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 (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the processing and analyzing circuit" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Claim 14 will be read as if dependent upon Claim 2, which does recite the processing and analyzing circuit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by daSilva et al. (US20210357552A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, daSilva teaches:
A test and/or measurement instrument for testing an optoelectronic device under test ([0014]: “a system and method for performing LiDAR test and target emulation”), the test and/or measurement instrument comprising:
an arbitrary waveform generator circuit configured to provide at least one stimulus signal for the optoelectronic device under test ([0093]: “An RF signal generator can be used to generate a sine wave and a cosine wave at the same frequency. The cosine wave is fed to the I input and the sine wave to the Q input of the IQ modulator”);
a synchronizing circuit configured to provide at least one synchronization signal for the optoelectronic device under test and/or to receive at least one synchronization signal from the optoelectronic device under test ([0135]: “a synchronization clock may be used to synchronize the one or more optical devices receiving the light from the flash LiDAR UUT”); and
a signal capturing circuit configured to capture at least one analog signal from the optoelectronic device under test ([0070]: “the reflected light is captured by a lens and projected onto an imager much like an electronic camera”),
wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to determine at least one frequency-modulated continuous wave, FMCW, based signal component ([0089]: “This emulator embodiment can process all points in a LiDAR image simultaneously. This emulator embodiment may also process the laser light optically, maintaining coherence with the original signal transmitted by the LiDAR UUT. This coherence may be useful for FMCW processing”; [0066]: “The LiDAR receiver combines the reflected pulse and the transmitted pulse. The result is a signal that may be used to determine the frequency difference between the transmitted and received light at a given instant in time”).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, further comprising a processing and analyzing circuit connected with the signal capturing circuit, the synchronizing circuit and the arbitrary waveform generator circuit, and wherein the processing and analyzing circuit is configured to process and analyze the at least one analog signal captured from the optoelectronic device under test ([0014]: “The system may comprise an input lens system configured to receive light from the LiDAR unit under test (UUT), a plurality of optical processing chains coupled to the lens system, and an output lens system coupled to each of the optical processing chains”) and to synchronize itself with the synchronizing circuit and the arbitrary waveform generator circuit, respectively ([0135]: “a synchronization clock may be used to synchronize the one or more optical devices receiving the light from the flash LiDAR UUT with the processor providing the matrices of the plurality of matrices to the 2D diode array”).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to detect at least one beat signal from a combination of two optical signals ([0066]: “The LiDAR receiver combines the reflected pulse and the transmitted pulse. The result is a signal that may be used to determine the frequency difference between the transmitted and received light at a given instant in time”).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to determine a linewidth and/or a phase noise of the analog signal ([0178]: “the system is further configured to perform one or more measurements on light received from the LiDAR UUT, wherein the one or more measurements comprise one or more of a laser line width measurement, a chirp linearity measurement, an optical spectrum analyzer measurement, an optical power measurement, and a pulse width measurement”).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to determine a chirp linearity of the analog signal ([0178]: “the system is further configured to perform one or more measurements on light received from the LiDAR UUT, wherein the one or more measurements comprise one or more of a laser line width measurement, a chirp linearity measurement, an optical spectrum analyzer measurement, an optical power measurement, and a pulse width measurement”).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to determine at least partially a spectrum of the analog signal ([0178]: “the system is further configured to perform one or more measurements on light received from the LiDAR UUT, wherein the one or more measurements comprise one or more of a laser line width measurement, a chirp linearity measurement, an optical spectrum analyzer measurement, an optical power measurement, and a pulse width measurement”).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to retrieve range and velocity from at least one beat signal ([0061]: “the effect of the Doppler shift may be separated from the effect of the round-trip time delay, such that the FMCW LiDAR system may calculate both the velocity of and the distance to the reflective point in the scene”).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to provide image creation and/or point cloud creation. ([0017]: “The system may also comprise a LiDAR image generator coupled to the frequency shift emulator, the selectable optical delay and the optical attenuator/amplifier…The LiDAR image generator may be configured to provide the frequency shift value, the delay value, and/or the amplitude value for each point in a point cloud generated by the system”)
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, further comprising a processing module connected with the processing and analyzing circuit, wherein the processing module is configured to receive a processed signal of the processing and analyzing circuit for further processing ([0091]: “The input optical processing block may contain an array of lenses capable of guiding each point in the LiDAR cloud into a corresponding optical fiber, each connected to an optical processing chain”.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument has at least one user input interface and/or output interface ([0017]: “The system may also comprise a LiDAR image generator coupled to the frequency shift emulator, the selectable optical delay and the optical attenuator/amplifier, which may be user programmable to control operation of these devices”).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, further comprising a storage medium configured to store data associated with the analog signal ([0128]: “the non-transitory computer-readable memory medium has stored thereon point cloud information that is generated in software that is user programmable”).
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer ([0145]: “a method for measuring laser line width (the optical equivalent of jitter or phase noise), optical power measurements, or pulse width measurements, among other possibilities. Examples of this method include use of an optical PLL, a delay line discriminator, an optical spectrum analyzer”).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 18, daSilva further teaches:
The test system according to claim 18, wherein the optoelectronic device under test is operated in an open loop mode or a closed loop mode when determining a linewidth and/or a phase noise of the analog signal provided by the optoelectronic device under test ([0145]: “a method for measuring laser line width (the optical equivalent of jitter or phase noise), optical power measurements, or pulse width measurements, among other possibilities. Examples of this method include use of an optical PLL [phase-locked loop]”).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over daSilva in view of Usukinu (JP2021002800A).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva does not teach, whereas Usukinu teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to determine a re-lock time of the optoelectronic device under test ([0052]: “The calibration system 322 is configured by connecting a lock detection unit 323 that detects the lock of the output frequency fc of the PLL circuit 301 and a lock time determination unit 324 that determines the lock detection time by the lock detection unit 323”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR testing system as taught by daSilva with an additional feature to determine the re-lock time of its PLL circuit as taught by Usukinu with a reasonable expectation of success. This feature is known in the art for FMCW systems and its incorporation would have the predictable result of calculating the necessary amount of time for the system to re-settle when transitioning between different chirp rates.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over daSilva in view of Tzuang et al. (US20230014034A1).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva does not teach, whereas Tzuang teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to segment the analog signal in order to obtain at least one chirp segmentation ([0006]: “the processing and driving circuit's pre-distorting the digital chirp waveform further includes: determining edges of a chirp segment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR testing system as taught by daSilva with an additional feature to segment chirps as taught by Tzuang with a reasonable expectation of success. This feature is known in the art for FMCW systems and its incorporation would have the predictable result of isolating the chirps for more accurate spectral analysis.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over daSilva in view of Yang et al. (CN104991230B).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva does not teach, whereas Yang teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to provide a noise floor balancing function ([0004]: “This invention solves the problem of unbalanced output noise floor during radar pulse compression under different signal forms, directly adjusting the pulse compression coefficient for each signal form in a simulation environment to balance the pulse compression gain for each corresponding signal form, thereby maintaining a balanced output noise floor for pulse compression under different signal forms”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR testing system as taught by daSilva with an additional feature to maintain a balance in the noise floor as taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. This feature is known in the art for radar applications and its incorporation would have the predictable result of maintaining a higher signal-to-noise ratio similarly for more accurate LIDAR measurements.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over daSilva in view of Oshima et al. (US11754671B2).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, daSilva does not teach, whereas Oshima teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to detect the analog signal by applying a constant false alarm rate, CFAR, algorithm (Col. 16, Lines 60-62: “Constant False Alarm Rate (CFAR) processing is performed to detect a target signal peak”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR testing system as taught by daSilva with an additional feature for constant false alarm rate processing as taught by Oshima with a reasonable expectation of success. This feature is known in the art for radar systems and its incorporation would have the predictable result for detecting peaks in analog signal.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Oshima further teaches:
The test and/or measurement instrument according to claim 1, wherein the test and/or measurement instrument is configured to detect multiple peaks in a spectrum per chirp (Col. 17, Lines 1-10: “When the reference signal is a pulsed chirp signal…FFT is performed in each of the Fast time direction and the slow time direction, whereby a two-dimensional (relative velocity and distance) beat spectrum is obtained. Processing similar to that for FMCW is extended in two dimensions and performed on the obtained beat spectrum, whereby a plurality of the target signal peaks are obtained”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over daSilva in view of Yao (US20230236295A1).
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 18, daSilva does not teach, whereas Yao teaches:
The test system according to claim 18, further comprising a Mach-Zehnder-interferometer connected between the optoelectronic device under test and the test and/or measurement instrument, and wherein the Mach-Zehnder-interferometer is used for determining a chirp linearity of the analog signal and/or for determining at least partially a spectrum of the analog signal ([0033]: “Measuring optical frequencies of light can be performed by an optical spectrum analysis in various ways, including…performing fast Fourier transfer (FFT) on the output of a Michaelson or Mach-Zehnder interferometer as the path difference between the two interfering arms is varying”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR testing system as taught by daSilva with a Mach-Zehnder-interferometer as taught by Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. This feature is known in the art for FMCW LIDAR systems and its incorporation would have the predictable result of determining phase shifts in collimated signals that can be used for spectral analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C NATHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0331. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/KEVIN CHRISTOPHER NATHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights