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 29 May 2026 have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
Applicant argues that it is inappropriate to map Vandenberg’s emitter 202 to the “signal generator” because the emitter sends a laser out to an external environment but does not transmit a “predetermined signal through a first channel comprising a first digital circuit to produce a first result”. Since the signal that passes through the read-out circuit 208 (the “first digital circuit”) is not the signal produced by the emitter 202, but rather a reflected signal which has been altered by the environment, it cannot be said that the emitter 202 performs the steps of the claim.
The examiner disagrees. The beam which reflects from the fault detection target 126 fixed to the vehicle is a predetermined signal because it was determined before it was transmitted by the emitter 202. Also note that the claim language would allow the examiner to interpret the “first channel comprising a first digital circuit” to include the fault detection target 126 (the word “channel” can be interpreted broadly to include any number of components which a LIDAR-related signal of some kind is made to pass through). In addition, without further recited detail the examiner is free to interpret the “predetermined signal” as the laser beam itself, or the signal which instructs the emitter 202 to generate such a beam, or even some other intermediary signal.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations. The examiner disagrees. Again, the examiner considers that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language may be interpreted such that the prior art of record already teaches the amended limitations. The amended limitations recite that the predetermined signal is transmitted “during a processing down time of the FMCW LIDAR system”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this can be interpreted as meaning that the predetermined signal is sent when some form of processing in the LIDAR system is not occurring. It is certainly true that the first result is not processed until the predetermined signal has been transmitted through the first channel; therefore, the transmission occurs during a processing down time of the FMCW LIDAR system. Data is not processed until it is received, and data is not received until it is transmitted.
The examiner does not consider the above to be inconsistent with the principle of reading the claims in light of the specification (see MPEP § 2111). The term “down time” is not given an explicit definition in the specification. The examiner notes that the prior art currently relied upon does not teach all that is recited in paragraph ¶46 of the specification, wherein signals from the photodetectors and TIAs are received during 80% of processing cycles but not during the other 20% of processing cycles (though it is also worth considering that the term “processing cycle” is not defined in the specification).
See 103 rejections below.
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, by a signal generator of the LIDAR system (Fig. 2, emitter 202 is a signal generator), 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 also discloses that the predetermined signal is transmitted during a processing down time of the LIDAR system (while the predetermined signal is in transmission, any processing requiring the transmitted data is not performed; thus the act of transmission occurs during “a processing down time”).
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 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).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanberg (US 20230176183 A1) discloses a system for periodically monitoring a LIDAR system for proper function by passing a beam through an internal circuit and checking with a reference value (see Fig. 2 and ¶16: “To periodically test for proper operation, the LIDAR scanner sensor 20 may perform on-board testing to diagnose the sensor performance and operational status of the sensor hardware functioning. For example, by including a reference target 25 that is located inside an opaque housing wall 24, the sweeping laser beam 22 generated by the sensor 20 will detect the reference target 25 inside the scanner housing wall 24. As the sweeping laser beam 22 passes over the reference target 25 on each sweep, the laser generator/sensor 21 compares the reading of the reference target 25 to preset values to detect any divergent readings. In this way, critical failures, like a stuck mirror, degradation of the laser source or degradation of the receiving sensor, can be tested.”).
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 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
Prosecution Insights