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 . Claims 3, 8 and 16 were canceled by the Applicant on 5/13/26. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-15 and 17-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn following cancellation of claims 3 and 16.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 14 has been overcome by amendment. However, the amendments to claims 2, 7, 15 and 20 left additional ambiguity as to the scope of the claims and so claims 2, 7 and 15-20 remain rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Steinberg is fundamentally a dual-sensor architecture.
This is not the case. [0233] of Steinberg specifically states that “the sensor or sensor element used for calibration may be include with or may form part of sensor 806”, see FIG. 8C. It’s also clear the sensor architecture from FIG. 8C can be incorporated into the configuration of FIG. 8A, which shows some of light components 854 arriving at a periphery of sensor 806.
Applicant also argues that Steinberg’s calibration is performed at a signal-processing level instead of making changes to sensor parameters. Examiner’s understanding of this argument is that Applicant alleges that rather than making adjustments to the sensor sensitivity, Steinberg is limited to subtracting the references sensor from the signal sensor inputs for calibration purposes.
As Applicant points out, Steinberg does teach an operating mode in which the reference signal is subtracted from the signal received at the portion of the sensor configured to receive light reflected off objects external to the LIDAR sensor housing in order to reduce ambient noise. However, this is not the only way in which the reference signal is used.
[0241] of Steinberg, cited in the previous rejection of Claim 1, teaches using a stored previous response of first region 887 of 806 and corresponding stored response of second region within outer boundary 877 of 806 in a known lighting condition stored in a lookup table as a basis for calibration of detection unit 806 by applying a particular correction factor to operational parameter values of respective sensor element.
[0323] of Steinberg clarifies that an operating parameter can refer to a sensor sensitivity. Since the sensitivity of a SiPM type sensor is adjusted by changing a reverse voltage bias supplied to the sensor, Steinberg teaches calibrating the detection unit by applying a reverse bias voltage to the detection unit based on a difference between the voltage value and a baseline voltage value (lookup table value from [0241]).
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.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-11, 15 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, as amended, they are now indefinite for requiring the one reflective component claimed in claims 1 and 14 to be two reflective components (first reflective component and a second reflective component) in claims 2 and 15. Examiner suggests deletion of the limitation “a reflective component” and describe the scanning unit as being responsible for spreading the light beam. For example, limitations from claim 1 could be amended to eliminate the reflective component limitation as shown in the following markup below:
“a scanning unit for spreading a light beam from the light source” and
“ redirecting the light beam towards an inner surface of the housing instead of the environment using the scanning unit”.
Claim 2 could then be amended by replacing the term “the reflective component” with “the scanning unit” to overcome the 112(b) rejection. Claims 14 and 15 could be amended similarly to the suggestions for Claims 1 and 2 to overcome the rejection to claim 15.
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, they are indefinite since they now require the second portion to be aligned with the housing and it’s not clear what it means for the second portion to be aligned with the housing. Examiner requests clarification as to the meaning of the claim term either by reference to the text of the specification or preferably to one of the figures.
Regarding Claims 4-7 and 10-11, they are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding Claims 17-20, they are rejected due to their dependency on claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 20200249324 (hereinafter Steinberg).
Regarding Claim 1, Steinberg teaches:
A method of calibrating a Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, the LIDAR system mounted to a Self-driving car (SDC) (110, see FIG. 1A showing LIDAR system 100 mounted to vehicle 110) operating in an environment, the LIDAR system (802, see [0217] describing similarities between LIDAR system 100 and LIDAR system 802) having a light source (812), a scanning unit (deflector 814), a detection unit (806), and a housing (AA, see marked up FIG. 8A below),
the scanning unit including a reflective component (814) for spreading a light beam (813) from the light source;
the scanning unit (814) and the detection unit (806, see FIG. 8C) being located inside the housing, the housing having a window (BB, see marked up FIG. 8A below) towards the environment and providing cover for the scanning unit and the detection unit from environmental light sources;
the detection unit (806, is described as being similar to sensor 116 in [0218], which is described in [0153] as being a SiPM device) being a single detection unit configured to receive both a light beam reflected by an inner surface of the housing (received in area 888 of sensor 806) and an other light beam coming from the environment (received in area 877 of sensor 806) (Examiner notes that recitation of a single detection unit does not distinguish the claim over a prior art LIDAR system having multiple sensors where a single detection unit from the prior art satisfies the associated claim limitations);
during operation of the LIDAR system:
actuating the reflective component (814) for redirecting the light beam (see light beam 852 reflecting off an internal surface of housing AA & reference [0217] describing actuation of 814) towards an inner surface (CC, see marked up FIG. 8A below) of the housing instead of the environment;
determining, by the detection unit (a first region of 806 corresponding to the area indicated by outer boundary 877 as shown in FIG. 8C), a voltage value in response to capturing a returning light beam (854, FIG. 8C shows how calibration sensor 887 and/or 888 can be incorporated into a peripheral region of sensor 806), the returning light beam (854) being the light beam (852) reflected by the inner surface (CC) of the housing (BB) instead of being an other light beam coming from the environment;
calibrating the detection unit (806) by applying a reverse bias voltage onto the detection unit (806 is a SiPM sensor, which is an array of SPAD sensors whose sensitivity is adjusted by applying a particular reverse bias voltage), a value of the reverse bias voltage being based on a difference between the voltage value and a baseline voltage value, the baseline voltage value being a given voltage value that a calibrated detection unit determines when the returning light beam is returning from the inner surface of the housing ([0241], describes using a stored previous response of first region 887 of 806 and corresponding stored response of second region within outer boundary 877 of 806 in a known lighting condition as a basis for calibration of operating parameter(s) of detection unit 806 in light of current response of first region 887 of 806. [0323] clarifies sensor sensitivity as being an operating parameter).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises generating, by the detection unit, an analog signal representative of the returning light beam ([0233] describes the detection unit as being formed from APDs, which when operating as LIDAR sensors by default generate analog signal representations of any light they detect), the calibrating comprising:
modifying the analog signal based on the difference between the voltage value and the baseline voltage value (As described above with regards to claim 1, the recalibration would be based on the difference between the voltage value and the baseline voltage value. Sensitivity changes made to the sensor during the recalibration of the detection unit would also modify the analog signal output of the APDs. Consequently, the resulting modification to the analog signal would also be based on the difference between the voltage value and baseline voltage value).
Regarding Claim 12, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is operating during operation of the SDC ([0237] describes how calibration can be performed at any time during operation of the LIDAR system & [0203] states that any of the embodiments described in Steinberg can be disposed on various platform types including the vehicle-based LIDAR platform system 100).
Regarding Claim 13, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detection unit comprises one or more photodiodes (FIG. 8C show sensor 806 including a grid of sensor elements and [0233] states sensor 806 can take the form of a SiPM including a group of avalanche type photodiodes).
Regarding Claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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 2, 4-7, 10-11, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of US PG Pub 20200025928 (hereinafter Gaalema).
Regarding Claim 2, Steinberg teaches the method of claim 1, (814) (852) towards the inner surface of the housing (AA) instead of the environment.
Steinberg fails to specifically teach where the scan unit includes a second reflective component and instead shows a configuration in which a single reflective component is responsible for moving emitted light along multiple axes.
However, Gaalema teaches a scanner 120 that includes multiple reflective components (mirrors 300-1 and 300-2 as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4) where both reflective components cooperatively rotate in independent axes to generate a two dimensional scan pattern.
Gaalema and Steinberg both describe LIDAR systems using at least one mirror to output light from a LIDAR housing in a two dimensional scan pattern and are thus analogous art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Gaalema described above with those of Steinberg to modify the single reflective component scanner configuration taught by Steinberg to implement rotation of two discrete reflective components in horizontal and vertical axes since the person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the known improvement of the multi-mirror assembly described in Gaalema applying a known technique to a known base device, the multi-axis single mirror assembly described in Steinberg. According to Gaalema, a LIDAR scanner may use either one or two rotating mirrors (see [0031] discussing scanner 120 using one or more mirrors). Using one or the other is simply a design choice with tradeoffs. Using two rotating reflective components provides the advantage of easier control of 2D scanning independently and hence more flexibility in directing the laser beam.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first reflective component is a pivotable reflective component (300-1, as shown in FIG. 4 of Gaalema is a spinning polygonal mirror), the actuating comprising:
pivoting the pivotable reflective component to a position in which the light beam is redirected towards the inner surface of the housing instead of the second reflective component (Steinberg in FIG. 8A shows the use of a pivotable reflector 814 to divert a portion of the light being emitted from the LIDAR housing toward an interior surface of the housing).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the second reflective component is a rotatable multifaceted reflective component (see mirror 300-1 as shown in FIG. 4) spreading the light beam along a Field of View (FOV), the FOV having (i) a first portion aligned with the window of the housing for scanning the environment, and (ii) a second portion misaligned with the window (FIG. 8A of Steinberg shows how a first portion of the light beam 813 is emitted through the window (BB) and a second portion 852 reflects off a interior facing surface of the housing adjacent to the window),
the actuating comprising:
rotating the rotatable multifaceted reflective component so that the light beam is redirected along the second portion of the FOV and towards the inner surface of the housing instead of the window (FIG. 8A of Steinberg shows a reflective component directs a first portion of light beam 813 through the window (BB) and a second portion 852 toward an interior facing surface of the housing adjacent to the window),
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 5 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the first portion is useful for detecting an object in the environment ([0217] describing illumination of LIDAR FOV 820) and the second portion is useful for the calibrating the detection unit instead of the detecting the object (FIG. 8A, 8C and [0222] of Steinberg describe how light 854 reflected off the interior surface (CC) of the housing (AA) is collected by a sensor 806 to calibrate parameters associated with operation of sensor 806).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 5 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the second portion of the FOV is aligned with the housing on at least one side of the window (FIG. 8A shows light ray 852 incident to just one side of window BB, which is interpreted such that FOV 820 is the first portion of the FOV and light ray 852 represents at least a part of the second portion of the FOV, which is only misaligned on one side of window BB).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first axis is orthogonal to the second axis (FIG. 3 of Gaalema shows a multi-reflector scanner configuration in which a first portion of output beam 125 between mirrors 300-1 and 300-2 is orthogonal to a second portion of output beam 125 between mirror 300-1 and target 130).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Steinberg and Gaalema as applied to claim 2 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first reflective component horizontally spreads the light beam and the second reflective component vertically spreads the light beam (FIG. 3 of Gaalema shows a multi-reflector scanner configuration in which reflective component 300-2 vertically spreads the light beam and reflective component 300-1 horizontally spreads the light beam).
Regarding Claims 15 and 17-20 they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 4-7.
Conclusion
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 WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm ET.
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