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 3/20/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/20/2025 are approved 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 23, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ashida et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0069171).
With respect to claim 11, Ashida et al disclose: A LiDAR device [ taught by figure 5 ] comprising: a light emitting unit configured to generate an output light signal and emit the output light signal to a target area [ taught by light source (271) and projection optics (276) ]; a light receiving unit configured to receive an input light signal that is input after reflected from the target area [ taught by receiving optics (280) ]; an information generating unit configured to generate information about the target area using the input light signal input to the light receiving unit [ taught by detectors (279) ]; and a control unit configured to control the light emitting unit, the light receiving unit, and the information generating unit [ taught by system controller (277) ], wherein the light emitting unit has a preset field of view (FOV) in a first direction [ paragraph [0066] states, “…FIG. 12A depicts the resonant horizontal scanner 275 with the amplitude of its FOV being adjusted symmetrically to be narrow for high speed driving, such as on freeways. FIG. 12B shows high resolution point clouds (depicted as dots), which are due to the narrower horizontal FOV…” ], and wherein the control unit controls a FOV in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction of the light emitting unit [ paragraph [0066] states, “…FIG. 13A depicts the resonant horizontal scanner 275 with the amplitude of its FOV being adjusted symmetrically to be wider for city driving or where there are many obstacles. FIG. 13B shows lower resolution point clouds due to the wider horizontal FOV…”; - a change from a narrower to wider FOV in the horizontal plane meets controlling an FOV in a second direction perpendicular to a first vertical plane defined by the MEMS phased array (273)].
Claim 25 is anticipated by the subject matter of Ashida et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 23 and 24 are met by the combined operation of the MEMS phased array (273) and resonant horizontal scanner (275).
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.
Claims 12-20, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0069171) in view of Moscovici (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0342047).
Claim 12 further recites: wherein the light emitting unit has all preset FOVs in the second direction [ taught by the device of Ashida setting a wide FOV in the city ], and wherein the control unit controls the light emitting unit to scan only some of all the FOVs in the second direction based on the information about the target area.
Ashida et al does not explicitly teach the control unit controls the light emitting unit to scan only some of all the FOVs in the second direction based on the information about the target area.
Figure 5B and paragraph [0121] of Moscovici teach it was known to only scan a portion of a field of view (FOV) based on the detected environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the scanning method of Moscovici to the device of Ashida et a, when seeking to focus scanning on detected objects of interest,
Claim 26 is rejected for the reasons applied to claim 12.
Claim 13 is taught by paragraph [0121] of Moscovici, as applied in the rejection of claim 12.
With regard to claim 27, paragraph [0122] of Moscovici states, “…Examples of areas that may be identified as regions of interest may include crosswalks, moving objects, people, nearby vehicles or any other environmental condition or object that may be helpful in vehicle navigation…”.
Therefore, expanding the FOV would have been met by the combination of Ashida et al and Moscovici because, for example, a nearby vehicle on a side street would have required expanding the FOV.
With regard to claim 14, a pedestrian in a crosswalk would have required narrowing the FOV.
Claims 15 and 16 would have been produced by applying the teachings of Moscovici to Ashida et al in situations wherein a pedestrian is detected crossing a road in front of the vehicle.
Claims 17 and 18 are shown by the dimensions of detection regions in figure 5C of Moscovici et al.
Paragraph [0123] of Moscovici states, “…The first scanning scheme may be utilized in a start-up phase or periodically interleaved with another scanning scheme to monitor the whole field of view for unexpected/new objects…”.
Looking for unexpected objects (an abnormality) via the standard scan teaches claim 19.
Claim 20 is taught by the first scanning scheme being interleaved with monitoring for unexpected objects.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0342047).
With respect to claim 28, Moscovici discloses: A LiDAR device [ taught by figure 1 A ] comprising: a light emitting unit configured to generate an output light signal and emit the output light signal to a target area [ taught by projecting unit (102) ]; a light receiving unit configured to receive an input light signal that is input after reflected from the target area [ taught by sensing unit (106) ]; an information generating unit configured to generate information about the target area using the input light signal input to the light receiving unit; and a control unit configured to control the light emitting unit, the light receiving unit, and the information generating unit [ taught by processor (118) ]; wherein the light emitting unit includes a plurality of emitters disposed in an array form, and wherein the control unit extracts an effective area from the target area based on the information about the target area, drives only some of the plurality of emitters SO that the light emitting unit scans only the effective area [ Figure 5B and paragraph [0121] of Moscovici teach only scanning a portion of a field of view (FOV) based on the detected environment ].
Figure 1A only shows a single light emitter.
However, paragraph [0072] of Moscovici states, “…FIG. 2E shows an example of a bi-static configuration of LIDAR system 100 without scanning unit 104. In order to illuminate an entire field of view (or substantially the entire field of view) without deflector 114, projecting unit 102 may optionally include an array of light sources (e.g., 112A-112F). In one embodiment, the array of light sources may include a linear array of light sources controlled by processor 118…”.
Therefore, it would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan to have adapted the device of Moscovici to have used an array of emitters because this modification was a suggested alternative.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0069171) in view of Moscovici (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0342047), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dgani (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0418841).
Claims 21 and 22 add a sensor providing either acceleration of gyro data to be used in the determination of scanning areas.
Paragraph [0205] of Dgani states, “…For example, at step 1702, processing unit 108 may determine at least one indicator of a current yaw orientation of LIDAR system 100 based on analysis of point cloud representations of at least one stationary object in an environment of vehicle 110 and based on detected ego motion of vehicle 110. “Ego motion” refers to the motion profile (e.g., speed, path, etc.) of a host vehicle as it travels through the environment. Aspects of a host vehicle's ego motion may be detected based on outputs from one or more sensors associated with the host vehicle. Such sensors may include, among others, one or more speed sensors, an odometer, a GPS unit, an accelerometer, an inertial motion sensor, etc…”.
This teaching establishes that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used acceleration or inertial data to better represent detected point clouds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding inertial or acceleration data to the combination of Ashida et al and Moscovici, when seeking to more accurately present detected objects with respect to a moving vehicle.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0342047), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Dgani (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0418841).
Claims 29 and 30 add a sensor providing either acceleration of gyro data to be used in the determination of scanning areas.
Paragraph [0205] of Dgani states, “…For example, at step 1702, processing unit 108 may determine at least one indicator of a current yaw orientation of LIDAR system 100 based on analysis of point cloud representations of at least one stationary object in an environment of vehicle 110 and based on detected ego motion of vehicle 110. “Ego motion” refers to the motion profile (e.g., speed, path, etc.) of a host vehicle as it travels through the environment. Aspects of a host vehicle's ego motion may be detected based on outputs from one or more sensors associated with the host vehicle. Such sensors may include, among others, one or more speed sensors, an odometer, a GPS unit, an accelerometer, an inertial motion sensor, etc…”.
This teaching establishes that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used acceleration or inertial data to better represent detected point clouds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding inertial or acceleration data to the device of Moscovici, when seeking to more accurately present detected objects with respect to a moving vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights