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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/8/2024 is acknowledged.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/628,895 filed on 4/8/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“tester 21” in paragraph [0038] should be changed to “tester 23”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 2, reference “23” points only to the LiDAR tester where according to claims 1 and 10, “23” should refer to both the diffuser and the LiDAR tester. In addition, reference “21” should point to the LiDAR sensor.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “LiDAR test system of claim 10 …” It is suggested that the above is changed to “The LiDAR test system of claim 10…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wide angle LIDAR light" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation refers to wide angle LIDAR light incident onto the diffuser.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "e.g. a detector" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation refers to the light receiving element being a detector.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the full angle of incidence" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation refers to a full angle of incidence of incident LIDAR light onto the diffuser.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " between 0° and at least ±50°, preferably at least 55° or even ±60°”. It is not clear what the upper limit of the claimed range is. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation refers to an upper limit of ±50°, or ±55°, or 60°.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the LIDAR detector" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation refers to the LiDAR assembly according to claim 1, and it is suggested that the claim 1 recites “A LiDAR tester comprising…”
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "optionally synchronization" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it will be taken that the quoted limitation refers to the processor conducting synchronization.
Claims 2-7 and 9 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brickner et al. (US 2022/0196891, hereinafter, “Brickner”) in view of Jensen et al. (US 2009/0279069, hereinafter, “Jensen”).
Regarding claim 1, Brickner discloses a LiDAR system ([0021]) comprising:
a deterministically structured diffuser 120 for redistributing LiDAR light onto an image plane of the diffuser with a particular distribution, area, or pattern (Fig. 3, [0032], optical element 120 includes a diffuser 132 and a lens 142. The desired distribution emitted by the optical element 120, receiving LiDAR light emitted by laser source 110, is determined based on the desired profile 152, [0023]),
wherein the light redistribution diffuses the LiDAR light in a preferential direction (Fig. 3, angularly controlled intensity profile).
Brickner does not disclose a wide angle LiDAR light being incident onto the diffuser (and being redistributed to a detector placed in the image plane).
Jensen discloses a LiDAR system 1 (Fig. 1). In one embodiment, a detector 8, placed at the image plane of a lens 7, receives the (wide angle) LiDAR light reflected from an object ZI ([0041]).
Both Brickner and Jensen disclose LiDAR systems
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner so that the diffuser optical element 120 is positioned to receive wide angle LiDAR light, as taught by Jensen, for ensuring that the received reflected LiDAR light is directed effectively onto the detector of the receiver (by appropriately designing the structure of the diffuser).
It is noted that the term “test” is not given patentable weight as it is in the preamble of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Brickner/Jensen discloses the test system according to claim 1, wherein the structured diffusor comprises at least one Fresnel lens configured to receive incident LiDAR light ([0030] in Brickner).
Regarding claim 7, Brickner/Jensen/ Arima discloses the test system according to claim 1, wherein the diffusor is structured by lithographic fabrication ([0024] in Brickner).
Regarding claim 9, Brickner/Jensen discloses the test system according to claim 1, wherein the light redistribution of the LiDAR light towards the image plane has a locally variable angular distribution (Fig. 3 in Brickner).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brickner, Jensen in view of Arima et al. (US 2021/0325574, hereinafter, “Arima”).
Regarding claim 3, Brickner/Jensen discloses the test system according to claim 2.
Brickner/Jensen does not disclose wherein the diffusor comprises a diffusor plate.
Arima discloses a diffuser optical element (Abstract). In one embodiment, the diffuser comprises a diffuser plate 101 (Fig. 14B, [0145]).
Both Brickner and Arima disclose diffuser optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen so that the diffuser optical element 120 of Brickner comprises a diffuser plate, as taught by Arima, for the advantage of the ability of the diffuser plate being applied to many optical devices ([0151] in Arima).
Regarding claim 4, Brickner/Jensen/Arima discloses the test system according to claim 3, wherein the diffusor comprises one Fresnel lens, arranged in proximity or in contact with
one side of the diffusor plate (Fig. 14B, [0145] in Arima).
Brickner/Jensen/Arima does not disclose an additional Fresnel lens arranged on the other side of the diffusor plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen/Arima so that the diffuser optical element 120 of Brickner/ Jensen/Arima comprises a diffusor plate having two Fresnel lenses, one on each side, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), for providing an additional degree of control on the design of the redistributed LiDAR light (see also [0084], [0132] in Arima).
Regarding claim 5, Brickner/Jensen discloses the test system according to claim 1. Brickner/Jensen does not disclose wherein the light redistribution intensity profile on the
LiDAR sensor is Gaussian.
Arima discloses a diffuser optical element (Abstract). In one embodiment, the intensity profile of the diffused light is Gaussian (Fig. 15D, [0055] in Arima).
Both Brickner and Arima disclose diffuser optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen so that the diffuser optical element 120 of Brickner/Jensen diffuses the incident light in a Gaussian profile, as taught by Arima, for achieving better SNR at the detector.
Regarding claim 6, Brickner/Jensen discloses the test system according to claim 1. Brickner/Jensen does not disclose wherein the diffusor is micro-structured for diffusing
LiDAR light.
Arima discloses a diffuser optical element (Abstract). In one embodiment, the diffuser is a microstructure (Fig. 11, [0132] in Arima).
Both Brickner and Arima disclose diffuser optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen so that the diffuser optical element 120 of Brickner/Jensen is a microstructure, as taught by Arima, for less susceptibility to variations in the incident macro light ([0132] in Arima).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brickner, Jensen in view of Embry et al. (US 2024/0111031, hereinafter, “Embry”).
Regarding claim 8, Brickner/Jensen discloses the test system according to claim 1.
Brickner/Jensen does not disclose wherein the full angle of incidence is between 0° and at least ±50°, preferably at least 55° or even ±60°.
Embry discloses a LiDAR system (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, Embry discloses that the receiver of the LiDAR system is a wide field of view receiver, for example, the FOV being about 120° ([0033]).
Both Brickner and Embry disclose LiDAR systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen so that the FOV is about 120°, as taught by Embry, for better performance, i.e., for capturing a wider range of objects. Here, in Brickner/Jensen, the diffuser optical element 120 of Brickner/Jensen is positioned in the receiver of the LiDAR receiver that receives wide angle LiDAR light.
The parameter of the full angle of incidence (related to the FOV) is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the performance of the LiDAR.
Brickner/Jensen/Embry discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the full angle of incidence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen/Embry so that the full angle of incidence lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the full angle of incidence is an art recognized result- effective variables in that it affects the performance of the LiDAR.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the full angle of incidence because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brickner, Jensen in view of Coleman et al. (US 2022/0260694, hereinafter, “Coleman”).
Regarding claim 10, Brickner/Jensen discloses the LiDAR detector according to claim 1.
Brickner/Jensen does not disclose a LiDAR test system comprising the LiDAR detector according to claim 1 as well as a LiDAR light emitting sensor.
Coleman discloses a LiDAR test system for emulating echo signals reflected from one or more emulated targets in a 3D simulation scene in response to a LiDAR signal transmitted by a lidar sensor in order to accurately simulate the physical world to the LiDAR sensor ([0018]). In one embodiment, the LiDAR test system includes a diffuser 170 and a LiDAR light emitting sensor 105 (Fig. 1, [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Brickner/Jensen so that the diffuser is used in the LiDAR test system of Coleman, for effectively directing the LiDAR light onto the detector.
Regarding claim 11, Brickner/Jensen/Coleman discloses the LiDAR test system of claim 10, further comprising a controller 126 having a processor 127 and a memory 128 for real-time data analysis, timing, optionally synchronization and feedback capabilities (Fig. 1, 3, [0019]-[0021] in Coleman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872