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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 20 and dependent claims 7 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 27 July 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Claims 16 have been canceled, and therefore the prior rejections is/are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 17 and 19-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific reference applied in the prior rejection of record for teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Amendments filed to independent claims 1 and 10 to incorporate a limitation previously presented in claim 16 are not anticipated by the current prior art of record for those claims (Tan, US 20210373137 A1) and therefore the anticipatory rejection is overcome.
However, applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pg. 9) regarding the inability to combine Tan and daSilva (US 20210357552 A1) are not persuasive. As priorly noted in the previous Office Action (Non-Final Rejection, dated 17 June 2026), the system of daSilva is not directed to a system to emulate signals and operation for only frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) LIDAR or only time-of-flight (TOF) LIDAR, daSilva explicitly includes embodiments which are prepared to emulate environments to test systems with a combination of FMCW, TOF, and flash LIDARs, either separately or in combination. Fig. 6, and paragraphs [0089] – [0096] describe a system which tests all three LIDAR, and Figs. 8A-B [0097] – [0104] are directed to an embodiment which specifically incorporates both pulsed LIDAR and FMCW and includes both optical modulations and optical time delays of signals. Therefore, the combination of Tan and daSilva is not hypothetical, and is based on direct teachings of daSilva.
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) 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (hereinafter Tan, US 20210373137 A1) in view of daSilva et al. (hereinafter daSilva, US 20210357552 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Tan teaches a tester and a method for testing an optical sensor, comprising:
an optical input configured to receive an optical signal from the optical sensor ([0039] - [0041]; Fig. 2, where optical front end (210) includes optical collection lenses (212) to receive signals from lidar device under test (DUT) and convey these signals to the simulator (214)),
an optical modification unit configured to optically modify and/or delay the optical signal to form a modified and/or delayed optical signal ([0029], [0039] - [0041], [0044]; Fig. 2, simulator (214) includes a plurality of optical and/or electrical delay devices in addition to other components),
and an optical output configured to transmit the modified and/or delayed optical signal to the optical sensor ([0039] - [0043]; Fig. 2, where optical front end (210) includes optical transmitter lenses (220) to receive signals from the simulator (214) and return to the DUT (204)),
wherein the optical signal is modified and/or delayed according to a certain number of times to form the modified and/or delayed optical signal ([0058] - [0060], [0070] - [0076];Figs. 5B, 5C where delay characteristics of the simulator may be determined by a number of delay elements in series or by selection of one or more delay elements via a switch (571, 572)).
Tan does not teach the tester and/or optical modification unit including an ability to introduce a Doppler shift to the optical signal.
daSilva teaches a system for emulating an environment for testing a LIDAR system, wherein the tester and/or the optical modification unit comprises:
an optical modulator configured to add a Doppler shift with respect to the optical signal and/or the modified and/or delayed optical signal ([0015], [0060], [0092] - [0093]; Fig.8A, where an optical processing chain includes both a time delay emulator (812) and a Doppler shift emulator (814)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Tan to incorporate the teachings of daSilva to also incorporate an optical modulator into the optical modification unit, which acts to introduce a Doppler shift for further testing of a LIDAR system, with a reasonable expectation of success. As daSilva teaches, a system which incorporates an optical modulator allows for testing of frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) LIDAR systems in addition to Time-of-Flight (ToF) systems, where FMCW systems additionally use the Doppler effect/shifts to determine object relative velocities ([0015], [0062]) and therefore would require this additional testing element to validate object velocity detections.
Regarding claim 2, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein
the optical signal is modified and/or delayed in an exclusively optical manner to form the modified and/or delayed optical signal ([0029], [0039] - [0041], [0044]; Fig. 2, simulator (214) may include only a plurality of optical delay devices in addition to other components).
Regarding claim 3, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein
the optical signal is modified and/or delayed in a repeatable or repeated manner to form the modified and/or delayed optical signal ([0058] - [0060], [0070] - [0076];Figs. 5B, 5C where delay characteristics of the simulator may be determined by a number of delay elements in series or by selection of one or more delay elements via a switch (571, 572), and where a specific delay path may be used repeatedly for a specific simulated delay, or signals may be returned along a specific path, such as Ch1 (564), through switch (571) to switch (572) to delay line 1 (576), and then returned along the same, or different, path).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein
the optical input comprises an optical path selector switch especially for selection between an input path, preferably for inputting the optical signal, and a modification path, preferably coming from and/or leading to the optical modification unit, wherein
the optical path selector switch comprises or is an optical polarizing element and/or an optical polarizing beam splitter and/or a chopper wheel, especially an optical chopper wheel, and/or an optical and/or mechanical switch and/or an electro-optical switch and/or a micro-electromechanical system ([0070] - [0076] ;Fig. 5C where a first optical switch (571) comprises multiple double optical switches (574), and which links input channels (564...570) from the DUT to the delay elements (562) and (576-580) via a second optical switch (572)).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein
the optical output comprises an optical path selector switch especially for selection between an output path, preferably for outputting the modified and/or delayed optical signal, and a modification path, preferably coming from and/or leading to the optical modification unit, wherein
the optical path selector switch comprises or is an optical polarizing element and/or an optical polarizing beam splitter and/or a chopper wheel, especially an optical chopper wheel, and/or an optical and/or mechanical switch and/or an electro-optical switch and/or a micro-electromechanical system ([0070] - [0076] ;Fig. 5C where a first optical switch (571) comprises multiple double optical switches (574), and which links output channels (564...570) from the DUT to the delay elements (562) and (576-580) via a second optical switch (572)).
Regarding claim 8, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein
the optical input and the optical output are configured as a combined optical input-output ([0039] - [0043]; Fig. 2, where optical front end (210) includes both optical collection lenses (212) and optical transmitter lenses (220) to receive signals from the DUT, pass through to the simulator (214), and return the signals to the DUT (204)).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 8, wherein
the combined optical input-output comprises an optical path selector switch especially for selection between an input path, preferably for inputting the optical signal, an output path, preferably for outputting the modified and/or delayed optical signal, and a modification path, preferably coming from and/or leading to the optical modification unit, wherein
the optical path selector switch comprises or is an optical polarizing element and/or an optical polarizing beam splitter and/or a chopper wheel, especially an optical chopper wheel, and/or an optical and/or mechanical switch and/or an electro-optical switch and/or a micro-electromechanical system ([0070] - [0076] ;Fig. 5C where a first optical switch (571) comprises multiple double optical switches (574), and which links combined input/output channels (564...570) from the DUT to the delay elements (562) and (576-580) via a second optical switch (572)).
Regarding claim 11, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, further comprising:
an optical switch ([0070] - [0076] ;Fig. 5C where a first optical switch (571) comprises multiple double optical switches (574), and which links combined input/output channels (564...570) from the DUT to the delay elements (562) and (576-580) via a second optical switch (572)),
wherein the optical switch is configured to pass the modified and/or delayed optical signal to the optical output after the optical signal has been modified and/or delayed according to the certain number of times ([0058] - [0060], [0070] - [0076];Figs. 5B, 5C where delay characteristics of the simulator may be determined by a number of delay elements in series or by selection of one or more delay elements via a switch (571, 572)).
Regarding claim 12, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 11, wherein
the optical switch comprises or is an electro-optic switch ([0059], where the optical switch may be an optical and/or electrical switch array) and/or a Pockels cell and/or an acousto-optic modulator,
and/or wherein the tester and/or the optical switch further comprises a polarizer and/or a polarization retarder and/or a half-wave plate and/or a quarter-wave plate and/or an eighth-wave plate, especially wherein the polarizer and/or the polarization retarder and/or the half-wave plate and/or the quarter-wave plate and/or the eighth-wave plate is coupled to and/or part of the optical switch.
Regarding claim 13, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein
the optical modification unit comprises a circular structure, or
wherein the optical modification unit comprises a linear structure especially comprising at least one optically reflective element, preferably at least two optically reflective elements or two optically reflective elements ([0068]; Fig. 5A, where optical attenuator (516) may incorporate an adjustable mirror).
Regarding claim 14, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein the optical modification unit comprises:
at least one optical delay line ([0058]; Fig. 5B shows a simplified optical delay line (530)), and/or at least one switched optical delay line ([0058]; Fig. 5C shows optical delay line with plural delay lines (550) ).
Regarding claim 15, Tan as modified above teaches the tester according to claim 1, wherein the tester and/or the optical modification unit comprises:
at least one optical amplifier, and/or at least one optical attenuator ([0072], [0077], [0079]; Fig. 6, where delay device (600) may include a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) (624) or variable optical attenuator (not shown)).
Regarding claim 17, Tan as modified above teaches a system for testing an optical sensor, comprising a tester according to claim 1,
and a controller ([0034]; Fig. 1, controller (116) and processor (117)),
wherein the controller is configured to control the tester especially in accordance with an optical sensor test scenario ([0037], [0044], [0073]; where the processor determines delays, attenuation, etc. to be performed in response to a specific scenario or to emulate a specific distance/reflectivity of an object),
and/or wherein the controller is configured to set the certain number of times especially in accordance with an optical sensor test scenario.
Regarding claim 18, Tan as modified above teaches the system according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach that the tester takes into account the frame rate of the system being tested.
daSilva teaches a system for emulating an environment for testing a LIDAR system, wherein the tester and/or the optical modification unit comprises:
a controller is configured to take into account the corresponding frame rate of the optical sensor especially in the context of controlling the tester and/or setting the certain number of times ([0080], [0105]; where the scene dynamics, such as frame rate of the LIDAR being tested, should be attributes of a LiDAR emulator).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Tan to incorporate the teachings of daSilva to utilize the frame rate of a LIDAR system being tested within the testing environment with a reasonable expectation of success. DaSilva teaches that there are a plethora of factors which should be taken into account to create an emulated environment for testing LIDAR systems, and one such factor is the LIDAR frame rate, which will affect how often scenes being emulated should, or can, be updated to properly test the system ([0073] – [0085]).
Regarding claim 19, Tan as modified above teaches the system according to claim 17, further comprising:
the optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor comprises or is a light detection and ranging, LiDAR, sensor, and/or a light imaging, detection and ranging, LIDAR, sensor and/or a light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation detection and ranging, LADAR, sensor ([0004], [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yao (US 20220050187 A1) teaches a 3D scanless LiDAR system and method, and which describes LIDAR systems which may incorporate both TOF and FMCW with optical delays and optical modulation.
Hirosawa et al. (US 20230273323 A1) teaches a laser radar device with emits and collects light and analyzes returned signals based on both TOF and a frequency difference which lends to Doppler frequency measurement.
Nathan et al. (US 20220365190 A1) teaches a system with several interfaces and an optical guide for calibration of a LIDAR system, where the system utilizes optical guides and delay lines to simulate different distances and geometric calibrations.
Himel et al. (US 20190253701 A1) teaches a system and method for inspecting a LIDAR system, where characterization of the scanning light source may include verifying angular range, illumination characteristics, and use of a transceiver tester which may also contain delay lines and an optical switch.
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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights