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 . Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending. Claim 9 was cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s response tries to distinguish a more detailed version of claim 9 incorporated into claim 1 by arguing that Lipscomb fails to teach a test housing enclosing an object, a laser, an energy detector a beam splitter and an object to be detected but does not address the teachings of the other cited art.
While Lipscomb does in fact fail to teach some of the new limitations added to claim 1 as pointed out in the office action response, these new limitations are taught by the primary reference, US 5,282,014 (Ruhl), which describes an optical assembly 5a (analogous to a test chamber) that includes a window 18 and encloses a laser 27, energy detector 24/25, beam splitter 19 and optics/attenuator 28 (analogous to object to be detected). The rejection has been updated and fully articulated below but essentially the testing apparatus shown in FIG. 2 of Ruhl and modified by Horn is incorporated into the clean room configuration taught by Lipscomb to render newly amended claim 1 obvious.
Examiner encourages the Applicant to consider narrowing the claims to more clearly define the position of the claimed elements relative to the beam splitter. For example, none of the cited art of record shows the object to be detected arranged on a side of the beam splitter opposite the laser or the light being emitted from the LIDAR device passing through or between one or more lasers to arrive at the camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,282,014 (hereinafter Ruhl) in view of US PG Pub 20060044545 (hereinafter Horn) and further in view of US Patent 5,872,626 (hereinafter Lipscomb).
Regarding Claim 1, Ruhl teaches an apparatus for testing a Lidar sensor module (laser rangefinder 1), the apparatus comprising;
a camera (energy detectors 24/25 detect light emitted by a laser of the sensor module, see FIG. 2),
at least one laser (laser 27) for generating at least one return pulse (col 5 lines 45- 48 describe how optics 28 characterize emissions of laser 27 to be representative of an actual laser reflection from a real world target) on the basis of test signals of the at least one laser,
an optical beam splitter (beamsplitter module 19, see FIG. 2) in a beam path between the sensor module (laser rangefinder 1) and an absorber (optics 28, col 5 lines 45-48 described optics 28 as having an attenuation function), and
wherein the camera is arranged perpendicularly to the beam path between the sensor module and the absorber (energy detectors 24/25 are oriented perpendicular to the beam path between rangefinder 1 and optics 28).
Ruhl does not explicitly teach: (1) a configuration in which the camera has a first optical distance to an object to be detected which is greater than a second optical distance between the lidar sensor module and the object to be detected, or (2) a climatically controlled chamber that accommodates the lidar sensor module to be tested: and a test chamber that is separate from the climatically controlled chamber and that accommodates the camera, the at least one laser, the optical beam splitter, the absorber, and the object to be detected, wherein the lidar sensor module is optically connected to the test chamber via a window of the climatically controlled chamber.
However, Horn teaches (1) a configuration where a laser sensor (see sensor 50) is offset farther from a splitter 20 than a laser 10, such that “the camera (sensor 50, see FIG. 1) has an optical distance to an object to be detected (object 70, see FIG. 1) which is greater than the optical distance between the lidar sensor module and the object to be detected”.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the calibration device of Ruhl using the teachings of Horn to incorporate splitter 25 in order to add a second sensor (similar to sensor 55 of Horn) for either redundant laser energy monitoring or to allow for the calibration assembly of Ruhl to operate with an object to be detected at different physical distances (e.g., distances A and B as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 of Horn). Both Ruhl and Horn are analogous art as they both relate to the measurement of distance using laser-based sensors. Addition of the splitter 25 and lens 30 of Horn to the configuration of Ruhl would move the sensors 24/25 of Ruhl farther away and result in a configuration in which the “the camera (sensor 50, see FIG. 1) has an optical distance to an object to be detected (optics/attenuator 28, see FIG. 2 of Ruhl. Examiner notes that while a distance to optics 28 is not measured by the LIDAR under test, the instant specification identifies the object to be detected 20 as what appears to merely be a reflective optical surface that allows the light emitted from lasers 14/15 to reflect back to the LIDAR under test and is also not representative of a simulated distance being measured by the LIDAR under test and consequently the object to be detected limitation has been construed broadly) which is greater than the optical distance between the lidar sensor module and the object to be detected”.
The combination of Ruhl and Horn fails to teach (2) a climatically controlled chamber that accommodates the lidar sensor module to be tested: and a test chamber that is separate from the climatically controlled chamber and that accommodates the camera, the at least one laser, the optical beam splitter, the absorber, and the object to be detected, wherein the lidar sensor module is optically connected to the test chamber via a window of the climatically controlled chamber.
However, Lipscomb teaches a climatically controlled chamber (clean room 205, see FIG. 2 of Lipscomb) that accommodates a lidar sensor module to be tested (LTU 360 is shown in FIG. 4 as being on test station 210, which is shown to be in clean room 205): and a test chamber (light-tight beam housing 380) that is separate from the climatically controlled chamber (205), wherein the lidar sensor module is optically connected to the test chamber.
Lipscomb and the combination of Ruhl and Horn are both directed to testing of laser emitting devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Ruhl and Horn by incorporating the testing configuration taught by the combination into the climatically controlled chamber 205 taught by Lipscomb to reduce the likelihood of performance variation due to undesired changes in temperature during testing. Modifying the teachings in this way would result in an apparatus including an optical assembly 5a, as shown in FIG. 2 of Ruhl, having an entrance window 18 through which light is exchanged with laser rangefinder 1. Optical assembly 5a (analogous to a test chamber) encloses a laser 27, energy detector 24/25, beam splitter 19 and optics 28 (analogous to object to be detected), thereby covering the newly added limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Lipscomb as applied to claim 1 also teaches an apparatus for testing as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the first optical distance to an object to be detected is twice the second optical distance between the lidar sensor module and the object to be detected (Examiner notes that since the configuration taught by Horn allows for variations in distance between object to be detected 70 and splitter 20, the resulting apparatus of Ruhl as modified by Horn does teach a configuration in which the optical distance to an object to be detected can be twice the optical distance between the lidar sensor module and the object to be detected).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Lipscomb as applied to claim 1 teaches an apparatus for testing as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the test signals of the at least one laser generate an illumination structured using a pattern (see col 10 lines 44 – 63 of Ruhl, describing applying a pulse pattern to the laser output based on detected output of the laser pulses detected at sensors 24/25).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ruhl and Horn as applied to claim 1 teaches an apparatus for testing as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the beam splitter splits output signals of the lidar sensor module (FIG. 2 of Ruhl shows light emitted by laser rangefinder 1 being split by beamsplitter 19a between detector module 20 and transmitter module 21), the test signals of the lasers (FIG. 2 of Ruhl also shows lasers emitted by laser 27 going through beamsplitter 19a to be detected by laser rangefinder 1), and also the return signals from the object to be detected (FIG.2 of Ruhl also shows simulated return signals emitted by laser 27 and modified by optics 28 pass through beamsplitter 19a).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Lipscomb teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 9, characterized in that the test chamber is filled using a dry gas. In particular, Lipscomb describes the use of a clean room for testing of the laser emitting devices. Clean rooms are known to minimize contamination by controlling among other parameters humidity and so would be configured to distribute dry gas into the test chamber.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl, Horn and Lipscomb as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Patent 8711484 (hereinafter Yeo) and US20210190493 (hereinafter Yuasa).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Ruhl and Horn as applied to claim 1 teaches an apparatus for testing as claimed in claim 1, however this combination does not provide any details with regards to the reflectivity characteristics of the beam splitter.
However, Yeo teaches a conventional parallel plate beam splitter 100 having a first coating on a first face of substrate 118 and a second coating having a different reflectivity on a second face of substrate 118 (see FIG. 1 and col 2 lines 38-49).
Yeo and the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Lipscomb both pertain to laser emitting devices with beam splitters for redirecting light emitted by the beam splitting devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the beamsplitter taught by the combination of Ruhl and Horn by applying a lower reflectivity, anti-reflective coating on a back side of the beam splitter so as to reduce the incidence of ghost images as described in col 3 lines 8-11.
The combination of Ruhl, Horn, Lipscomb and Yeo does not specifically teach that one side of the beam splitter reflects 1% and the other side of the beam splitter reflects 0.25% of the incident light.
However, Yuasa at [0062] describes the use of a beam splitter 34 that reflects only 1% of the light incident to it. Consequently, a person having ordinary skill in the art would apply the teachings of Yuasa to the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Yeo to modify the beamsplitter taught by the combination in order to output a low power reference light less likely to oversaturate the sensor monitoring the output of the laser. Furthermore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious to establish a lower reflectivity on an second side of the beam splitter, such as at 0.25% reflectivity to avoid the incidents of ghosts as described in col 2 lines 38-49 of Yeo.
8. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl in view of Horn and Lipscomb as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of CN109031250A (hereinafter Lai).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Lipscomb teaches the apparatus for testing as recited in claim 1, but does not specifically describe the emission of test signals a laser to generate a uniformly diffuse illumination.
However, Lai teaches the use of multiple sources of light to illuminate a target, similar to the instant application (see laser beam return source 18 and bias light noise source 19 as depicted in FIG. 1, where bias light noise source 19 produces background noise spread across the target to simulate real world conditions such as the Sun, see background section).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the bias light noise source 19 in order to allow for more real world conditions when testing performance of a LIDAR system (see background of Lai describing advantages of simulation of outdoor conditions).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ruhl, Horn and Lai as applied to Claim 3 teach the apparatus for testing as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that a background illumination having LEDs is used, which operate at different luminous intensities and is used as a disturbance variable of the measurement (incorporation of bias light noise source 19 would create a source of noise that simulates a sunlight background in real time, see background of Lai).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl in view of Horn, Lipscomb and Lai as applied to Claim 3 and further in view of US20200319474 (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ruhl in view of Horn, Lipscomb and Lai as applied to claim 1 teaches an apparatus for testing as claimed in claim 3. The combination fails to teach a single laser having an upstream filter changer that generates both diffuse light and also an illumination structured using a pattern.
However, Ma teaches a single laser having an upstream filter changer (diffractive element 2104, see FIG. 16B operable to switch by adjusting polarity of incoming light… please note that other methods are contained within Ma that describe various ways to initiate switching between light outputs) that generates both diffuse light (see projection 1614) and also an illumination structured using a pattern (see projection 1612).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ma to the apparatus taught by the combination of Ruhl, Horn, Lipscomb and Lai, since doing so would reduce the number of light sources needed to generate both structured and diffuse light. Ma, Ruhl, Horn and Lai are all analogous references as all relate to the emission of laser light.
Conclusion
10. 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 DAVID WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights