Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 Mar 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 were preliminarily canceled. Applicant now presents Claims 12-24 for examination. The Office rejects Claims 12-24 as detailed below.
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 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone (Malone et al. "IR Spectrometer Using 90-Degree Off-Axis Parabolic Mirrors"; No. DOE/NV--25946-375, National Security Technologies, LLC (US); 2008) in view of Keilaf et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190271767).
As for Claim 12, Malone teaches an imaging optical system that includes at least a first optical element and a second optical element, the first optical element and the second optical element each having a beam-forming effect; …and the first optical element and the second optical element being configured to guide incoming light beams over an optical path of the testing device in such a way that the light beams are imaged over a distance that is shorter than a predefined measuring distance, which an inherent measuring distance of an active optical sensor to be tested (Fig. 1, P2/10, showing two parabolic mirrors reflecting beams from a source to an optical sensor for testing and calibration. For a set measuring length between a source and destination, the mirrors would shorten the direct length between the two by diverting the beam from the most direct path.) Malone does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
But Keilaf teaches wherein the imaging optical system is configured to be situated with respect to a surroundings interface of an active optical sensor to be tested, in such a way that light beams emitted [by the active optical sensor] into the surroundings of the active optical sensor and portions of the emitted light beams reflected or scattered from the surroundings to the active optical sensor in each case pass through the imaging optical system (¶85|1-13, showing lidar system with beam emitting and beam sensing elements combined in a single unit.)
It 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 to combine Malone and Keilaf because using parabolic mirrors to direct light beams in a testing system is an effective way to guide light to a sensor without diffusing the light.
As for Claim 13, which depends on Claim 12, Malone teaches wherein the first optical element is a converging lens or an off-axis parabolic mirror, and the second optical element is a converging lens or an off-axis parabolic mirror (Fig. 1, P2/10, showing two parabolic mirrors reflecting beams from a source to an optical sensor for testing and calibration. Mirrors are off-axis.)
As for Claim 14, which depends on Claim 12, Malone teaches further comprising: a housing that includes at least one first opening, the housing being configured to be stationarily connected at least to the first optical element and to the second optical element in an inner space of the housing, and to guide light beams, emitted by the active optical sensor, to the imaging optical system via the first opening, and to guide reflected or scattered portions of the emitted light beams back to the active optical sensor via the first opening (¶85|1-13, showing lidar system with beam emitting and beam sensing elements combined and housed in a single unit, both emitting and receiving light through a first opening.)
As for Claim 15, which depends on Claim 14, Malone teaches wherein the housing is configured to: shield the optical path of the testing device from extraneous light influences from the surroundings of the testing device (¶85|1-13, showing lidar system with beam emitting and beam sensing elements combined and housed in a single unit, both emitting and receiving light through a first opening.), and/ or absorb, at least in part, scattered light that is generated within the testing device, and/or for light beams that enter through the first opening and are further guided by the imaging system, to radiate the light beams into the surroundings of the testing device via a second opening of the housing, or to reflect or scatter the light beams at an inner surface of the housing.
As for Claim 16, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches wherein the testing device is configured to image a measuring distance of the active optical sensor of at least 50 m over a length of the optical path of the testing device (¶143|19: “Also as shown, scanning of field of view 120 reveals four objects 208: two free-form objects in the near field ( e.g., between 5 and 50 meters), a rounded-square object in the mid field ( e.g., between 50 and 150 meters), and a triangle object in the far field (e.g., between 150 and 500 meters).” That is, anywhere between 50-500m is a known testing range for Lidar sensors.)
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches wherein the testing device is configured to image a measuring distance of the active optical sensor of at least 100 m over a length of the optical path of the testing device (¶143|19: “Also as shown, scanning of field of view 120 reveals four objects 208: two free-form objects in the near field ( e.g., between 5 and 50 meters), a rounded-square object in the mid field ( e.g., between 50 and 150 meters), and a triangle object in the far field (e.g., between 150 and 500 meters).” That is, anywhere between 50-500m is a known testing range for Lidar sensors.)
As for Claim 18, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches wherein the testing device is configured to image a measuring distance of the active optical sensor of at least 150 m, over a length of the optical path of the testing device (¶143|19: “Also as shown, scanning of field of view 120 reveals four objects 208: two free-form objects in the near field ( e.g., between 5 and 50 meters), a rounded-square object in the mid field ( e.g., between 50 and 150 meters), and a triangle object in the far field (e.g., between 150 and 500 meters).” That is, anywhere between 50-500m is a known testing range for Lidar sensors.)
As for Claim 19, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches further comprising: a signal attenuator configured to attenuate the light beams, which are emitted or received by the active optical sensor, to such an extent that the attenuation corresponds to a free space attenuation of a measuring section of the active optical sensor when the testing device is not in use (¶85|22: “In one embodiment, one-way deflector 220 may be a polarizing beam splitter that is virtually transparent to the polarized light beam.”)
As for Claim 20, which depends on Claim 19, Keilaf teaches wherein the signal attenuator is: implemented based on a gray filter, and/or a beam splitter, and/or an LC display; and/or situated within the optical path at a predefined angle with respect to the optical path of the testing device; and/or configured to bring about a variable attenuation (¶85|22: “In one embodiment, one-way deflector 220 may be a polarizing beam splitter that is virtually transparent to the polarized light beam.”)
As for Claim 21, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches further comprising: a predefined reference target, the reference target: being situated and configured, inside or outside the housing, at a predefined distance from the imaging optical system, to reflect or scatter light beams, emitted by the active optical sensor, in a direction of the imaging optical system, and/or having a pattern and/or a size that is adapted to an imaging ratio of the imaging optical system (¶82|10: “An operator at a point of service could examine the calibration of the LIDAR by simple visual inspection of the scanned pattern over a featured target such a test pattern board at a designated distance from LIDAR system 100.”)
As for Claim 22, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches further comprising: a diffuse light source configured to couple interfering light components into the light beams that are emitted or received by the active optical sensor (¶260|4: “For example, a LIDAR system may be susceptible to noise and/or other interferences from, for example, ambient light sources (street lights, tail lights, head lights, sun glare, etc.). Noise and other interferences may make detections and/or depth mapping difficult ( e.g. by having a negative impact on signal to noise ratios).”)
As for Claim 23, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches wherein the testing device is configured to test a LIDAR sensor, the LIDAR sensor being configured as a flash LIDAR sensor, or a point scanner, or a line scanner, or a column scanner (¶82|10: “An operator at a point of service could examine the calibration of the LIDAR by simple visual inspection of the scanned pattern over a featured target such a test pattern board at a designated distance from LIDAR system 100.”)
As for Claim 24, which depends on Claim 12, Keilaf teaches wherein the testing device is configured to check a maximum range of the active optical sensor, and/or an angular precision of the active optical sensor, and/or an angular correctness of the active optical sensor, and/or a resolution of the active optical sensor (¶82|10: “An operator at a point of service could examine the calibration of the LIDAR by simple visual inspection of the scanned pattern over a featured target such a test pattern board at a designated distance from LIDAR system 100.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT THATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner to set up a time or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) system at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The listed patents and published applications [*Entries A-K*] relate to testing photo sensors in lidar systems.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645