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 .
Claim Objections
The following claims objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 11 missing an ending period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the difference". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, 18 recites the limitation "the value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1, 13, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen et al (US 20200049824) in view of Meylan (US 20210199769).
In regards to claim 1, Frederiksen discloses a LiDAR sensor ([0004]) comprising:
an optical element having a light-shaping region (Fig. 1 ref. 13 disclosed as lens);
a light emitter aimed at the optical element (as seen at least in Fig. 1 ref. 20 dashed lines, [0032] discloses “laser beam source 11”), the optical element directing light from the light emitter into a field of illumination (Fig. 4 discloses “the scanning path of a laser beam” accordingly scanning a field of illumination);
while Frederiksen discloses a light detector ([0032] discloses “optical receiver”), Frederiksen does not expressly disclose: the light detector having a field of view overlapping the field of illumination.
Meylan teaches a LIDAR device having a light detector having a field of view which is overlapping the field of illumination (Fig. 1b, refs. 100 200, emitted light, returning light overlapping).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Meylan by providing the means for the light detector to have a field of view which is overlapping the field of illumination in order to allow a greater amount of reflected light from the target to impinge on the detector.
Frederiksen as combined further discloses:
a strain gauge on the optical element (Frederiksen [0020] discloses strain gauge).
In regards to claim 13, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the light-shaping region is transparent (Frederiksen ref. 13 disclosed as lens, accordingly transparent).
In regards to claim 14, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the strain gauge is outside of the light-shaping region.
However, in a further embodiment, Frederiksen teaches sensors located on a periphery of an optical element (Figs. 2, 3 ref. 15 oriented at periphery of ref. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with the further embodiment by providing the strain gauge is outside of the light-shaping region in order to prevent interference with the emitted light.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Meylan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boote et al (US 9764533).
In regards to claim 2, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the optical element includes a base layer and a second layer encapsulating the strain gauge on the base layer.
Boote teaches a sensor, Fig. 3 ref. 16, disposed between layers of an optical element, refs. 11, 11a, 12, encapsulate/enclose ref. 16.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Boote by providing the optical element includes a base layer and a second layer encapsulating the strain gauge on the base layer in order to provide protection for the stain gauge and power leads.
Claim 3, 5-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Meylan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rayford, II et al. (US 11581481).
In regards to claim 3, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the optical element (Frederiksen ref. 13) has an inboard side and an outboard side (Frederiksen as seen at least in Fig. 1 for ref. 13), the light emitter being aimed at the inboard side (Frederiksen as seen at least in Fig. 1 for ref. 13) and
Frederiksen does not expressly disclose as taught by Rayford: the strain gauge being on the inboard side (Fig. 2 ref. 28 on inboard side of ref. 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Rayford by providing the strain gauge being on the inboard side in order to allow the stain gauge to be protected from external damage.
In regards to claim 5, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a controller programmed to control operation of the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of strain on the optical element.
Rayford teaches a controller for a LIDAR device ([0013]) which controls operation of the LIDAR device based on signals from a sensor to the controller indicating a fault or damage in the optical element/lens (abstract “A controller arranged to drive the at least two transducers to input energy into the optical surface to produce an energy wave within the optical sensor surface to dislodge debris from the optical sensor surface”, [0050] “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Rayford by providing a controller programmed to control operation of the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of strain on the optical element in order to prevent damage or inaccurate readings by powering off.
In regards to claim 6, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 5, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a printed-circuit board, the controller being on the printed circuit board, the strain gauge being directly connected to the printed-circuit board.
Melan teaches printed-circuit boards used in LIDAR devices, the circuit boards holding processing devices and connected to detectors/sensors ([0147] “Said processing means may be embedded onto the same integrated circuit as the one of the detector 20”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Meylan by providing the means for the printed-circuit board with the controller being on the printed circuit board and the strain gauge being directly connected to the printed-circuit board in order to decrease to distance between the strain gauge/sensor and the processor for reaction time.
In regards to claim 7, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a controller programmed to disable the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of damage to the optical element.
Rayford teaches a controller for a LIDAR device which controls operation of the LIDAR device based on signals from a sensor (abstract) to the controller (ref. 20) indicating a fault or damage in the optical element/lens and shutting off the device ([0050] “An algorithm or predetermined signature of the energy wave could be utilized within the contemplation of this disclosure. The predetermined signature is saved in the memory device 22 is used to determine the presence of and kind of debris 40 or crack 44 is on the optical surface 26…If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Rayford by providing a controller programmed to control operation of the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of strain on the optical element in order to prevent damage or inaccurate readings by powering off.
In regards to claim 8, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a controller programmed to enable the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of strain on the optical element indicating that the optical element is intact. To enable/activate function or feature. Optical element intact/usable within parameters.
Rayford teaches a controller for a LIDAR device ([0013]) which controls operation of the LIDAR device based on signals from a sensor to the controller indicating a fault or damage in the optical element/lens (abstract “A controller arranged to drive the at least two transducers to input energy into the optical surface to produce an energy wave within the optical sensor surface to dislodge debris from the optical sensor surface”, [0050] “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor”, thus enabling the operation of the sensor, operation of the control algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Rayford by providing a controller programmed to enable the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of strain on the optical element indicating that the optical element is intact in order to indicate/determine if damage or obstruction has occurred and powering off.
In regards to claim 9, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the controller is programmed to disable the light emitter based on detection by the strain gauge of damage to the optical element (Frederiksen as combined, Rayford [0050] “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor”).
In regards to claim 10, Frederiksen as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a controller programmed to: repeatedly measure strain measurements of the optical element; and disable the light emitter in response to a determination that a variation of one of the strain measurements in comparison to one or more previous strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged.
Rayford teaches repeatedly measuring a sensor ([0052] The process is continually repeated until the surface 26 is cleaned. For example, detection and targeting continues throughout operation of the sensor”), Rayford teaches the controller is programmed to disable the device based on sensor detection of an optical element (Rayford [0050] “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor”) based on measurements in comparison to one or more previous strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged ([0016], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Rayford by providing the means for a controller programmed to repeatedly measure strain measurements of the optical element and to disable the light emitter in response to a determination that a variation of one of the strain measurements in comparison to one or more previous strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged in order to provide continuous monitoring of the LIDAR lens surface for damage or obstruction.
In regards to claim 11, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 10, wherein the determination that the variation indicates that the optical element is damaged includes a determination of the value of the difference between the one of the strain measurements and one previous strain measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Rayford [0016] “a controller contains a memory device containing data comprising a library of predefined attributes of the energy wave corresponding to a category of debris and determining that debris is present on the optical sensor surface further comprises comparing at least one sensed attribute of the energy wave within the optical sensor surface with the predefined attributes of the energy wave and determining that debris is present based on the comparison meeting a predefined acceptance criteria, [0050] “The predetermined signature is saved in the memory device 22 is used to determine the presence of and kind of debris 40 or crack 44 is on the optical surface 26. Each kind of debris 40 or crack has a specific signature that is produced when exposed to the input energy wave”)
In regards to claim 12, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 10, wherein the determination that the variation indicates that the optical element is damaged includes a determination that the one of the strain measurements deviates from a pattern of a plurality of previous strain measurements (Rayford [0050] “The predetermined signature is saved in the memory device 22 is used to determine the presence of and kind of debris 40 or crack 44 is on the optical surface 26”).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Meylan, Rayford as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Boote et al. (US 9764533).
In regards to claim 4, Frederiksen as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 3, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the optical element includes a base layer having the inboard side and the outboard side and a second layer on the inboard side, the second layer encapsulating the strain gauge on the inboard side.
Boote Fig. 3 teaches a base layer ref. 11a. having inboard side, inboard into the layered optical element, second layer ref. 12 with sensor encapsulated/enclosed by ref. 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen as combined with Boote by providing the optical element includes a base layer having the inboard side and the outboard side and a second layer on the inboard side, the second layer encapsulating the strain gauge on the inboard side in order to provide protection for the stain gauge and power leads.
Claim 15, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Meylan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20240004078).
In regards to claim 15, Frederiksen discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the optical element is a diffuser.
Chen teaches a diffuser used in a LIDAR device (Fig. 9b, diffuser oriented in front of light source).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Chen by providing the optical element is a diffuser in order to shape the emitted light for optimal coverage of a given area.
In regards to claim 16, Frederiksen as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 15, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising another diffuser between the optical element and the light emitter. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide another diffuser between the optical element and the light emitter in order to shape the emitted light to given profile for optimal area coverage, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen et al (US 202000498240) in view of Rayford, II et al. (US 11581481).
In regards to claim 17, Frederiksen discloses a method of operating a LiDAR sensor (abstract [0020] discloses strain gauge), while Frederiksen discloses a strain gauge ([0020] discloses strain gauge), Frederiksen does not expressly disclose: repeatedly measuring strain measurements in an optical element;
Rayford teaches repeating a process involving polling a detector ([0052] discloses “The process is continually repeated until the surface 26 is cleaned. For example, detection and targeting continues throughout operation of the sensor. Once the surface 26 is clean, the detection wave is emitted to detect the presence of additional debris. The first detection wave 64 may be continuous or actuated after a predefined time”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Rayford by providing the means for repeatedly measuring strain measurements in an optical element in order to maintain the functional status of the device to determine if the device is damaged.
Frederiksen as combined further discloses:
determining that the strain measurements indicate that the optical element is intact (Frederiksen [0020] “damage may be detected, for example, with the aid of integrated resistance measuring strips or strain gauges, in order to detect damage to the disk or lens of the exit aperture”);
enabling a light emitter aimed at the optical element to emit light at the optical element in response to the determination that the optical element is intact (Rayford [0050] “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor”, enabling the operation of the sensor, operation of the control algorithm);
after enabling the light emitter (Frederiksen, power is maintained if no damage or obstruction found), determining that a subsequent one of the strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged (Frederiksen, as power is maintained to the device, the process of [0050] is repeated); and
disabling the light emitter in response to the subsequent one of the strain measurements (Rayford [0050] “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor”).
Claim 18, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Rayford as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kornbluth et al. (US 20230055880).
In regards to claim 18, Frederiksen discloses the method as set forth in claim 17, but does not expressly disclose: wherein determining that the subsequent one of the strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged includes determining that the value of the difference between the subsequent one of the strain measurements and at least one previous strain measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
Kornbluth teaches using subsequent sensor measurements in indicating the optical element is damaged ([0063] “the detection algorithm is configured to monitor and record when there is a sudden change in the signal (e.g., the voltage or current realized from the electrical contacts, for example) of more than a threshold (e.g., 5%, 10%, etc.) since the last measurement. Such a deviation may trigger the system to realize a crack in the windshield”, [0065], Fig. 10)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Kornbluth by providing the means for the control to determining that the subsequent one of the strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged includes determining that the value of the difference between the subsequent one of the strain measurements and at least one previous strain measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold value in order to use frequent updated measurements for the most recent determination.
In regards to claim 19, Frederiksen discloses the method as set forth in claim 17, wherein determining that the subsequent one of the strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged includes determining that the value of the difference between the subsequent one of the strain measurements and at least one previous strain measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold value over a predetermined period of time.
Kornbluth teaches using subsequent sensor measurements in indicating the optical element is damaged ([0063] “the detection algorithm is configured to monitor and record when there is a sudden change in the signal (e.g., the voltage or current realized from the electrical contacts, for example) of more than a threshold (e.g., 5%, 10%, etc.) since the last measurement. Such a deviation may trigger the system to realize a crack in the windshield”, “since the last measurement” indicating over a period of time has occurred between measurements, [0030] “the signal received by detectors 18 are consistent over time”, [0034])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Frederiksen with Kornbluth by providing the means for the subsequent one of the strain measurements indicates that the optical element is damaged includes determining that the value of the difference between the subsequent one of the strain measurements and at least one previous strain measurement exceeds a predetermined threshold value over a predetermined period of time in order to use frequent updated measurements for the most recent determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display LIDAR and similar systems having windshields, optical elements and devices for determining a fault with these.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642