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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 9-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “the receiver detector” near the end of the claim lacks antecedent basis. It appears that amending line 7 of the claim as submitted to refer to “a receiver detector” instead of “a detector” would fix the issue of antecedent basis.
Regarding Claims 10-11 and 19, the limitation shared by all three claims requiring the laser signal to have “a same amplitude and wavelength” as a region of a transmitter or sensor window does not make sense. It is not clear how a region of a window can have an amplitude or a wavelength. Examiner guesses that this may be due to a translation error. If this is the case claim amendments associated with a certified translation of the parent application supporting the claim amendments could overcome the rejection.
Regarding Claims 12-15, they are rejected for depending from at least rejected base claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20230040923 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a device (100, see FIG. 2) for detecting window contamination of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor, the device comprising:
a laser signal transmitter including:
a transmitter light source (light source 110),
a transmitter optical system (transmitter lens system 130, and
a transmitter window (120, on right side of FIG. 2) for transmitting a laser signal from the transmitter light source to the transmitter window through the transmitter optical system (it’s unclear how a transmitter window can transmit a laser signal to itself. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret this as the transmitter light source transmitting a laser signal to the transmitter window);
a laser signal receiver including:
a receiver window (120, on left side of FIG. 2) disposed on a same plane as the transmitter window (optical devices 120 as shown in FIG. 2 are shown in the same plane),
a receiver optical system (receiver lens structure 170), and
a receiver detector (optical sensor 180) for receiving a reflection signal of the laser signal that is reflected from an object disposed in front of the LiDAR sensor, through the receiver window and the receiver optical system; and
a shield (141) for shielding a space between the laser signal transmitter and the laser signal receiver (optical barrier 141 is shown preventing passage of light emitted by light source 110 directly to optical sensor 180).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the LiDAR sensor comprises a bistatic LiDAR sensor (FIG. 2 of Lee shows a configuration in which optical sensor 180 and light source 110 are arranged in a bistatic configuration where each has its own optics that are separate and distinct from one another).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches a device for detecting window contamination of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor, the device comprising:
a laser signal transmitter including:
a first light source (light source 110),
a first optical system (transmitter lens system 130), and
a first window (120, on right side of FIG. 2);
a laser signal receiver including:
a second window (120, on left side of FIG. 2) disposed on a same plane as the transmitter window,
a second optical system (receiver lens structure 170), and
a first detector (optical sensor 180);
a shield (optical barrier 141) for shielding a space between the laser signal transmitter and the laser signal receiver (FIG. 2 shows optical barrier 141 arranged to prevent passage of light emitted by light source 110 directly to optical sensor 180); and
a controller configured to:
control the laser signal transmitter to transmit a laser signal ([0070] describes output light of the light source taking the form of a laser) from the first light source to the first window through the first optical system (FIG. 2 shows transmitter lens structure 130 being placed between light source 110 and optical device 120 showing that any direct laser emission would go through transmitter lens structure 130 before passing through optical device); and
control the laser signal receiver (180) to receive a reflection signal of the laser signal that is reflected from an object disposed in front of the LiDAR sensor ([0005]-[0006] describe that distance sensors generally emit and receive reflected light to identify distance to an object), by the first detector through the second window and the second optical system (FIG. 2 shows how light emitted from light source 110 must come back through the optical system 120 {i.e. window} and then through receiver lens structure 170 to be detected by optical sensor 180) .
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li et al, “Monolithic coherent LABS lidar based on an integrated transceiver array” (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the laser signal transmitter further includes a transmitter detector for detecting an internal reflection signal of the laser signal that is reflected through the transmitter window.
However, Li teaches the use of transmitter receiver pairs, as shown in FIG. 2, allowing the receiver to detect local light reflected off the emission optics in order to create a local oscillator signal for FMCW coherent ranging.
Li and Lee are both directed to LIDAR systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to add complementary receivers and transmitters to the LIDAR system of Lee in accordance with the teachings of Li to allow for internal reflection monitoring. Li includes a depiction in FIGS. 2 and 2(i) showing how a transmitter / receiver pair can be arranged on the same substrate to utilize common optics (see the device lens shown in FIG. 2). Modifying the configuration using the teachings of Li would be obvious as it allows for monitoring internal reflections, which Li points out allows for generating a precise local oscillator signal for coherent detection near the top of column 2 on page 2 of Li.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lee and Li teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the transmitter detector is parallel to the transmitter light source (FIG. 2(i) show the transmitter detector can be arranged in a U shape around the transmitter in a parallel configuration).
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US PG PUB 20240045040 (hereinafter Tennenhaus).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the laser signal receiver further includes a receiver light source for emitting light to the receiver window.
However, Tennenhaus teaches including a receiver light source for emitting light to the receiver window (FIG. 10 of Tennenhaus describes the use of an illumination source 13 to allow a sensor to monitor contamination 61 on a sensor cover 124).
Tennenhaus and Lee are both directed to LIDAR implementations. Contamination of optical surfaces is a well-known problem in the LIDAR space and Tennenhaus teaches the use of an emitter specifically to illuminate an optical surface to assist with the identification of obstructions on said optical surface. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Lee to add a receiver light source near receiver 180 to address issues such as those listed in [0080] of Tennenhaus where some or all of a sensor window can be obstructed by various obstruction types, such as salt, mud, road grime, snow, rain, dust, bug debris, pollen, and bird droppings.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the receiver light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) ([0070] of Lee describes how the light sources can take the form of an LED used to generate a laser).
Regarding Claim 7, The device of claim 4, wherein the receiver light source comprises a type different from that of the transmitter light source ([0046] of Tennenhaus describes the lidar projection unit 102, analogous to the transmitter light source, using a laser diode 202A & [0113] describes illumination source 13, analogous to the receiver light source, including one or more LEDs, thereby teaching a configuration where light sources are different light source types & [0114] of Tennenhaus goes on to show that the LEDs can operate at different wavelengths from the laser diode).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Tennenhaus in view of Li et al, “Monolithic coherent LABS lidar based on an integrated transceiver array” (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the device of claim 4, however, the combination is silent as to an exact positioning of the receiver detector.
However, Li teaches positioning the receiver light source parallel to the receiver detector as shown in FIGS. 2 and 2(i).
Li and the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus are both directed to LIDAR systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus given the combination’s failure to suggest a specific location for the receiver light source relative to the receiver. Applying Li’s teachings would be obvious since the teachings of Li allow for the incorporation of a receiver and transmitter pair capable of sharing the receiver lens structure 170 shown in FIG. 2 of Lee and FIG. 2/2(i) of Li.
Claims 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tennenhaus.
Regarding Claim 9. A method for detecting window contamination of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor by using the device for detecting window contamination of a LiDAR sensor, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a laser signal transmitter, a laser signal ([0070] describes output light of the light source taking the form of a laser) from a transmitter light source (110) to a transmitter window through a transmitter optical system (FIG. 2 shows transmitter lens structure 130 being placed between light source 110 and optical device 120 showing that any direct laser emission would go through transmitter lens structure 130 before passing through optical device);
receiving, by a laser signal receiver, a reflection signal of the laser signal that is reflected from an object ([0005]-[0006] describe that distance sensors generally emit and receive reflected light to identify distance to an object), disposed in front of the LiDAR sensor, by a detector through a receiver window and a receiver optical system (FIG. 2 shows how light emitted from light source 110 must come back through the optical system 120 {i.e. window} and then through receiver lens structure 170 to be detected by optical sensor 180);
shielding, by a shield (optical barrier 141), a space between the laser signal transmitter and the laser signal receiver (FIG. 2 shows optical barrier 141 arranged to prevent passage of light emitted by light source 110 directly to optical sensor 180);
Lee does not teach the remainder of Claim 9.
However, Tennenhaus teaches detecting, by a transmitter detector (obstruction sensor 11, see FIG. 10) of the laser signal transmitter, an internal reflection signal of the laser signal that is reflected through the transmitter window (Tennenhaus describes a monostatic system as shown in FIG 10 but when combined with Lee as described below the transmitter detector will detect the laser signal reflected from the transmitter window);
emitting light, by a receiver light source (obstruction illumination source 13) of the laser signal receiver, to the receiver window;
interpreting the reflection signal detected by the receiver detector in a standard mode (see FIG. 11 of Tennenhaus showing detection of objects during the LIDAR illumination frame, considered by Examiner to be analogous to the standard mode), and
interpreting at least one of an internal reflection signal of the laser signal transmitter that is detected by the transmitter detector and an internal reflection signal of the laser signal receiver that is detected by the receiver detector, in a detection mode ([0115](a) of Tennenhaus describes how obstruction illumination periods, analogous to the detection mode, occur between LIDAR illumination periods – also see FIG. 11 of Tennenhaus and periods 81/82, which are considered analogous to standard and detection modes respectively).
Tennenhaus and Lee are both directed to LIDAR configurations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the configuration taught by Lee with the obstruction detection teachings and additional sensors taught by Tennenhaus to allow for the identification of sensor window obstructions. In particular, the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have added light detecting sensor 11 of Tennenhaus shown in FIG. 10 near light source 110 of Lee and obstruction illumination source 13 of Tennenhaus near optical sensor 180 as shown in FIG. 2 since Tennenhaus in [0085] suggests a use case in which the obstruction detection sensor relies upon the LIDAR projecting unit 102 to illuminate the sensor window instead of a dedicated obstruction illuminator.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the method of claim 9, wherein, in the detection mode, the method further comprises:
transmitting the laser signal (by light source 110 of Lee as applied in Claim 9 above) having a same amplitude and wavelength (it is entirely unclear how a laser signal can have the same amplitude and wavelength as a region of a sensor window, so this limitation is interpreted as applying to a laser signal having any amplitude and wavelength) to at least one contamination detection region predetermined on the transmitter window (Examiner gives minimal weight to the predetermined contamination detection region limitation as this term as defined in the instant specification could refer to any portion or portions of the transmitter window in light and since Tennenhaus at [0112] teaches the obstruction illumination source 13 can scan the sensor window in a predetermined pattern, this teaching corresponds to the claimed predetermined detection region. See [0073] of the instant application describing a predetermined contamination detection region as just a region that require determination of whether the contamination occurs on the transmitter window, which would presumably be any portion of a sensor window);
receiving the internal reflection signal of the laser signal transmitter that is reflected from the contamination detection region by the transmitter detector (obstruction sensor 11 would receive reflections from light source 110 when Lee is modified by Tennenhaus as described in the rejection of Claim 9); and
determining occurrence of the window contamination based on the internal reflection signal of the laser signal transmitter ([0087] of Tennenhaus describes how a sensor can be configured to ignore regions beyond the sensor window to identify surface window obstructions in the detection mode or obstruction detection period 82 as described in Tennenhaus).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the method of claim 9, wherein, in the detection mode, the method further comprises:
transmitting light (by obstruction illumination source 13 of Tennenhaus as applied in Claim 9 above) having the same amplitude and wavelength (it is entirely unclear how a laser signal can have the same amplitude and wavelength as a region of a sensor window, so this limitation is interpreted as applying to a laser signal having any amplitude and wavelength) to at least one contamination detection region predetermined on the receiver window (Examiner gives minimal weight to the predetermined contamination detection region limitation as this term as defined in the instant specification could refer to any portion or portions of the transmitter window in light and since Tennenhaus at [0112] teaches the obstruction illumination source 13 can scan the sensor window in a predetermined pattern, which corresponds to the claimed predetermined detection region. See [0073] of the instant application describing a predetermined contamination detection region as just a region that require determination of whether the contamination occurs on the transmitter window, which would presumably be any portion of a sensor window);
receiving the internal reflection signal of the laser signal receiver that is reflected from the contamination detection region by the receiver detector (optical detector 180 would receive reflections from obstruction illumination source 13 when Lee is modified by Tennenhaus as described in the rejection of Claim 9); and
determining an occurrence of the window contamination based on the internal reflection signal of the laser signal receiver ([0087] of Tennenhaus describes how the sensor can be configured to ignore regions beyond the sensor window to identify surface window obstructions in the detection mode or obstruction detection period 82 as described in Tennenhaus).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the laser signal comprises an intensity that is greater in the standard mode than in the detection mode ([0115] of Tennenhaus describes the laser only being active during LIDAR illumination periods and not active during obstruction illumination periods, meaning that the laser signal intensity is greater in the LIDAR illumination periods, which is analogous to standard mode).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the determining of whether the window contamination occurs includes:
comparing a measured amplitude of the reflection signal with a reference amplitude of the reflection signal in response to the determination that there is no window contamination ([0149]-[0150] of Tennenhaus teaches the comparison of a reflection signal with a reference clean window detection signal); and
determining an existence of contamination in the contamination detection region when the measured amplitude of the reflection signal is greater than the reference amplitude ([0150] of Tennenhaus describes identification of an obstruction when signal comparison exceeds / is greater than a threshold).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the receiver light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) ([0070] of Lee describes how the light sources can include an LED used to generate a laser).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the LiDAR sensor comprises a bistatic LiDAR sensor (FIG. 2 of Lee shows a configuration in which optical sensor 180 and light source 110 are arranged in a bistatic configuration where each has its own optics that are separate and distinct from one another).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches the device of claim 16, but fails to teach the rest of claim 17.
However, Tennenhaus teaches wherein the laser signal transmitter further includes a second detector (obstruction detector 11),
wherein the laser signal receiver further includes a second light source (obstruction illumination source 13), and
wherein the controller is further configured to:
control the second detector to detect an internal reflection signal of the laser signal that is reflected through the first window; and
control the second light source to emit light to the second window (see FIG. 11 of Tennenhaus showing detection of objects during the LIDAR illumination frame using obstruction detector 11 and obstruction illumination source 13).
Tennenhaus and Lee are both directed to LIDAR configurations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the configuration taught by Lee with the obstruction detection teachings and additional sensors taught by Tennenhaus to allow for the identification of sensor window obstructions. In particular, the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have added light detecting sensor 11 of Tennenhaus shown in FIG. 10 near light source 110 of Lee and obstruction illumination source 13 of Tennenhaus near optical sensor 180 as shown in FIG. 2 since Tennenhaus in [0085] suggests a use case in which the obstruction detection sensor relies upon the LIDAR projecting unit 102 to illuminate the sensor window instead of a dedicated obstruction illuminator.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the controller is further configured to determine an occurrence of window contamination based on:
the reflection signal detected by the first detector, in a standard mode ([0146] of Tennenhaus describes basing obstruction detection on illumination information from the object detection emitter during object illumination time frame); and
at least one of an internal reflection signal of the laser signal transmitter that is detected by the second detector ([0149] of Tennenhaus describes comparison of the signal detected by the obstruction sensor with a reference clean window detection by the obstruction sensor) and an internal reflection signal of the laser signal receiver that is detected by the first detector, in a detection mode.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the device of claim 18, wherein, in the detection mode, the controller is further configured to:
control the laser signal transmitter to transmit the laser signal (by light source 110 of Lee) having a same amplitude and wavelength (it is entirely unclear how a laser signal can have the same amplitude and wavelength as a region of a sensor window, so this limitation is interpreted as applying to a laser signal having any amplitude and wavelength) to at least one contamination detection region predetermined on the first window (Examiner gives minimal weight to the predetermined contamination detection region limitation as this term as defined in the instant specification could refer to any portion or portions of the transmitter window in light and since Tennenhaus at [0112] teaches the obstruction illumination source 13 can scan the sensor window in a predetermined pattern, this teaching corresponds to the claimed predetermined detection region. See [0073] of the instant application describing a predetermined contamination detection region as just a region that require determination of whether the contamination occurs on the transmitter window, which would presumably be any portion of a sensor window);
control the second detector to receive the internal reflection signal of the laser signal transmitter that is reflected from the contamination detection region (obstruction sensor 11 would receive reflections from light source 110 when Lee is modified by Tennenhaus as described in the rejection of Claim 9); and
determine the occurrence of the window contamination based on the internal reflection signal of the laser signal transmitter ([0087] of Tennenhaus describes how a sensor can be configured to ignore regions beyond the sensor window to identify surface window obstructions in the detection mode or obstruction detection period 82 as described in Tennenhaus).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Lee and Tennenhaus teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the laser signal comprises an intensity that is greater in the standard mode than in the detection mode ([0115] of Tennenhaus describes the laser only being active during LIDAR illumination periods and not active during obstruction illumination periods, meaning that the laser signal intensity is greater in the LIDAR illumination periods, which is analogous to standard mode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights