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 .
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.
Claim 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.
Referring to claim 5, The term “especially across the scan area” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 8, The term “especially to a user” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 9, The term “especially to a user” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 11, The term “especially a maximum repetition rate” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 17, The term “especially with aid of spatial and/or temporal filtering” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 18, The term “especially a lidar” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 20, The term “especially using a laser beam tester” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Referring to claim 20, The term “especially of the laser beam tester” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is necessary or merely a recitation of an example.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the corresponding power distribution" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the corresponding power distribution" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the corresponding location of the observation area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the corresponding location of the observation area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the corresponding power" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the corresponding location and/or angle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brinkmann (20230341533).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Referring to claims 1, 18, and 20, Brinkmann shows a laser beam tester for laser beam timing and location determination with respect to a repetitive scan of at least one laser beam in a scan area based on at least one scan frame (see figure 1 Ref 10), the laser beam tester comprising as well as the corresponding system and method of claims 18 and 20 respectively:
an optical receiver (see figure 1 Ref 40) configured to receive the at least one laser beam in an observation area (see figure 1 Ref 18 and paragraph 71), and
a processor being in communication with the optical receiver (see figure 1 Ref 26),
wherein the processor is configured to determine a corresponding scan timing of the at least one laser beam (see paragraph 83-84), and
wherein the processor is configured to associate a corresponding time domain of the laser beam tester with the corresponding scan timing of the at least one laser beam (see paragraph 76 and 83-84 note the synchronization of the scanning pattern that are evaluated by the target simulator module).
Referring to claim 2, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to determine the corresponding power distribution of the at least one laser beam based on the corresponding scan timing (see paragraph 51 and 91 note the intensity over time).
Referring to claim 3, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to change the corresponding location of the observation area to determine the corresponding power distribution of the laser beam based on the corresponding scan timing (see paragraph 74 also note the power distribution as shown in paragraph 91).
Referring to claim 4, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to determine a time-based power distribution of different and/or subsequent scan frames (see paragraph 70 note the multiple FOV that are evaluated consecutively also see paragraph 51 and 91 for the power distribution).
Referring to claim 5, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to change the corresponding location of the observation area, especially across the scan area, to determine a time-based power distribution of different and/or subsequent scan frames (see paragraph 70 note the multiple FOV that are evaluated consecutively also see paragraph 51 and 91 for the power distribution also see paragraph 72-73).
Referring to claim 6, Brinkmann shows wherein the observation area is smaller than the scan area (see figure 1 Ref 18).
Referring to claim 7 Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to use the corresponding time domain associated with the corresponding scan timing to determine a time-based scan pattern of the at least one laser beam for an entire or partial repetition (see paragraph 70 note the multiple FOV that are evaluated consecutively also see 83-84 note the time based scanning that is synchronized).
Referring to claim 12, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to determine average power for a particular time window with respect to the at least one laser beam (see paragraph 55 and 114).
Referring to claim 13, Brinkmann shows wherein the corresponding scan timing comprises or is repetition frequency and/or phase with respect to the at least one laser beam, and/or
wherein the processor is configured to associate the corresponding time domain of the laser beam tester with the corresponding location and/or angle of the at least one laser beam (see paragraph 76-78).
Referring to claim 14, Brinkmann shows an optical transmitter being in communication with the processor,
wherein the optical transmitter is configured to transmit a return light signal in response to the at least one laser beam (see figure 1 Ref 26 also see paragraph 80-83).
Referring to claim 15, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to manipulate the return light signal on a corresponding time basis to map a response to a particular location (see paragraph 108-110 note the change of the predetermined location shown in figure 1 Ref 18).
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) 8, 9, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkmann (20230341533).
Referring to claim 8, Brinkmann renders obvious wherein the processor is configured to provide the corresponding power of the at least one laser beam especially to a user (see paragraph 72-73 note an output to a user is extremely well known when a device is under test).
Referring to claim 9, Brinkmann renders obvious wherein the processor is configured to provide a scan pattern analysis with respect to the at least one scan frame especially to a user (see paragraph 90-91 also note that an output to a user is extremely well known when a device is under test).
Referring to claim 16, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to manipulate the return light signal to shape at least one return object (see paragraph 92 note the manipulation unit that can include the addition of stray light).
Referring to claim 17, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor is configured to increase contrast of the return light signal especially with aid of spatial and/or temporal filtering (see paragraph 77 note the amplification or attenuation).
Referring to claim 19, Brinkmann shows wherein the processor of the laser beam tester is configured to set a frame trigger of the laser beam tester such that the frame trigger of the laser beam tester has a constant offset to a frame start of the laser beam emitting device (see the synchronization as shown in paragraph 76 also see the possible delays for the target simulator as shown in paragraph 77).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkmann (20230341533) in view of Valois (20170343654).
Referring to claim 10, Brinkmann shows a laser beam tester for a LIDAR device however fails to specifically show wherein the processor is configured to determine a frame rate with respect to the at least one scan frame.
Valois shows a similar device that includes a calibration system for calibrating a frame rate (see paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to modify Brinkmann with the detection and calibration of the frame rate as shown by Valois because this allows the LIDAR system to properly report distance and velocity measurements that are intended to be in real time.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkmann (20230341533) in view of daSilva (20210357552).
Referring to claim 11, Brinkmann fails to show but daSilva shows wherein the processor is configured to determine a repetition rate, especially a maximum repetition rate, for adjacent laser beams (see paragraph 133 note the output of the pulse intensity and timing information that obviously outputs a pulse rate). It would have been obvious to include the pulse rate as shown by daSilva because this allows for a more complete test to be performed of the LIDAR system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
