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
The applicant’s amendment/remarks dated 07/15/2026 have been received, entered and fully considered. Claims 21-27, 29-37, 39-40 are amended. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviated word ‘LiDAR’ in lines 1 of claims 21 and 31 need to be clarified to what it refers to (Light Detection and Ranging).
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.
Claims 21-40 are 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. Radar uses invisible radio-frequency electromagnetic waves, while laser/LiDAR systems use pluses of infrared light. Also, the acronym “LiDAR” need to be corrected to recite “Light Detection and Ranging”. The system recited seem to be a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system not a radar system as recited in independent claims 21 and 31. Currently the clams are considered vague and indefinite.
Claims 22-30 and 32-40 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of independent claims 21 and 31 solely based on their dependency from rejected independent claims 21 and 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-22, 26, 28, 31-32, 36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al. (CN109901140A) (see attached English translation).
Regarding Claim 21, as best understood, Yi discloses an inspection system for inspecting optical assemblies of a radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR) (para. [0002],[0004], ‘…for detecting optical path deviation of lidar…’) and comprising
a transmitting optical assembly and a receiving optical assembly, the inspection system comprising: a detection laser (laser light source), the detection laser being configured to emit a detection laser beam through at least one of the transmitting optical assembly or the receiving optical assembly (para. [0043]-[0065], Fig. 1-3, claim 1);
a detection probe, the detection probe being configured to receive the detection laser beam or an echo of the detection laser beam reflected off an object (beam reception device)and passing through the receiving optical assembly, and to convert the detection laser beam or the echo into an electrical inspection signal (para. [0059]-[0072], Fig. 1-3, claim 1); and
a signal processing unit communicably coupled to the detection probe and configured to receive the electrical inspection signal, and to determine at least one of a first operation state of the transmitting optical assembly or a second operation state of the receiving optical assembly based on the electrical inspection signal, wherein the first operation state indicates an abnormality of the transmitting optical assembly, and the second operation state indicates an abnormality of the receiving optical assembly (para. [0073]-[0115], claim 1, 4-8).
Regarding Claims 22 and 32, Yi discloses an inspection system for inspecting optical assemblies of a radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR) (para. [0002],[0004], ‘…for detecting optical path deviation of lidar…’), wherein the detection laser (laser light source ) comprises a first detection laser disposed upstream of the transmitting optical assembly (para. [0043]-[0065], Fig. 1-3), the first detection laser being configured to emit a first detection laser beam; the detection probe (beam reception device) comprises a first detection probe disposed downstream of the transmitting optical assembly (para. [0049]-[0072], claims 1-3), the first detection probe being configured to receive the first detection laser beam and to convert the first inspection laser detection laser beam into a first electrical inspection signal; and the signal processing unit is configured to determine the first operation state based on the first electrical inspection signal ( a processing unit that analyzes that signal to determine optical path deviation/ abnormality of the transmitting optical pad (para. [0073]-[0115], claims 1,4-8)).
Regarding Claims 26 and 36, broadly interpreted, Yi discloses an inspection system for inspecting optical assemblies of a radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR) (para. [0002],[0004], ‘…for detecting optical path deviation of lidar…’) wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to, when a signal intensity of the electrical inspection signal is greater than a preset threshold, determine that at least one of the first operation state or the second operation state is normal (Yi evaluates calculated deviation metrics against expected values, therefore the claimed intensity threshold test is therefore disclosed).
Regarding Claims 28 and 38, broadly interpreted, Yi discloses an inspection system for inspecting optical assemblies of a radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR) (para. [0002],[0004], ‘…for detecting optical path deviation of lidar…’) wherein the transmitting optical assembly comprises a first fixing member configured to fix a first optical device of the transmitting optical assembly to the LiDAR, and the receiving optical assembly comprises a second fixing member configured to fix a second optical device of the receiving optical assembly to the LiDAR (para. [0002][0004]; Yi presuppose fixed optical elements whose misalignment or dislocation produces the detected abnormality).
Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Yi discloses radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR), comprising:
a transmitter comprising a laser and a transmitting optical assembly, the laser being configured to emit a ranging laser beam to an object outside the LiDAR through the transmitting optical assembly (abstract, para. [0002]-[0004], [0043]-[0065]); a
receiver comprising a range detector and a receiving optical assembly, wherein the receiving optical assembly is configured to converge an echo of the ranging laser beam reflected off the object onto the range detector, and the range detector is configured to convert the echo into an electrical signal (para. [0049]-[0072]); and
an inspection system for inspecting optical assemblies of a radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR) (para. [0002],[0004], ‘…for detecting optical path deviation of lidar…’) and comprising
a transmitting optical assembly and a receiving optical assembly, the inspection system comprising: a detection laser (laser light source), the detection laser being configured to emit a detection laser beam through at least one of the transmitting optical assembly or the receiving optical assembly (para. [0043]-[0065], Fig. 1-3, claim 1);
a detection probe, the detection probe being configured to receive the detection laser beam or an echo of the detection laser beam reflected off an object (beam reception device)and passing through the receiving optical assembly, and to convert the detection laser beam or the echo into an electrical inspection signal (para. [0059]-[0072], Fig. 1-3, claim 1); and
a signal processing unit communicably coupled to the detection probe and configured to receive the electrical inspection signal, and to determine at least one of a first operation state of the transmitting optical assembly or a second operation state of the receiving optical assembly based on the electrical inspection signal, wherein the first operation state indicates an abnormality of the transmitting optical assembly, and the second operation state indicates an abnormality of the receiving optical assembly (para. [0073]-[0115], claim 1, 4-8).
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(s) 23, 27, 33, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (CN109901140A) (see attached English translation) in View of Chen et al. (WO 2020/147116).
Regarding Claims 23 and 33, Claim 23 requires a second detection laser disposed upstream of the transmitting optical assembly, the second detection laser being configured to emit a second detection laser beam; the detection probe comprises a second detection probe disposed downstream of the receiving optical assembly, the second detection probe being configured to receive an echo of the second
Yi discloses a laser upstream of the optical path and a reception device that captures the beam after it has interacted with the optics, then processes the resulting signal to determine path deviation/abnormality (para. [0043]-[0115], Fig. 1-6). However, it primarily relies on direct beam/sport imaging rather than expressly requiring an external object echo that subsequently transverses the full receiving optical assembly and is detected by the probe located downstream of the receiving optical (RX) assembly.
Chen expressly teaches detection of an echo signal (including reflections from objects or internal elements) that has traveled along the optical path, conversion of that echo into electrical characteristics, and determination of abnormality of the optic link/assemblies (abstract, description pages 8-12, claims 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the upstream laser/ diagnostic processing technique of Yi with the echo based optical path of abnormality detection of Chen, thereby arriving at a second laser/ probe pair that captures an object reflected echo after it passed through the receiving optical assembly and uses that signal to diagnose transmitting optical assembly (TX) and RX abnormalities with a great expectation of success for a reliable detection of optical assembly faults.
Regarding Claims 27 and 37, Yi Discloses a complete Li system containing a laser source (detection laser) and beam reception/ detection element(probe) that operate together to generate and analyze an electrical inspection signal for optical path abnormality (para. [0043]-[0072], claims 1-3). And a conventional LiDAR architecture, The ranging/diagnostic laser is mounted on a laser circuit board the photo detector/probe is mounted on a detector circuit board Own a structural member of the housing. This arrangement is the standard and necessary physical implementation of any LiDAR optical system. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would therefore have found it obvious with great expectation of success to locate the detection laser of Yi on the laser circuit board and the detection probe on the detector circuit board or structural member. No unexpected result is obtained by this conventional placement.
Claim(s) 24-25, 29, 34-35, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (CN109901140A) (see attached English translation).
Regarding Claims 24 and 34, Yi discloses a single diagnostic that can traverse both transmission and receiving optical assemblies. Yi discloses the claimed invention except for providing a third laser/ probe pair. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have a third laser/probe pair that enables simultaneous or sequential evaluation of both TX and RX, 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.
Regarding Claims 25 and 35, Yi discloses a dedicated test/diagnostic mode separate from normal ranging. Emitting the diagnostic beam only in a non-ranging state is an obvious implementation detail to avoid interference with ranging (test procedure, para. [0044]-[0115]). Emitting a diagnostic beam during a non-ranging(idle/test) interval is a routine predictable design choice to avoid interference with normal ranging operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply this conventional timing constraint to the third detection laser already rendered obvious by the combination of Yi and Chen above.
Regarding Claims 29 and 39, broadly interpreted, Yi discloses an inspection system for inspecting optical assemblies of a radar system capable of emitting laser beams for detection (LiDAR) (para. [0002],[0004], ‘…for detecting optical path deviation of lidar…’) comprising at least one of: a first in-position detector disposed on the first fixing member, wherein the first in-position detector is configured to detect a first in-position status of the first optical device, and the signal processing unit is communicably coupled to the first in-position detector and configured to determine the first in-position status of the first optical device (detection of dislocation/ out of position of optical devices is the explicit purpose of the optical path deviation method in Yi (para. [0073]-[0115]) , or a second in-position detector disposed on the second fixing member, wherein the second in-position detector is configured to detect a second in-position status of the second optical device, and the signal processing unit is communicably coupled to the second in-position detector and configured to determine the second in-position status of the second optical device.
However, Yi likes to rec a dedicated in position detector physically mounted on the fixing member itself as well as a specific communication of the detector’s status to the signal processing unit. Placing a position/ status censor directly on the fixing member and feed its output to the existing diagnostic processor is routine and predictable implementation of already taught goal of detecting whether an optical device has moved out of position. A person of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention with a great expectation of success would have found this modification obvious.
In alternative,
Claim(s) 26 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (CN109901140A) (see attached English translation) in view of Elkind et al. (US 2012/0261553). Yi et al. (CN109901140A) (see attached English translation).
Regarding Claims 26 and 36, broadly interpreted Yi does not explicitly disclose , but Elkind in the same field of endeavor teaches signal processor is further configured to, when a signal intensity of the electrical inspection signal is greater than a preset threshold, determine that at least one of the first operation state or the second operation state is normal (para. [0014]), “…detection of temporal changes in the accumulated current during the single frame period (corresponding to the intensity of the received signal) and comparing the magnitude of change to a preset threshold level. If the magnitude of change is greater than a predetermined condition (threshold), the signal analyzer unit generates data indicative of detected event and transmits the data to the output readout utility”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical signal in the signal processor disclosed in Yi with the preset threshold for detecting a valid signal as taught in Elkind with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows high operational simplicity, computational efficiency for real-time applications, and consistent, reliable filtering of false positives.
Claim(s) 30 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (CN109901140A) (see attached English translation) in view of Hall (US 7,969,558).
Regarding Claims 30 and 40, Yi discloses a complete optical path deviation detection system for LiDAR that produces a diagnostic result (operation-state information) And delivers that result to the terminal device (abstract, claims 1, 8-10), Yi lacks, but Hall in the same field of endeavor teaches a wireless communication unit coupled to the signal processor and configured to: transmit data to a mobile terminal device (col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal processor disclosed in Yi with the wireless communication unit as taught in Hall with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to transmit at least one of the first/second operation state or the first/second in-position status to a mobile terminal to enhances flexibility, real-time data transmission, and eliminate data transmission cable clutter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the applicant’s amendment/remarks, the previous drawing and specification objections are withdrawn.
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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights