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 .
DETAILED ACTION
PATH TO ALLOWANCE
Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to the instant office action to discuss minor claim amendments and clarifications in a scheduled interview to assist with placing the application in a Condition for Allowance as well as cure deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b).
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 pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 12-13 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 12-13 each recite ‘the coarse attenuator” and “the fine attenuator” whereby ‘a coarse attenuator” and “a fine attenuator” were not previously defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIELKE et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023-0176198) in view of TAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0373137) in view of WANG (Pub. No: US 2022-0128661)
As per Claim 1 MIELKE discloses A system for calibrating light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors, the system comprising (Figs. 1, 3, 7 LIDAR 100 [Abstract] calibration [0101-0102]):
an optical transmission source (Figs. 1, 3, 7 [0101-0102] mirror 310 [0105]); a coarse adjustment optically coupled to the optical transmission source (Figs. 1, 3, 7 [0101-0102] mirror 310 – fine and coarse capable [0105]);
an optical device optically coupled to the coarse adjustment (Figs. 1, 3, 7 [0101-0102] mirror 310 coupled/integrated to device scanner 120 [0105]); a splitter optically coupled to the optical device (Figs. 1, 3, 7 splitting of 110 [0068] [0101-0102] [0105]);
wherein the fine adjustments are each associates with a LiDAR sensor of the LiDAR sensors under test (Figs. 1, 3, 7 [0101-0102] mirror 310 – fine and coarse capable [0105]); lens for each of the LiDAR sensors under test (Fig. 3 lens 330 [0074]), light passes through the coarse adjustment, the optical device to illuminate the LiDAR sensors under test (Figs. 1, 3, 7 [0068] [0101-0102] passes through mirror 310 [0105])
MIELKE does not disclose but TAN discloses a lens optically coupled to the fine adjustment, wherein light from the optical transmission source passes the fine adjustments and the lenses (Figs. 1-4 [Abstract] lens 212 lidar 200 [0033, 0036, 0040-0041] LIDAR/lenes coupled to the fine tuning [0048] light passage [0075-0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lens optically coupled to the fine adjustment, wherein light from the optical transmission source passes the fine adjustments and the lenses as taught by TAN into the system of MIELKE because of the benefit taught by TAN to further disclose fine adjustment capabilities in LIDAR based systems whereby MIELKE mentions briefly and conceptually fine and coarse adjustment capabilities for LIDAR based measurements and would benefit from further defining control aspects in the same field of endeavor as related feature improvements for said system.
MIELKE and TAN do not disclose but WANG discloses a fine adjustment for each of the LiDAR sensors under test optically coupled to the splitter (Fig. 8 lidar system 800 – splitter 102 [0026-0027] fine tune [0031-0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fine adjustment for each of the LiDAR sensors under test optically coupled to the splitter as taught by WANG into the system of MIELKE and TAN because of the benefit taught by WANG to disclose in addition to TAN further LIDAR fine-tune control adjustments for LIDARs under test as with both prior art MIELKE and TAN whereby said included system reveals additional improvements and techniques adding splitter functionality to expand upon the related teachings of MIELKE and TAN.
As per Claim 2 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 1, wherein MIELKE does not disclose but TAN discloses the optical transmission source is a pulsed laser (Figs. 1-2, 8 [0003] [0037] [0055] [0079-0081]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 2).
As per Claim 5 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 1 further comprising a controller coupled to receive feedback from the LiDAR sensors under test (Figs. 1, 3, 7 LIDAR controller 150 [Abstract] [0034] [0061]).
As per Claim 13 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 1, wherein:
the optical transmission source is coupled to the coarse attenuator via free space (Figs. 1, 3, 7 [0101-0102] mirror 310 freely coupled/integrated to device scanner 120 [0105]); the coarse attenuator is coupled to the optical device via free space (Figs. 1, 3, 7 scanner 120 [0068] [0101-0102] [0105]); the optical device is coupled to the splitter via free space (Figs. 1, 3, 7 freely splitting of 110 [0068] [0101-0102] [0105])
MIELKE does not disclose but TAN discloses and the fine attenuators are coupled to the lenses via free space (Figs. 1-4 [Abstract] lens 212 lidar 200 [0033, 0036, 0040-0041] LIDAR/lenes freely coupled to the fine tuning [0048] light passage [0075-0076]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 13)
MIELKE and TAN do not disclose but WANG discloses the splitter is coupled to the fine attenuators via free space (Fig. 8 lidar system 800 – splitter 102 [0026-0027] freely fine tune [0031-0033]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 13)
As per Claim 14 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 1, wherein MIELKE and TAN do not disclose but WANG discloses the optical device is transparent (antenna [0050]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 14).
As per Claim 15 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the optical device is a spatial light modulator ([0028, 0035] [0065-0068]) that imparts a pattern onto the light through the optical device (Figs. 1-2, 5 patterns 200 [0047] [0070-0072]).
As per Claim 16 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the optical device is a phase grating that imparts a pattern onto the light through the optical device (Figs. 1-2, 5 patterns 200 [0047-0048] [0067-0068] [0070-0072]).
Claims 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIELKE et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023-0176198) in view of TAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2021-0373137)
As per Claim 17 MIELKE discloses A system for calibrating light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors, the system comprising (Figs. 1, 3, 7 LIDAR 100 [Abstract] calibration [0101-0102]):an optical transmission source (See said analysis for Claim 1); a coarse adjustment optically coupled to the optical transmission source (See said analysis for Claim 1); an optical device optically coupled to the coarse adjustment (See said analysis for Claim 1) a fine adjustment optically coupled to the optical device (See said analysis for Claim 1); a lens (See said analysis for Claim 1), wherein light from the optical transmission source passes through the coarse adjustment, the optical device to illuminate a LiDAR sensor under test (See said analysis for Claim 1)
MIELKE does not disclose but TAN discloses a lens optically coupled to the fine adjustment, wherein light from the optical transmission source passes the fine adjustments and the lenses (See said analysis for Claim1)
As per Claim 19 MIELKE discloses The system of claim 17 further comprising a controller coupled to receive feedback from the LiDAR sensors under test (See said analysis for Claim 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-12, 18, 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and but for outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b)
Claims 3-4, 6-12, 18, 20 is/are allowed, but for outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the splitter comprises: a relay lens; a motorized rotation stage optically coupled to the first relay lens; a half-wave plate optically coupled to the motorized rotation stage; and a polarized beam splitter for each of the LiDAR sensors under test" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1 wherein: the optical transmission source comprises: a splitter; an optical device for frequency modification; pulsed laser sources operating at separate wavelengths; and the transmission source optically couples to the LiDAR sensors under test via a polarized beam splitter for each wavelength tested" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 5, wherein: the fine adjustments are variable attenuators; and the controller controls, based on the feedback, the variable attenuators individually to incrementally let the light through the fine adjustments until the saturation level of the associated LiDAR sensor under test is reached" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 6, wherein the controller averages the feedback from each of the LiDAR sensors over time such that the controller creates a number of average feedbacks equal to the number of LiDAR sensors under test" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 6, wherein: the lenses are variable focus lenses; and the controller controls, based on the feedback, the variable focus lenses individually to increment, based on the feedback, focal lengths of the variable focus lenses to magnify the light to minimize sampling issues from the light for the associated LiDAR sensors" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 8, wherein the controller averages the feedback from each of the LiDAR sensors over time such that the controller creates a number of average feedbacks equal to the number of LiDAR sensors under test" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 5, wherein: the lenses are variable focus lenses; and the controller controls, based on the feedback, the variable focus lenses individually to increment, based on the feedback, focal lengths of the variable focus lenses to magnify the light to minimize sampling issues from the light for the associated LiDAR sensors" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 10, wherein the controller averages the feedback from each of the LiDAR sensors over time such that the controller creates a number of average feedbacks equal to the number of LiDAR sensors under test" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein: the optical transmission source is coupled to the coarse attenuator via optical fiber; the coarse attenuator is coupled to the optical device via optical fiber; the optical device is coupled to the splitter via optical fiber; the splitter is coupled to the fine attenuators via optical fiber; and the fine attenuators are coupled to the lenses via optical fiber" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 17, wherein: the optical transmission source comprises: a splitter; an optical device for frequency modification; pulsed laser sources operating at separate wavelengths; and the transmission source optically couples to the LiDAR sensors under test via a polarized beam splitter for each wavelength tested" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 20 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 19, wherein: the fine adjustments are variable attenuators; and the controller controls, based on the feedback, the variable attenuators individually to incrementally let the light through the fine adjustments until the saturation level of the associated LiDAR sensor under test is reached" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record MIELKE et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023-0176198) for Claims 3-4, 6-12, 18, 20 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. MIELKE only discloses a system for calibrating light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors that includes an optical transmission source, a coarse adjustment optically coupled to the optical transmission source, an optical device optically coupled to the coarse adjustment, and a splitter optically coupled to the optical device, wherein the fine adjustments are each associates with a LiDAR sensor of the LiDAR sensors under test. Finally, the prior art discloses a lens for each of the LiDAR sensors under test and light passing through the coarse adjustment, the optical device to illuminate the LiDAR sensors under test.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481