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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (CN 110850391) in view of Wu (CN 113050072) and further in view of Wachter (WO 2020180503 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kong discloses an apparatus for testing a Lidar sensor ([0002]), comprising:
a Lidar sensor platform ([0007]: “an optical platform disposed at one end of the linear guide rail for fixing the lidar under test”), wherein the LiDAR sensor is stationary (The only motion disclosed in Kong is motion of the target board along the guide rail);
a target board ([0056]) including at least one vertically elongate surface facing in a direction of the Lidar sensor platform (Figure 1, element 1; [0053]: “The target plate 1 is a rectangular plate, and its size varies when different performance tests are performed.”),
Kong does not teach and Wu does teach wherein an angle of the elongate surface relative to the Lidar sensor platform is variable (Figure 1, [n0088]: “The central controller 18 is also used to control the electrically controlled rotating bracket 13 to rotate around its own axis to change the angle of the target 15 facing the laser radar 21 to be measured.” );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wu to rotate the target board about a vertical axis into the device of Kong, thereby varying the relative angle. Wu notes in [n0068] that incorporating such measurements as laser incident angle “realizes comprehensive and automatic testing of LiDAR performance, improving the efficiency of LiDAR testing and the reliability of test data.” These characteristics are highly desirable in commercial instruments.
Kong does not teach and Wu suggests ([n0093]) but does not explicitly teach and Wachter does teach a base unit configured to set the angle of the elongate surface of the target board to obtain a desired reflectivity level of the target board relative to an incident light scan emitted by a Lidar sensor mounted to the Lidar sensor platform during a target emulation test of the Lidar sensor ([0003]: “In order to calibrate for the walk error, a calibration target that has a variety of regions with different reflectivities may be used. The LIDAR device may transmit a series of light signals toward the various regions of the calibration target and then detect a series of reflections from the calibration target.” [0164]: “Additionally or alternatively, the target stage 716 may be configured to rotate the calibration target 600 in yaw, pitch or roll directions (e.g., via a motorized tip/tilt stage) and/or linearly translate the calibration target 600 relative to the LIDAR device (e.g., in x, y, and z directions).” Together these disclosures indicate that different reflectivity regions can be accessed by rotating the target.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wachter to have the central controller expose a region with a certain reflectivity to the LiDAR system under test. Wachter notes in [0003] that “Using pulse analysis methods to determine the transit time of a light signal emitted / detected in a LIDAR device may lead to errors in the determined distance to an object based on the intensity of the reflected light signal,” also known as ‘walk error’. Wachter further notes that the methods contained therein can provide calibration to suppress these errors. Lower error and higher quality retrievals are desirable characteristics for end users of commercially available instruments.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong does not teach and Wu does teach wherein a horizontal width of the at least one vertically elongate surface is greater than a horizontal field of view coverage of the incident light scan on the target board (Steps S61-S66 disclose a method for determining the FoV of the lidar under test given a fixed distance between the lidar and target board. Furthermore, in describing the steps of S81-S85, Wu notes in [n0122] that “When all laser beams have echoes in a certain area from the center of the target,” this condition can be used to start a round of measurements in which the target is sequentially moved away from the lidar. This condition implies that all the laser spots are incident on the target, and that the limitation of Claim 2 is therefore met).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wu that the target board is wide enough so that all LiDAR spots fall on the board. Given that there are only two possibilities in this regard (either the board is not as wide as the field of view and some spots miss, or the board is wide enough that all spots land on it) it would have been obvious to try this arrangement. One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success, given that the target board being wide enough to intercept all the LiDAR signals would yield the most usable calibration data possible.
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong does not teach and Wu does teach that the apparatus comprises a first actuator configured to rotate the target board about a vertical axis of the target board to set an azimuthal angle of the at least one vertically elongate surface relative to the Lidar sensor platform (Figure 1, [n0088]: “The central controller 18 is also used to control the electrically controlled rotating bracket 13 to rotate around its own axis to change the angle of the target 15 facing the laser radar 21 to be measured.” A rotation about the targets own axis necessarily changes its azimuthal angle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wu to rotate the target board about a vertical axis into the device of Kong. Wu notes in [n0068] that incorporating such measurements as laser incident angle “realizes comprehensive and automatic testing of LiDAR performance, improving the efficiency of LiDAR testing and the reliability of test data.” These characteristics are highly desirable in commercial instruments.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Kong further discloses that the apparatus comprises a second actuator configured to convey the target board in a linear direction to and from the Lidar sensor platform ([0057]: “When the servo motor rotates forward or reverse, the wire rope will drive the target plate support 2 to slide along the linear guide rail 3, eventually causing the target plate support 2 to move away from or closer to the optical platform 4.”) and wherein the base unit is further configured to control the second actuator to obtain a desired distance between the target board and the Lidar sensor during the target emulation test ([0057]: “This drive unit can be connected to a testing machine, and the direction and speed of the servo motor can be adjusted through the control of the testing machine.” Thus a testing machine is controlling the motion and position of the target plate.).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong discloses wherein the vertically elongate surface is a diffused reflective surface ([0063]: “Install target plates 1 of the same size and reflectivity on the target plate support 2 in step S12.”; [0076]: “In this embodiment, the target plate 1 is coated with a paint with a reflectivity of 80%.” The reflective paint here is an example of a diffuse reflector.).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Kong and further discloses wherein an absolute reflectance of the diffused reflective surface is in a range of 50% to 80% ([0076]: “In this embodiment, the target plate 1 is coated with a paint with a reflectivity of 80%.”).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong further discloses wherein a horizontal cross-section of the target board is rectangular (Figure 1; [0053]: “the target plate 1 is a rectangular plate.” A rectangular plate would reasonably be taken by one skilled in the art to have a rectangular cross section).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong further discloses wherein a horizontal cross-section of the target board is polygonal (Figure 1, [0053]: “the target plate 1 is a rectangular plate.” A rectangular plate would reasonably be taken by one skilled in the art to have a rectangular cross section. Given that a rectangle is a type of polygon, Kong therefore also discloses a target board with a polygonal cross section).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Wu and further in view of Wachter and in view of Hoffmann (WO 2021/000979).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 4, Kong also teaches wherein the target board is linearly movable by the second actuator in a range between a maximum distance to the Lidar sensor and a minimum distance to the Lidar sensor (Figure 6 of Kong shows linear guide rails with clear starting and ending points, which therefore define a maximum and minimum range between the lidar sensor and the target board).
Neither Kong nor Wu nor Wachter teach and Hoffman does teach wherein the maximum distance is 1.0 meters or less (Figure 1, element 32 denotes the distance between the device under test 12 and the target screen 30. [0059]: The distance 32 may, for example, be in a range from 5 cm to 200 cm, but is preferably in a range from 10 cm to 80 cm).
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 lidar testing apparatus of Kong in view of Wu with the teaching of Hoffmann to place the testing screen between 10 cm and 80 cm from the device under test. Hoffmann teaches a compact lidar test system ([0033]: “it is particularly preferred if the housing is a compact housing with dimensions in all directions of less than 1 m.”), and notes in [0007] that “Since LIDAR systems are often designed for ranges of more than 100 m, typically 150 to 250 m, testing is not easy, particularly with regard to angular resolution, as very large test setups are required.” To effectuate a compact solution, it is advantageous and necessary to minimize the maximum distance between the target screen and the device under test. Hoffmann further notes in [0015] that a testing device “can be implemented in a compact and therefore inexpensive manner … is particularly suitable for use in the production of optical measuring devices, for example in the area of final inspection.”
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 5, Kong in view of Wu and further in view of Wachter does not teach but Hoffman does teach wherein the minimum distance is 0.1 meters or more (Figure 1, element 32 denotes the distance between the device under test 12 and the target screen 30. [0059]: The distance 32 may, for example, be in a range from 5 cm to 200 cm, but is preferably in a range from 10 cm to 80 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kong in view of Wu with the teaching of Hoffman that the minimum distance between the testing screen and the device under test should be greater than 10 cm or 0.1 m. It is well known in the lidar arts that non-zero duration of emitted pulses imposes a minimum distance at which distances can successfully be retrieved. Hoffmann notes in [0015] that reduced cost is an important attribute for compact lidar testing devices. Given the skilled worker’s knowledge of this fact and the typical minimum working distances of lidar devices, it would be obvious to said worker to, for example, shorten the overall guide rail length of the apparatus of Wu to account for the inability of lidar devices to make short range measurements, as a shorter rail would be less expensive to procure.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view Wu and further in view of Wachter and in view of Li (CN 204331026 U).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong discloses wherein the target board is for emulating a target located a first distance from the Lidar sensor (Figure 2 of Kong shows the target board located on the guide rails at a distance from the lidar sensor under test).
Kong discloses wherein the automated scanning mechanism is configured to automatically control a position of an optical test module relative to the Lidar sensor during the target emulation test of the Lidar sensor ([0057]: “When the servo motor rotates forward or reverse, the wire rope will drive the target plate support 2 to slide along the linear guide rail 3, eventually causing the target plate support 2 to move away from or closer to the optical platform 4.”; [0057]: “This drive unit can be connected to a testing machine, and the direction and speed of the servo motor can be adjusted through the control of the testing machine.” Thus a testing machine is controlling the motion and position of the target plate. )
Kong suggests (Figure 4, [0062]-[0064]) but does not teach and Li does teach wherein the apparatus further comprises an automated scanning mechanism located adjacent the Lidar sensor platform for operating under control of the base unit to emulate a target located a second distance of the Lidar sensor, the second distance being greater than the first distance (Figure 2, element 142 shows a second motor-controlled [0021] test sub-system located a second further distance from the device under test. In this configuration the target system is aligned along the optical axis [0064] of the LiDAR).
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 device of Kong with the teaching of Li to use a second target located at a further distance from the device under test. Li notes in [0027] that “By changing the targets, moving the relative positions of the targets and changing the height of the targets, the system can adapt to the calibration requirements of different parameter loads and test a variety of loads. The target system has a wider range of applicability.” Having a second target located farther than the first is intrinsic to this set up and helps to achieve these goals, which yield a more efficient and effective calibration device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Wu and further in view of Wachter and in view of Li as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hoffmann.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Kong in view of Li does not teach and Hoffmann does teach wherein the first distance is 1.0 meters or less ([0033]: “In addition, (Figure 1, element 32 denotes the distance between the device under test 12 and the target screen 30. [0059]: The distance 32 may, for example, be in a range from 5 cm to 200 cm, but is preferably in a range from 10 cm to 80 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kong in view of Li and Hoffmann to ensure that the first distance is less than 1 meter. Hoffmann teaches a compact lidar test system ([0033]: “it is particularly preferred if the housing is a compact housing with dimensions in all directions of less than 1 m.”), and notes in [0007] that “Since LIDAR systems are often designed for ranges of more than 100 m, typically 150 to 250 m, testing is not easy, particularly with regard to angular resolution, as very large test setups are required.” To effectuate a compact solution, it is advantageous and necessary to minimize the maximum distance between the target screen and the device under test. Hoffmann further notes in [0015] that a testing device “can be implemented in a compact and therefore inexpensive manner … is particularly suitable for use in the production of optical measuring devices, for example in the area of final inspection.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Wu and further in view of Wachter and in view of Tewes (DE 102013113466).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong does not teach and Tewes does teach wherein the vertically elongate surface is a retroreflective surface (Figure 1 shows a testing platform for a lidar sensor, in which element 4 is a reflective area. [0038]: “Alternatively, retroreflectors, in particular radar retroreflectors, can be used. These are characterized by the presence of triple prisms, which consist of right angles. Therefore, at the 1 the element 4 the device 1 advantageously such designed that ribs 7 perpendicular to each other and to the square surfaces 6 are arranged. The shape of the surfaces and ribs can also be non-square, in particular rounded or round.”)
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 lidar testing apparatus of Kong with the teaching of Tewes to include a retroreflector target. Indeed, Tewes notes in [0038] that “it is advantageous to choose the geometry so that the radiation is reflected back in the direction from which it came, as independently as possible of the orientation.” In the context of testing and calibration, this feature can be useful for the proper calibration of distance over long ranges, for example.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Wu and further in view of Wachter and in view of Han (KR 101652291).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Kong does not teach and Han does teach wherein a horizontal cross-section of the target board is triangular (Figure 6, element 100c is a tetrahedral target for the theodolite system of Han, which is designed to make range measurements using a laser rangefinder. The cross-section of a tetrahedron is a triangle, so the tetrahedral target of Han satisfies the limitation of the instant application).
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 target of the LiDAR test apparatus of Kong with the teaching of Han to use a tetrahedral target. Han notes in [0071] that “a tetrahedron is a cube with triangular sides, and since it has a horn shape, a surveying device (200) positioned relatively upward can effectively detect and aim at the aiming point (101) indicated on the side from above, and since it is the largest among cubes with the same volume as the area of the side facing the same direction, the reliability of the surveying results can be increased when surveying using a surveying device (200).”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 113050072) in view of Li (CN 204331026 U).
Regarding Claim 16, Wu discloses an apparatus for testing a Lidar sensor, comprising:
a Lidar sensor platform (Figure 1, [n0007]: “The upper surface of the test platform 11 is used to fix the lidar 21 to be tested”);
a first test sub-system including a target board is for emulating a target located a first distance ([n0068]: “The central controller controls the working status of each electronic control device, realizing the automation of lidar performance testing; and can test performance parameters such as field of view angle, resolution, measurement distance, ranging accuracy, ranging precision, ranging sensitivity, ranging consistency, reflectivity accuracy, reflectivity precision, reflectivity sensitivity, reflectivity consistency, etc., and can also test the influence of distance, target reflectivity, target size, laser incident angle, ambient light intensity, weather and other conditions on various performance parameters.” Note that the device of Wu is fully automated.) from the Lidar sensor platform (Figure 1 element 14, [n0086]:“The electronically controlled target frame 14 is fixedly connected with the electronically controlled rotating bracket 13”); and
Wu does not teach and Li does teach a second test sub-system emulating a target located a second distance from the Lidar sensor platform, the second distance being greater than the first distance (Figure 2, element 142 shows a second motor-controlled [0021] test sub-system located a second further distance from the device under test. In this configuration the target system is aligned along the optical axis [0064] of the LiDAR).
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 device of Wu with the teaching of Li to use a second target located at a further distance from the device under test. Li notes in [0027] that “By changing the targets, moving the relative positions of the targets and changing the height of the targets, the system can adapt to the calibration requirements of different parameter loads and test a variety of loads. The target system has a wider range of applicability.” Having a second target located farther than the first is intrinsic to this set up and helps to achieve these goals, which yield a more efficient and effective calibration device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious a lidar test platform in which a target emulator can simultaneously be a) rotated around an internal axis, b) moved in a vertical arc about the device under test, and c) move in a horizontal arc about the device under test. Hoffmann discloses a compact test module which emulates lidar targets, but does not disclose any motion about the device under test. Pennecot (US 2016/0282453) discloses a robotic arm used to aid in the alignment of lidar devices, which features 6 axis motion, which would be capable of replicating the motion required in this claim. However, this motion is used to adjust the device under test, and not an emulator or target moving about the device under test.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pennecot (US 2016/0282453) discloses a robotic arm used to aid in the alignment of lidar devices, which features 6 axis motion. However, this motion is used to adjust the device under test, and not an emulator or target moving about the device under test.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights