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 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a test stand”, and the claim also recites “in particular a roller test stand, for a vehicle” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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)(1) as being anticipated by daSilva (20210357552).
Referring to claim 1 and 15, daSilva shows a device for testing a lidar sensor (and corresponding method) (see figure 8A), the lidar sensor being configured to emit a first light having a first wavelength (see figure 8A note the FMCW pulse having a center wavelength), the device comprising:
a trigger detector (see figure 8A note the array of pixels that detect the FMCW pulse, also see figure 11 note the optical detector) that is configured to receive the first light on a first optical path (see both figure 8A the detected from the LDIAR TX), the trigger detector being configured to generate a trigger signal as a function of the received first light (see figure 8a path 1 also see paragraph 99 note the trigger signal generated by the detection of what pixel receives light pulses);
at least one transmitting device that is configured to emit a second light having a second wavelength as a function of the trigger signal (see figure 8A note the optical shutter or array of MEMS that emits a signal that includes a Doppler shift (inherently having a differing center wavelength) and a delay), the second light being receivable on a second optical path by the lidar sensor (see that path that is going to the LIDAR RX); and
an optical element that is configured to separate the first optical path from the second optical path (note the optical fibers that allow for path separation also see paragraph 98).
Referring to claim 2, daSilva shows the optical element is arranged in the first optical path and in the second optical path (see paragraph 98 note the optical fibers and figure 8A). Referring to claims 3 and 16, daSilva shows the optical element is configured to separate the first optical path, at least on a side facing away from the lidar sensor, from the second optical path (see figure 8A note the separation between the first optical path and the second optical path and how they are parallel).
Referring to claim 4, daSilva shows the first optical path and the second optical path on a side facing the lidar sensor extend essentially in parallel (see figure 8A note the paths face the LIDAR sensor (TX/RX) and are parallel).
Referring to claim 5, daSilva shows the at least one transmitting device and the trigger detector are arranged spatially separate from one another (note the separation between the unreferenced detector as show in path 1 of figure 8A and Ref 806).
Referring to claim 10, daSilva shows at least one optical deflection unit is provided in the second optical path, via which the second light emitted by the at least one transmitting device is deflectable to the optical element or to the lidar sensor (see figure 8A note the optical shutter or array of MEMS).
Referring to claim 11, daSilva shows at least one optical deflection unit is provided in the first optical path, via which the first light emitted by the lidar sensor is deflectable to the optical element or to the trigger detector (see figure 8A note the optical deflection unit going to path 1 from the LIDAR TX).
Referring to claim 12, daSilva shows the optical deflection unit includes at least one mirror (see figure 1 note the deflection unit that is simplified however see paragraph 99 that indicates that the deflection unit includes a system of lenses and mirrors).
Referring to claim 13, daSilva shows the first and/or the second optical path include(s) at least one further optical element (see figure 8A Ref 810).
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) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over daSilva (20210357552) in view of Simper (20220311518).
Referring to claim 9, daSilva fails to specifically show what the first wavelength is. Simper shows a similar device that includes a first wavelength is approximately 905nm or approximately 1550nm (see paragraph 58-59). It would have been obvious to include the claimed wavelengths because this is desirable for testing optical systems with a wavelength range different from the of the target simulator and can include a compensation for thermal drifts as shown by Simper. NIR and IR light are extremely well known optical wavelengths used in LIDAR devices.
Referring to claim 14, deSilva shows a lidar sensor (see figure 2); and
the device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bates (9110154), Feichner (5825464) Sievers (20220291355), Brinkmann (20230341533).
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
