light in parallel [0085], and each channel of the group of channels comprises a laser and a detector [0018, transmit/receive channels inherently have a laser and a detector; 0090, channel-emitter combinations vary with time];
controlling the lasers of the group of channels to emit a first group of detection pulses based on the first light-emitting time sequence [0132-0139, #602-608 in Fig. 6A] in a first detection orientation [0090, Fig. 4, 0123-0126, Fig. 5, first portion of the FOV];
receiving a first group of echo pulses [0132-0139, #622-626 in Fig. 6A] reflected from an object by the first group of detection pulses through detectors of the group of channels [0018, transmit/receive channels];
controlling the lasers of the group of channels to emit a second group of detection pulses based on the second light-emitting time sequence [0140-0150, #652-658 in Fig. 6B] in a second detection orientation [0090, different portion of the FOV; 0123-0126, Fig. 5, second portion of FOV];
receiving a second group of echo pulses [0140-0150, #672-676 in Fig. 6B] reflected from the object by the second group of detection pulses through the detectors of the group of channels [0018, transmit/receive channels];
and determining, for a channel in the group of channels [0132-0139, e.g. CH1 of Fig. 6A], an effective echo pulse of the channel based on the first group of echo pulses and the second group of echo pulses [0132-0139, e.g. #622 of Fig. 6A].
Regarding Claim 44, the rejection of Claim 30 applies, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claims 31 and 45, Marx discloses wherein at least part of the lasers of the group of channels emit light at different times in the first light-emitting time sequence and the second light-emitting time sequence [0085-0086; 0132-0150, Figs. 6A-B].
Regarding Claims 32 and 46, Marx discloses wherein an echo pulse received through a detector of the channel comprises the effective echo pulse and crosstalk generated by other channels in the group of channels [0020-0029], and wherein determining the effective echo pulse comprises:
determining, based on a time matching degree [0137], a first echo pulse in the first group of echo pulses [0132-0139, echo of #604-608 in CH1 of Fig. 6A inherent] and a second echo pulse in the second group of echo pulses for the channel [0136, #622 of Fig. 6A],
wherein the first echo pulse coincides with the second echo pulse [echoes of #602-608 may coincide on CH1 of Fig. 6A; 0150, cross-talk removal].
Regarding Claims 33 and 47, Marx discloses wherein the first group of detection pulses [0132-0139, #602-608 of Fig. 6A] comprises a first ranging pulse [#602] emitted by a laser of the channel [CH1 of Fig. 6A/B] in the first detection orientation [0090, Fig. 4, 0123-0126, Fig. 5, first portion of the FOV], the second group of detection pulses [0140-0148, #652-658 of Fig. 6B] comprises a second ranging pulse [#652] emitted by the laser of the channel [CH1] in the second detection orientation [0090, different portion of the FOV; 0123-0126, Fig. 5, second portion of FOV], and wherein determining the effective echo pulse comprises:
shifting, for the channel, a first emitting time of the first ranging pulse to coincide with a second emitting time of the second ranging pulse [0146-0150, align #602 of Fig. 6A and #652 of Fig. 6B in post-processing]; and
determining stable-position [coherent] echo pulses based on comparison of a first ranging result in the first detection orientation and a second ranging result in the second detection orientation [0146-0150, compare time difference of #622 and #602 in Fig. 6A to time difference of #672 and #652 in Fig. 6B].
Regarding Claims 34 and 48, Marx discloses wherein the first group of echo pulses [0132-0139, #622-626 in Fig. 6A] comprises a first ranging echo pulse [#622] reflected from the object by the first ranging pulse [#602] received through a detector of the channel [CH1 of Figs. 6A-B] in the first detection orientation, the second group of echo pulses [#672-676 in Fig. 6B] comprises a second ranging echo pulse [#672] reflected from the object by the second ranging pulse [#652] received through the detector of the channel [CH1] in the second detection orientation, and wherein determining the effective echo pulse comprises:
shifting, for the channel, the first emitting time to coincide with the second emitting time [0146-0150, align #602 of Fig. 6A and #652 of Fig. 6B in post-processing], wherein the first ranging echo pulse [#622] and the second ranging echo pulse [#672] are staggered in time [0132-0150, Figs. 6A-B, about 5000ns apart], and the stable-position [coherent] echo pulses comprise the first ranging echo pulse [#622] and the second ranging echo pulse [#672].
Regarding Claims 35 and 49, Marx discloses [in addition to first and second sequences of Claim 1 rejection] wherein the controller [0094, #104 of Fig. 1] is configured to:
determine, for the group of channels [0085, #302-308 of Fig. 3], a third light-emitting time sequence [0094-0097, plurality of scan sequences] for the lasers of the group of channels in a third detection orientation [0054-0056, rotating platform #116 of Fig. 1 may rotate continuously to make third direction], wherein the third light-emitting time sequence is different from the first light-emitting time sequence and the second light-emitting time sequence [0094-0097];
control the lasers of the group of channels to emit a third group of detection pulses [analogous to #602-608 in Fig. 6A and #652-658 in Fig. 6B] based on the third light-emitting time sequence in the third detection orientation;
receive a third group of echo pulses reflected from the object by the third group of detection pulses through the detectors of the group of channels [0018, transmit/receive channels]; and
determine, for the channel [0132-0150, e.g. CH1 of Figs. 6A-B], the effective echo pulse of the channel based on the first group of echo pulses [#622-626], the second group of echo pulses [#672-676], and the third group of echo pulses [analogous to #622-626 and #672-676; 0094-0097, plurality of scan sequences].
Regarding Claim 36, Marx discloses wherein a time difference between the first detection orientation, the second detection orientation, and the third detection orientation is within a predetermined time range [0094, emission period 500ns; 0089, refresh e.g. 5000ns].
Regarding Claim 37, Marx discloses wherein determining the effective echo pulse further comprises:
determining the stable-position echo pulses of a first channel [0132-0150, CH1, #622 in Fig. 6A and #672 in Fig. 6B] in the first detection orientation and the second detection orientation based on echo pulses of a second channel in the first detection orientation and the second detection orientation [0140-0150, crosstalk from e.g. CH2 to CH1 blinds CH1 to corresponding distances], wherein the channel in the group of channels is the first channel [0132-0139, CH1 of Fig. 6A].
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 2021/0396845) as applied to Claim 33 above, further in view of Droz (US 2020/0141716).
Regarding Claim 38, using Examiner’s interpretation, Marx does not explicitly teach – but Droz does teach wherein determining the effective echo pulse comprises:
calculating a difference value or a ratio value of amplitudes of the stable-position echo pulses of the channel in the first detection orientation and the second detection orientation [0217, distinguish between primary light pulse and secondary light pulse based at least in part on respective intensities; 0071, rotating platform #110 of Fig. 1 may rotate continuously so primary and secondary pulses are emitted in different directions];
selecting, based on the difference value or the ratio value, a stable echo pulse to be the effective echo pulse [determining whether or not object is retroreflector, reflector, or spurious inherently selects a stable-echo pulse to be the effective echo pulse used for ranging].
It would have been obvious to combine the dithering lidar with the primary and secondary emission pulses to determine information about the target region based on a comparison of the emitted sequence of signals and the received one or more signals [207].
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 2021/0396845) as applied to Claim 30 above.
Regarding Claim 39, Marx teaches wherein the first light-emitting time sequence and the second light-emitting time sequence are configured to cause the first group of echo pulses and the second group of echo pulses to be staggered in time [0089, 5000ns between scans; 0133, dithering].
Marx does not explicitly teach determining the first light-emitting time sequence and the second light-emitting time sequence based on at least one of a previous ranging result of each channel, a previous ranging result of a channel adjacent to each channel, or obstacle information.
However, it would have been obvious to modify the time offset sequence based on any of the above in a previous scan to prevent spurious signals from being coherent and/or a channel being blinded from detecting true objects at a particular distance during several consecutive scans [150].
Claims 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (US 2021/0396845) as applied to Claim 39 above, further in view of Droz (US 2020/0141716).
Regarding Claim 40, Marx teaches dividing a total time of flight window for the lasers of the group of channels into a first interval and a second interval [0132-0150, Figs. 6A-B, emission period and detection period], the first light-emitting time sequence [0132-0139, Fig. 6A, emission period], and the second light-emitting time sequence [0140-0150, Fig. 6B, emission period], in a non-overlapping manner [0132-0150, Figs. 6A-B, non-overlapping emission and detection periods].
Marx does not explicitly teach – but Droz does teach wherein the first light-emitting time sequence [0143-0154, #781-784 in Fig. 7 emission period] is configured to cause the first group of echo pulses [0143-0154, #791 in Fig. 7] to be distributed in the second interval in a non-overlapping manner [0143-0154, non-overlapping #771a and #791, and non-overlapping emission and detection periods, in Fig. 7], and the second light-emitting time sequence [0143-0154, #761-764 in Fig. 7 emission period] is configured to cause the second group of echo pulses [0143-0154, #771-774 in Fig. 7 detection period] and the first group of echo pulses to be distributed in the second interval in the non-overlapping manner [non-overlapping emission and detection periods]. [See also figure at end of present action.]
It would have been obvious to modify the first and second light-emitting time sequences to be concurrent in one emission period with at least one primary emission pulse and at least one secondary emission pulse to determine information about the target region based on a comparison of the emitted sequence of signals and the received one or more signals [0207].
Regarding Claims 41-43, neither Marx nor Droz explicitly teach
(Claim 41) dividing the second interval into k sub-intervals, wherein k is an integer greater than or equal to a number of channels in the group of channels, and wherein the first light-emitting time sequence is configured to cause the first group of echo pulses to be distributed in the k sub-intervals in the non-overlapping manner, and the second light-emitting time sequence is configured to cause the second group of echo pulses and the first group of echo pulses to be distributed in the k sub- intervals in the non-overlapping manner.
(Claim 42) wherein a length of each of the k sub-interval is greater than a maximum pulse width of the first group of echo pulses and the second group of echo pulses.
(Claim 43) wherein the first light-emitting time sequence is configured to cause the first group of echo pulses to be distributed in sub-intervals in the k sub-intervals, wherein the sub-intervals are unoccupied and closest, and the second light- emitting time sequence is configured to cause the second group of echo pulses to be distributed in the sub-intervals.
However, Droz does implicitly teach (See annotated Fig. 7 at end of present action)
(Claim 41) dividing the second interval into k sub-intervals [e.g. 7 sub-intervals: (1) before #772, (2) during #772, (3) during #791, (4) end of #791 to end of #771, (5) end of #771 to start of #774, (6) during #774, and (7) after #774], wherein k is an integer greater than or equal to a number of channels [CH1-4] in the group of channels [7 > 4], and wherein the first light-emitting time sequence [#781-784] is configured to cause the first group of echo pulses [#791] to be distributed in the k sub-intervals in the non-overlapping manner [See Fig. 7], and the second light-emitting time sequence [#761-764] is configured to cause the second group of echo pulses [#771-774] and the first group of echo pulses [#791] to be distributed in the k sub-intervals in the non-overlapping manner [no pulses overlap; no intervals or sub-intervals overlap].
(Claim 42) wherein a length of each of the k sub-interval is greater than a maximum pulse width of the first group of echo pulses and the second group of echo pulses [Double-headed arrows in annotated Fig. 7 denote maximum pulse width, and every interval is at least slightly wider than arrows].
(Claim 43) wherein the first light-emitting time sequence [#781-784] is configured to cause the first group of echo pulses [#791] to be distributed in sub-intervals in the k sub-intervals [During #791], wherein the sub-intervals are unoccupied and closest [before #772], and the second light-emitting time sequence is configured to cause the second group of echo pulses to be distributed in the [remaining] sub-intervals [See Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to modify emitting sequences for each channel during the emission period to have at least one primary emission pulse and at least one secondary emission pulse to determine information about the target region based on a comparison of the emitted sequence of signals and the received one or more signals [0207]. It would have been obvious to do this for any number of channels due to requirements of any given lidar. And it would have been obvious for the nearest sub-interval to be unoccupied for a “blanking” period while the pulse travels through the system window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
PNG
media_image1.png
2683
1847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 7 from Droz. Vertical lines separate sub-intervals. Interval labels are at the bottom. Under each sub-interval label and in bottom-right corner is at least one double-headed arrow, which denotes the maximum pulse width.
Prosecution Insights