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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s response of 8/24/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 7, 10 and cancelled claim 8.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been overcome.
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, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmler et al. (US 2025/0123378, hereinafter, “Himmler”) in view of Brickner et al. (US 2022/0196891, hereinafter, “Brickner”), Qiu et al. (US 2019/0265335, hereinafter, “Qiu”) and Embry et al. (US 2024/0111031, hereinafter, “Embry”), as evidenced by Zhang et al. (US 2021/0215800, hereinafter, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Himmler discloses a LiDAR tester comprising a LiDAR light emitting sensor (LIDAR) being a device under test (DUT) and a light receiving element of the LiDAR tester (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0043]-[0047]. The LiDAR sensor (LIDAR), which is a DUT, emits light L1 to an object simulator 14 that simulates the surroundings of the LiDAR sensor (LIDAR) by simulating objects in the surroundings of the LiDAR sensor (LIDAR) and transfers a corresponding control signal SE to the transmitting device 12 and/or the movement device BE. The simulated objects may then be simulated by the transmitting device 12 for the LiDAR sensor (LIDAR) via emitted second light L2. The whole setup is for testing the LiDAR light emitting sensor (LIDAR). The setup of Fig. 1 includes a light receiving element at TD that receives the emitted light L1).
Himmler does not disclose a deterministically structured diffuser for redistributing receiving incoming LiDAR light from a LiDAR light emitting sensor being a device under test (DUT) and redistributing the received LiDAR light onto an image plane of the diffuser with a particular distribution, area, or pattern, wherein the light redistribution diffuses a LiDAR light from the LiDAR light emitting sensor in a preferential direction.
Brickner discloses a LiDAR system ([0021]) comprising: a deterministically structured diffuser 120 for redistributing received 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 light is determined based on the desired profile 152, [0023]), wherein
the light redistribution diffuses the received light in a preferential direction (Fig. 3, [0029], angularly controlled intensity profile).
Both Himmler and Brickner 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 Himmler so that a diffuser optical element is positioned to receive LiDAR light L1 emitted from the LiDAR light emitting sensor (LIDAR) (which is DUT), as taught by Brickner, for effectively distributing the LiDAR light emitted by the LiDAR (DUT) sensor in a preferential direction (i.e., towards the trigger detector TD).
Himmler/Brickner does not disclose a wide angle LiDAR light from the LiDAR light emitting sensor (DUT) (LIDAR).
Qiu discloses a wide angle LiDAR system ([0006]).
Both Himmler and Qiu 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 Himmler/Brickner so that the LiDAR light emitting sensor (DUT) (LIDAR) of Himmler emits wide angle light, as taught by Qiu, for testing a LiDAR that can scan and map a wide range of the surroundings without mechanically rotating the light emitters ([0006] in Qiu).
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu does not disclose wherein the full angle of incidence (of the light receiving element of Himmler at TD) is between 0° and at least ±50°.
Embry discloses a LiDAR system (Fig. 1, Abstract). In one embodiment, Embry discloses that the receiver of the LiDAR system 100 is a wide field of view receiver, for example, the FOV being about 120° ([0033], “received light (i.e., a return signal) 22 can be received from within that same wide field of view (in this example about 120°)”).
Both Himmler 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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu so that the FOV is about 120°, as taught by Embry, for better performance, i.e., for capturing a wider range of objects.
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. This is evidenced by Zhang who discloses a LiDAR system (Abstract) and that a performance parameter (for example, SNR), is affected by the value of the field of view, [0051]).
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/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”.
Regarding claim 2, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses the LiDAR tester 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 9, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses the LiDAR tester 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).
Regarding claim 10, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses a LiDAR test system comprising the LiDAR tester according to claim 1 as well as the LiDAR light emitting sensor being the DUT ((LIDAR) in Fig. 1 of Himmler).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmler, Brickner, Qiu, Embry, in view of Arima et al. (US 2021/0325574, hereinafter, “Arima”), as evidenced by Zhang.
Regarding claim 3, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses the LiDAR tester according to claim 2.
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry 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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry 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, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry/Arima discloses the LiDAR tester 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).
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry/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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry/Arima so that the diffuser optical element of Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry/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, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses the LiDAR tester according to claim 1.
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry 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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry so that the diffuser optical element of Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry diffuses the incident light in a Gaussian profile, as taught by Arima, for achieving better SNR at the detector.
Regarding claim 6, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses the LiDAR tester according to claim 1.
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry 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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry so that the diffuser optical element of Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry is a microstructure, as taught by Arima, for less susceptibility to variations in the incident macro light ([0132] in Arima).
Regarding claim 7, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry/Arima discloses the LiDAR tester according to claim 6, wherein the diffusor is structured by lithographic fabrication ([0024] in Brickner).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmler, Brickner, Qiu, Embry, in view of Coleman et al. (US 2022/0260694, hereinafter, “Coleman”), as evidenced by Zhang.
Regarding claim 11, Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry discloses the LiDAR test system of claim 10.
Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry does not disclose a controller having a processor and a memory for real-time data analysis, timing, synchronization and feedback capabilities.
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]). In Coleman, the test system comprises a controller 126 having a processor 127 and a memory 128 for real-time data analysis, timing, synchronization and feedback capabilities (Fig. 1, 3, [0019]-[0021] in Coleman).
Both Himmler and Coleman 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 Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry so that a controller performs real-time data analysis, timing, synchronization and feedback, as taught by Coleman, for a timely and accurate testing operation.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant stated “The Office's proposed combination of Brickner and Himmler requires a fundamental reversal of Brickner's optical element from an emitter-side shaping component to a receiver-side capturing component. No reference in the combination teaches or motivates this reversal. The Office's motivation statement does not address why one skilled in the art would repurpose Brickner's emitter-side diffuser to receive incoming light from an external DUT”, see p. 5 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been considered but it is not persuasive. The Office notes that in the present rejection, Himmler is cited as the primary reference and Brickner is cited as the secondary reference. Himmler discloses a DUT LiDAR sensor that emits light and Brickner is cited for a diffuser that receives light emitted by the DUT LiDAR and redistributes it to a desired direction (as in claim 1), the motivation, as stated above, being directing the received light from the DUT sensor more effectively to the TD sensor. Ther is no repurpose of either reference.
Applicant also stated “The Office Action refers to Qiu at paragraph [0006] for allegedly teaching that LiDAR systems can use wide-angle light, citing this to supply the "wide angle LiDAR light" limitation in claim 1. However, Qiu appears to teach wide-angle LiDAR emission for environmental scanning and mapping purposes - not for testing. More importantly, Qiu does not disclose any structured diffuser, let alone one that receives wide-angle light from a device under test and redistributes it onto an image plane. The proposed combination of Brickner, Himmler, and Qiu thus fails collectively: none of these three references teaches or suggests using a structured diffuser to receive and redistribute wide-angle LiDAR light from an external DUT in a testing context”, see p. 6 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been considered but it is not persuasive. In response to Applicant's above argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Himmler was cited for the DUT LiDAR tester, Brickner was cited for the diffuser receiving light to redistribute and Qiu was cited for the feature of wide angle LiDAR light. It is the combination of these references that discloses the claimed LiDAR tester.
Applicant also stated “Moreover, independent claim 1 further recites "a full angle of incidence" on the diffuser, which is a property of the structured diffuser's acceptance angle - a fundamentally different parameter from a system's scanning FOV. The Office Action relies on Embry at paragraph [0033] for allegedly disclosing a 1200 FOV receiver and then applies routine optimization of a result- effective variable. However, Embry does not disclose any diffuser element, and the 120° FOV cited by the Office Action is a scanning/receiving field of view of the LiDAR system, not an angle of incidence on a diffuser. Amended independent claim 1 specifies "a full angle of incidence" on the diffuser, which is a property of the structured diffuser's acceptance angle - a fundamentally different parameter from a system's scanning FOV”, see p.6 of the Remarks.
Again, Applicant argues above against the references individually, and one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Embry was cited for the feature of the claimed range for the full angle of incidence and Brickner was cited for the diffuser receiving light to redistribute.
Finally, Applicant stated “The Office Action conflates two distinct concepts: (1) the system-level field of view (how wide the LiDAR scans), and (2) the angle of incidence that the diffuser can accept while maintaining its redistribution function. The optimization rationale requires that the variable being optimized be recognized in the art as result-effective for the claimed purpose. There is no evidence that the angle of incidence on a structured diffuser was recognized as a result-effective variable in the cited references. Furthermore, Embry's 120° FOV which appears to overlap the claimed range, but this is coincidental and relates to a different optical parameter entirely”, see p. 7 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above argument has been considered but it is not persuasive. The Office has provided support for the field of view being a result-effective variable (i.e., Zhang) and notes that in the modified Himmler/Brickner/Qiu/Embry device, the structure of the diffuser is closely related to how much received LiDAR light can be redistributed. Moreover, the FOV and the full angle of incidence are related.
The rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 (depending on claim 1) is maintained based on the rejection of claim 1.
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 571-272-2334. 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
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights