Patent Application 17478865 - LIDAR SYSTEMS AND METHODS - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 17478865 - LIDAR SYSTEMS AND METHODS
Title: LIDAR SYSTEMS AND METHODS
Application Information
- Invention Title: LIDAR SYSTEMS AND METHODS
- Application Number: 17478865
- Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2021-09-17T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2021-09-17T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 356
- National Sub-Class: 004010
- Examiner Employee Number: 100362
- Art Unit: 3645
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 8
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1) The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections 2) Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: This claim refers to the ‘method of Claim 1’. The examiner believes this should read ‘the method of Claim 19’, and has examined the application as such. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3) 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. 4) Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (US 2012/0249996). 5) Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka discloses a LIDAR system ([0003], “laser radar”) for detecting objects in a surrounding environment of an autonomous vehicle, the LIDAR system comprising: a radiation source configured to emit output beams along an internal emission pathway (Figure 1, 10; [0061], “laser diode”); a scanner, positionable along the internal emission pathway and configured to direct the output beams onto a field of view of the surrounding environment as a plurality of data points in a scanning pattern ([0066]-[0067], mirror and actuator combination; Figure 1, elements 40 and 50), wherein the scanner comprises: a scanning face having a non-planar profile and comprising a plurality of reflective surface segments (Figure 3; [0084], ‘multi-stepped’), each reflective surface segment having: a given position on the scanning face ([0084], “P2”), and a given angle relative to a reference for reflecting the output beams as a propagating beam with a given propagating angle ([0094] discusses the inclination angle of the surfaces with respect to the horizontal); wherein the given position and the given angle of each reflective surface segment is configured to modulate a distribution of the data points in the scanning pattern across the field of view (Figure 3 shows the rays emitted from point P1 being deflected from the segmented mirror surface according to the position and orientation of each segment; [0016] describes that the LIDAR of Tanaka employs a ‘raster scan’ which is understood in the art to produce a uniform spot pattern). 6) Regarding Claim 2, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the given position and the given angle of at least some of the plurality of reflective surface segments is configured to generate a homogenous distribution of the data points throughout at least a portion of the scanning pattern ([0016] describes that the LIDAR of Tanaka employs a ‘raster scan’ which is understood in the art to produce a nearly uniform spot pattern throughout the central portion of the field of regard). 7) Regarding Claim 6, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein at least one reflective surface segment of the plurality of reflecting surface segments is curvilinear ([0091]: “Specifically, the reflecting surfaces 102a, 102b, 103a, 103b, 104a and 104b are formed into paraboloids (rotary parabolic curved surfaces) having different curvatures, that is, different curvature radiuses.”, a parabolic curved surface would result in a curvilinear surface segment). 8) Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reflective surface segments are configured to render the scanning face with a concave configuration (Figure 17 shows the reflective segments arranged into a concave shape). 9) Regarding Claim 12, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of reflective surface segments are angularly off-set from one another (Figure 8 shows that the surface segments in the upper half of the reflective surface are oriented at a distinctly different angle than those in the lower half of the surface; [0084]-[0090] describe the upper and lower reflective surfaces.). 10) Regarding Claim 15, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, further comprising a controller communicatively coupled to the radiation source and the scanner (Figure 2, element 70 is the control circuit of the system; [0079]: “The control circuit 70 is adapted to control the beam-emitting performance of the laser diode 10, the rotating performance of the motor 50 and the driving performance of the actuator 33”). 11) Regarding Claim 16, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to move the scanner for selective contact of the output beams with a given reflective surface segment. (Figure 2, element 70 is the control circuit of the system, element 31 is the scanning mirror; [0066]: “The mirror 31 corresponds to the first scanning ( deflecting or reflecting) member and has a function of guiding the laser beam Ll from the laser diode 10 toward a rotating deflection unit 40 described later”, [0079]: “The control circuit 70 is adapted to control the beam-emitting performance of the laser diode 10, the rotating performance of the motor 50 and the driving performance of the actuator 33”). 12) Regarding Claim 18, Tanaka further discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, further comprising a receiver for receiving reflected propagating beams from the field of view (“photodiode”, Figure 1, element 20; [0061]; [0063]: The photodiode 20 is ensured to receive, through its light-receiving window 20A, the light L2 that is a reflection of the laser beam Ll generated by the laser diode 10 and reflected from a target present in an external space, and convert the received light L2 into an electrical signal.) 13) Regarding Claim 19, Tanaka discloses a method for detecting objects in a surrounding environment of an autonomous vehicle, the method executable by a controller which is communicatively coupled to a radiation source and a scanner of a LIDAR system (Figure 2, element 70 is the control circuit of the system; [0079]: “The control circuit 70 is adapted to control the beam-emitting performance of the laser diode 10, the rotating performance of the motor 50 and the driving performance of the actuator 33”), the method comprising: causing the radiation source (Figure 1, 10; [0061], “laser diode”) to emit output beams along an internal emission pathway ([0070], Figure 1: the beams are within the casing of the system) of the LIDAR system; causing the scanner to direct the output beams onto a field of view (FOV) within the surrounding environment ([0066]-[0067], mirror and actuator combination; Figure 1, elements 40 and 50), the scanner comprising: a scanning face having a non-planar profile and comprising a plurality of reflective surface segments having (Figure 3; [0084], ‘multi-stepped’): a given position on the scanning face ([0084], “P2”), and a given angle relative to a reference for reflecting the output beams as a propagating beam with a given propagating angle ([0094] discusses the inclination angle of the surfaces with respect to the horizontal); wherein the given position and the given angle of at least some of the plurality of reflective surface segments is configured to modulate the propagating angle of the propagating beam to modulate a distribution of the data points in the scanning pattern across the field of view (Figure 3 shows the rays emitted from point P1 being deflected from the segmented mirror surface according to the position and orientation of each segment; [0016] describes that the LIDAR of Tanaka employs a ‘raster scan’ which is understood in the art to produce a uniform spot pattern). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 14) 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. 15) Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Engberg (US 10,324,170). 16) Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 as described in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach and Engberg does teach that the given position and the given angle of at least some of the plurality of reflective surface segments (Figure 2, element 52) is configured to generate a homogenous density of the data points throughout an outer portion and a central portion of the scanning pattern (Column 10, Lines 42-61: The pixels may be approximately evenly distributed across the 60°x20° FOR). 17) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the scanner of Engberg with the laser radar system of Tanaka. Engberg notes that the mirrors of the scanner “may be communicatively coupled to the controller 20 which may control the scanning mirror( s) so as to guide the output beam 22 in a desired direction downrange or along a desired scan pattern. (Column 10, Lines 42-46)”. It may be advantageous to uniformly sample the field of regard, as when no object has yet been detected and the laser radar has not yet acquired a target. 18) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Fried (US 2018/0275252). 19) Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as described in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach and Fried does teach that the given position and the given angle of at least some of the plurality of reflective surface segments (Figure 5, faces 142a-142f of the pentagonal scanner are slightly angled with respect to each other in order to provide vertical separation of the scan lines; [0006]; Figures 5-7, the scans are pinched together at one end of the field of regard; note that in Figure 5, the pulses are spread slightly farther apart within individual scans at each end) is configured to compensate for a difference in scanning frequency at an end of the scanning face compared to at a center of the scanning face in order to modulate a distribution of the data points (Figure 9, the scanner of Fried can be used to spread out the scan points at the end of the field of view, resulting in a more uniform spot distribution). 20) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning unit of the laser radar of Tanaka with the scanning unit of Fried. Fried notes that the when the ‘swipes’ (or scans) are ‘substantially straight and parallel’, ‘the scene is imaged efficiently and as intended’ ([0082]). This efficiency is due to the fact that uniformly imaging the scene in the first place avoids the need for analytic or numerical corrections to the data ([0082]) in a post-processing stage. 21) Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Pan (US 2020/0319304). 22) Regarding Claim 9, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. However, Tanaka does not teach and Pan does teach wherein the scanner is an oscillating galvo mirror ([0043]: The scanner can be actuated by any suitable actuator or mechanism such as galvanometer scanner, …). 23) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser radar of Tanaka with Pan’s galvanometer scanner. Pan notes that “The electrical current supplied to the coil may be controlled to dynamically change the position of the galvanometer mirror,” ([0044]) which is a useful property in a device such as a lidar or ladar system which requires scanning across the field of regard. 24) Regarding Claim 10, Tanaka teach all the limitations of Claim one as discussed above. However, Tanaka does not teach and Pan does teach wherein the scanner is a rotating prism and the scanning face is a face of the rotating prism ([0043]: The scanner can be actuated by any suitable actuator or mechanism such as galvanometer scanner, a piezoelectric actuator, a polygonal scanner, a rotating-prism scanner, …). 25) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the rotating prism of Pan into the scanner of the laser radar of Tanaka. Rotating prisms are well-known in the art, and their properties and behavior are familiar to any worker of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, substituting a rotating prism for the scanner would yield predictable results. 26) Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Yim (KR 20180107673). 27) Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as noted in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach but Yim does teach that at least one reflective surface segment of the plurality of reflecting surface segments is linear (Figure 15 shows the flat faces of the pyramidal reflector. As opposed to a curvilinear face such as a paraboloid, these flat faces are linear). 28) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the linear reflecting surface of Yim for the curvilinear surface of Tanaka. Pyramidal reflectors with linear reflecting surface segments are well-known in the art, and the effect of substitution would have been obvious to any worker of ordinary skill, and would therefore yield a predictable result. 29) Regarding Claim 7, Tanaka teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach but Yim does teach that the plurality of reflective surface segments are configured to render the scanning face with a convex configuration (Figure 15 clearly shows that the pyramidal reflector of Yim is generally convex in shape, as opposed to the generally convex shape of the segments in Tanaka). 30) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a convex reflector such as that found in Yim into the concave deflector of the laser radar of Tanaka. Convex, pyramidal reflectors are well-known in the art, and the effect of substitution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would therefore yield a predictable result. 31) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Kawauchi (US 4,810,095). 32) Regarding Claim 11, Tanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as described in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach and Kawauchi does teach that the scanner comprises a rotating prism (Figure 2, elements 12 and 13, show the rotating prism) and a mirror (Figure 2, e.g., elements 10 and 11) , the scanning face comprising at least one face of the rotating prism and at least one face of the mirror (The propagating rays in Figure 2 strike both the mirror 11 and the rotating polygonal mirror 12; Column 2, Lines 5-44) . 33) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rotating prism of Kawauchi laser-beam scanning device into the laser radar scanner described in Tanaka. Rotating prisms used in combination with mirrors are well-known in the art, and their properties and behavior are familiar to any worker of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, substituting a rotating prism and mirror for the scanner would yield predictable results. 34) Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Jägel (EP 3070496). 35) Regarding Claim 13, Tanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as described in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach and Jägel does teach wherein at least two of the plurality of the reflective surface segments are made of different materials to impart different optical properties on the respective propagating beams ([0010]: “The invention is based on the basic idea of using mirror facets with mutually different reflection factor. This means that at least some mirror facets differ in their reflection factor, that is to say at a minimum one mirror facet has a different reflection factor than the others”; These different reflection factors are applied to the different facets of a polygonal mirror). 36) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner of the laser radar device of Tanaka to have reflective surface segments with different reflectivities as in Jägel. The effect of the different reflectivities is to yield an output beam from the scanner with different intensity levels ([0011]). Jägel notes that one of the great problems in optical distance measurements is the “high dynamics of the received signal” ([0005]), and that variable facet reflectivity “has the advantage that reception signals of different intensities can be brought to a similar energy level”, which “simplifies the evaluation in the further reception path considerably and enables improved accuracy” ([0011]). 37) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Hippenmeyer (DE 3602008). 38) Regarding Claim 14, Tanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as described in the analysis above. However, Tanaka does not teach and Hippenmeyer does teach wherein the plurality of the reflective surface segments are configured to form a linear rounded surface (Figure 1 shows that the polygon used in this device has linear edges and rounded surfaces. [0008] teaches that the mirror wheel has both convex and concave surfaces). 39) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scanner of Tanaka to have the linear rounded surface segments of the mirror wheel of Hippenmeyer. Hippenmeyer notes that an extended depth of field is desirable in some scanning applications ([0004]) and that the alternating flat, convex, and concave surfaces provided by the linear, rounded mirror wheel can provide this functionality ([0008]). 40) Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Rehm (US 2005/0225763). 41) Regarding Claim 17, Tanaka teach all the limitations of Claims 1 and 15, as described in the analysis above. Tanaka does not teach but Rehm does teach that the controller is configured to move the output beams for selective contact of the output beams with a given segment reflective surface (Figure 1, element 13 is a rotating mirror or prism utilizing total internal reflection to scan the beam 14b over the various surfaces of downstream optics; [0049]: “deflection unit”). 42) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scanner of the laser radar of Tanaka to scan the output beam over the surfaces of downstream optics as in Rehm. Rehm notes that the deflection unit “has the purpose of laterally offsetting a laser beam 14a and to cause the offset laser beam 14b to carry out a circular movement, the beam axis being oriented parallel to the original beam axis” ([0049]). This allows for individual zones of the surface of the downstream optics to be addressed for a given interval, defined by the angular width of the zone and the speed of the deflection unit ([0056]). 43) Regarding Claim 20, Tanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 19, as described in the analysis above. Tanaka further discloses a controller communicatively coupled to the radiation source and the scanner (Figure 2, element 70 is the control circuit of the system; [0079]: “The control circuit 70 is adapted to control the beam-emitting performance of the laser diode 10, the rotating performance of the motor 50 and the driving performance of the actuator 33”). 44) However, Tanaka does not teach but Rehm does teach that the controller is configured to move the output beams for selective contact of the output beams with a given segment reflective surface (Figure 1, element 13 is a rotating mirror or prism utilizing total internal reflection to scan the beam 14b over the various surfaces of downstream optics; [0049]: “deflection unit”). 45) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scanner of the laser radar of Tanaka to scan the output beam over the surfaces of downstream optics as in Rehm. Rehm notes that the deflection unit “has the purpose of laterally offsetting a laser beam 14a and to cause the offset laser beam 14b to carry out a circular movement, the beam axis being oriented parallel to the original beam axis” ([0049]). This allows for individual zones of the surface of the downstream optics to be addressed for a given interval, defined by the angular width of the zone and the speed of the deflection unit ([0056]). Conclusion 46) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00. 47) 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. 48) If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached on (571) 272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 49) 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. /BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645