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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 28 January 2026, have been fully considered. In particular, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments that species S1 and S2 are interchangeable alternatives for verifying the same predetermined signal and processing path without any change to the core circuitry. Therefore, species S1 and S2 are both examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, S1 in the reply filed on 28 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Inventions I and II substantially overlap in scope and therefore do not require different searches. This is not found persuasive for the reasons given below.
Due to their dependence from claim 1, Inventions I and II both relate to fault detection of a signal in a FMCW LIDAR system. However, Invention I recites details about processing steps and circuitry without reference to particular optical devices or optical signals. In contrast, Invention II recites details about optical equipment and has separate utility for detecting a fault in a returned optical beam for particular optical devices. Therefore, Inventions I and II do not overlap in scope, are not obvious variants, and are separately usable. For this reason, a serious search burden exists for the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg (US 20210003711 A1) in view of Schmalenberg (US 20210396887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vandenberg discloses a method of fault detection in a LIDAR system (Abstract: “Aspects of the present disclosure involve systems, methods, and devices for fault detection in a Lidar system”), the method comprising:
Transmitting a predetermined signal (Abstract: “A fault detection system obtains incoming Lidar data output by a Lidar system during operation of an AV system. The incoming Lidar data includes one or more data points corresponding to a fault detection target on an exterior of a vehicle of the AV system.” The signal is predetermined because it reflects from a known detection target, see ¶36: “By relying specifically on Lidar data corresponding to the fault detection target 126, the fault detection system 120 ensures a standard of comparison.”) through a first channel (Fig. 2, one of channels 200-0 through 200-N which emit and receive LIDAR signals) comprising a first digital circuit (Fig. 2, read-out circuit 208) to produce a first result (¶46: the read-out circuit 208 outputs point data), wherein the first channel is a functional channel in the LIDAR system (¶43: AV system 100 includes Lidar system 118; ¶44: Lidar system 118 comprises channels 200-0 to 200-N; all channels are functional channels for the LIDAR system);
retrieving a second result (Abstract: historical Lidar data) that is based on the predetermined signal (Abstract: “The fault detection system accesses historical Lidar data that is based on data previously output by the Lidar system. The historical Lidar data corresponds to the fault detection target. The fault detection system performs a comparison of the incoming Lidar data with the historical Lidar data to identify any differences between the two sets of data.”);
determining, by a processor, whether the first result and the second result are nonequivalent; and
invoking a fault signal in response to determining that the first result and the second result are nonequivalent (¶54: “The fault detection system 120 may determine that a difference between the historical Lidar data and the incoming Lidar data satisfies a threshold condition, thereby signaling a fault condition.” ¶42: fault detection system 120 can be implemented by control of a processor).
Vandenberg does not disclose that the system is a FMCW LIDAR system.
Schmalenberg teaches that FMCW LIDAR enables instantaneous range and velocity measurements, and that it provides high accuracy and resolution measurements (¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Schmalenberg with the invention of Vandenberg by implementing a FMCW LIDAR system in order to enable instantaneous range and velocity measurements, and to provide high accuracy and resolution.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites a system including a signal generator and memory with instructions which cause a processor to perform the method of claim 1. These limitations are rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1; Vandenberg, ¶34 describes a memory in the Lidar system 118; Fig. 2, emitter 202 is a signal generator).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 8 except that the term “processing circuitry” is used in place of “processor”. Since a processor is a kind of processing circuitry, the arguments for rejecting claim 8 applies to rejecting claim 15.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg (US 20210003711 A1) in view of Schmalenberg (US 20210396887 A1), and further in view of Press (“Numerical Recipes in C: 2nd Edition”).
Regarding claim 2, Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the predetermined signal is an input data stream (a FMCW signal is modulated therefore it is a data stream), the method further comprising:
processing, by the first digital circuit (Fig. 2, read-out circuit 208), the input data stream to produce a first output data stream (Fig. 2, note input to read-out circuit 208, and output from read-out circuit 208 to fault detection system 120); and
transmitting the input data stream through a second channel comprising a second digital circuit to produce a second output data stream (see Abstract and rejection of claim 1; the historical Lidar data satisfies these limitations since it was previously input to and output from a read-out circuit 208).
Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg does not disclose the remaining limitations. However, Vandenberg does disclose signaling a fault condition if the difference between the incoming and historical LIDAR data satisfy a threshold condition (see rejection of claim 1 and Abstract, ¶46).
Press teaches that checksums can be used to validate that a stream of digital data is error-free, or has not been changed from an expected state (pg. 896, paragraph under Section 20.3 “Cyclic Redundancy and Other Checksums”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Press with the invention of Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg by:
computing a first checksum from the first output data stream, wherein the first checksum is the first result;
computing a second checksum from the second output data stream, wherein the second checksum is the second result; and
invoking the fault signal responsive to determining that the first checksum is nonequivalent to the second checksum.
Doing so would implement a known method for comparing whether signals match.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 4 are taught by the rejection of claim 2, where the “second result” of claim 2 is a predetermined checksum value because it represents historical LIDAR data (see rejection of claim 2; the “first output data stream” of claim 2 maps to the “output data stream” of claim 4).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 recite the limitations of claim 2 and further recite first and second checksum circuitry, which is implied in the generation of first and second checksums. Claims 9 and 16 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 recite the limitations of claim 4 and further recite that the second result is stored in memory. Storing the second result in memory would enable it to be compared to other results. Claims 11 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenberg (US 20210003711 A1) in view of Schmalenberg (US 20210396887 A1), and further in view of Zhu (US 9555740 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg teaches the limitations of claim 1. Vandenberg further teaches a digital chip comprising the first digital circuit (Fig. 2: read-out circuit 208 is part of a digital chip).
Schmalenberg teaches that detectors may be photodetectors which convert optical signals into electrical signals (Fig. 2 and ¶63: reflected light is captured by photodetectors 222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Schmalenberg with the invention of Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg by causing the FMCW LIDAR system to comprise an analog chip comprising a first analog circuit; configuring the first analog circuit to produce a first analog output; converting, by a first ADC in the digital chip, the first analog output to a first digital signal; and processing, by the first digital circuit, the first digital signal to produce the first result. Doing so would enable one to use an analog photodetector to convert an optical signal into an electrical signal, then digitize the signal for further processing.
Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg does not explicitly teach that the analog chip comprises a second analog circuit, that the digital chip comprises a second digital circuit, and that the method comprises: configuring the second analog circuit to produce a second analog output; converting, by a second ADC in the digital chip, the second analog output to a second digital signal; and processing, by the second digital circuit, the second digital signal to produce the second result.
Zhu discloses a method and system for cross-validating a second sensor with a first sensor, where the two sensors are different (Abstract). Note that Vandenberg may do the same if the incoming LIDAR data from a channel
n
were compared with historical data from a different channel
n
'
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhu with the invention of Vandenberg in view of Schmalenberg by causing the analog chip to comprise a second analog circuit and the digital chip to comprise a second digital circuit, and by: configuring the second analog circuit to produce a second analog output; converting, by a second ADC in the digital chip, the second analog output to a second digital signal; and processing, by the second digital circuit, the second digital signal to produce the second result. Doing so would enable one to cross-validate different sensors.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 5 are taught by the rejection of claim 3, where the “second result” of claim 2 is a predetermined value because it represents historical LIDAR data (see rejection of claim 3; the “first analog signal” and “first digital signal” of claim 3 mapping to the “analog signal” and “digital signal” of claim 5, respectively). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to store the second result in the digital chip so it may be accessed for comparison with future results.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the limitations of claims 10 and 17 are found in claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations of claims 12 and 19 are found in claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857