DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1, “the device according to one of the preceding claims, the change device…” should read “the device according to claim 4, the change device…” because the change device is introduced in claim 4. For examining purpose, examiner will treat the claim 5 depends on claim 4.
Claim 7, line 1, “the device according to claim 1, wherein the change device…” should read “the device according to claim 4, wherein the change device…” because the change device is introduced in claim 4. For examining purpose, examiner will treat the claim 7 depends on claim 4.
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 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4, line 2, the limitation of “…a function of the object simulator” lacks antecedent basis.
Other claims are rejected due to claim dependency.
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) 1-3, 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Passhofer et al. (DE 102007057372 A1, hereinafter “Passhofer”).
Regarding claim 1, Passhofer teaches a device for testing a lidar sensor (Passhofer; Figs. 1-2, [0023], the test system 101), the lidar sensor being configured to emit a first light having a first wavelength (Passhofer; Figs. 1-2, [0024], the lidar sensor 117 to be tested includes a transmitter 118 which emits via the optics 120), the device comprising:
a trigger detector configured to receive the first light on a first optical path, the trigger detector being configured to generate a trigger signal as a function of the received first light (Passhofer; Figs. 1-2, [0024], the transmit signal of the sensor 117 is received by the trigger unit 108 of the test system (via first optical path, Fig. 1 the path from transmitter 118 to trigger unit 108 or Fig. 2, the path from lidar 117 to the trigger unit 208, [0028]) and trigger the transmitting unit 102/202 to transmit the optical signal (equivalent to trigger signal) to the receiving sensor 119 of lidar 117 to be tested);
at least one transmitter configured to emit a second light, the at least one transmitter having a second wavelength, as a function of the trigger signal, the second light being receivable on a second optical path by the lidar sensor (Passhofer; Figs. 1-3, [0029], the transmitting device 102 (202) (trigger signal [0024]) can also be designed such that several LED/laser diodes 202a, 202b and 202c are projected onto the diffuser 204 and passing to the receiver 119 (219) through second optical path (Fig. 1 path from transmitter 102 to receiver 119 or Fig. 2, path from transmitter 202 to lidar 117); [0030], implement a signal simulator with different wavelengths, for example 810 nm, 905 nm and 1550 nm);
a first optical element configured to separate the first optical path from the second optical path (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0028], a semi-transparent mirror 212 is placed in the beam path 210 after the aperture 205. The mirror 212, part of the power is directed via the beam path 211 through the optics 207 to the detector 208 (trigger unit). Therefore, mirror 212 separate the first path (the transmitting path from lidar 117 to the detector 208) and the second path (the receiving path from transmitter 202 to the lidar 117)); and
a second optical element that is arranged in the second optical path and that is configured to apply a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0011], [0027]-[0028], optical elements includes Bandpass filter 203, aperture 205 and a diffuser 204 which is posited in the path between transmitter 202 to the Lidar 117 to achieve a homogenous luminance).
Regarding claim 2, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the second optical element is configured to apply the diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light in the second optical path on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar sensor, wherein the first optical path and the second optical path are separated on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar sensor (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0011], [0027]-[0028], a diffuser 204 is posited in the path between transmitter 202 to the Lidar 117 to achieve a homogenous luminance. Furthermore, as shown in the Fig. 2, the diffuser is positioned on the side of the first optical element 212 facing away from the lidar 117 and the first optical path (from lidar 117 to detector 208) and the second optical path (from transmitter 202 to lidar 117) are separated by the first optical element 212 on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar 117).
Regarding claim 3, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the second optical element includes a diffuser or a screen (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0011], [0027]-[0028], optical elements includes Bandpass filter 203, aperture 205 and a diffuser 204 which is posited in the path between transmitter 202 to the Lidar 117 to achieve a homogenous luminance).
Regarding claim 9, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one transmitter includes a field of light sources, the light sources being activatable independently of one another (Passhofer; Figs. 3a-3b, [0032], to enable the testing of sensors with multiple channels, the diffuser 204 is alternatively illuminated by several arrangements of laser LED 202a, 202b and 202c, wherein each light sources includes a field of view).
Regarding claim 10, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one transmitter and the trigger detector are arranged spatially separate from one another (Passhofer; Figs. 1-3, [0023], transmitter unit 102, trigger unit 108; [0027]-[0028], laser diode 202, trigger unit 208; [0029], [0031], laser diodes 202a-202c, the trigger unit 222).
Claim 15-16 are the method claim possess nearly identical limitation to those of claim 1-2 and are thus rejected for the same reasoning.
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) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passhofer, modified in view of Coleman (US 10816939 B1, hereinafter “Coleman”).
Regarding claim 4, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1.
Passhofer does not teach,
wherein a change device is provided which is configured to change the direction of the second light as a function of the object simulator.
Coleman disclosed in Column, 22, line 24, an Angularly Varying Light Emitting Device or system (AVLED) comprising an AVLED dynamically adjusts the location and/or angular width of one or more angular bins based on input or information (such as feedback) from one or more sensors, controllers, programs, and/or modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include wherein a change device is provided which is configured to change the direction of the second light as a function of the object simulator taught by Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this using a Angularly Varying Light Emitting Device or system (AVLED) to dynamically adjust the location and/or angular width of one or more angular bins based on input or information (such as feedback) from one or more sensors, controllers, programs, and/or modes (Coleman, Column, 22, line 24).
Regarding claim 5, Passhofer as modified above teaches the device as recited in one of the preceding claims.
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the change device is a further optical element in the second optical path.
Coleman disclosed in Column, 22, line 24, an Angularly Varying Light Emitting Device or system (AVLED) comprising an AVLED dynamically adjusts the location and/or angular width of one or more angular bins based on input or information (such as feedback) from one or more sensors, controllers, programs, and/or modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include wherein a change device is provided which is configured to change the direction of the second light as a function of the object simulator; wherein the change device is a further optical element in the second optical path taught by Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this using a Angularly Varying Light Emitting Device or system (AVLED) to dynamically adjust the location and/or angular width of one or more angular bins based on input or information (such as feedback) from one or more sensors, controllers, programs, and/or modes (Coleman, Column, 22, line 24).
Regarding claim 6, Passhofer as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 4.
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the change device includes an electromagnetically driven mirror or a galvo mirror.
Coleman disclosed in Column 31, line 52, an AVLED comprises one or more scanning elements selected from the group such as rotating mirror scanner, resonant galvanometer scanner, servo-controlled galvanometer scanner, raster scanner….
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include wherein a change device is provided which is configured to change the direction of the second light as a function of the object simulator; wherein the change device includes an electromagnetically driven mirror or a galvo mirror taught by Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this using a Angularly Varying Light Emitting Device or system (AVLED) to dynamically adjust the location and/or angular width of one or more angular bins (Coleman, Column, 22, line 24). Furthermore, the AVLED includes one or more scanning elements selected from the group such as rotating mirror scanner, resonant galvanometer scanner, servo-controlled galvanometer scanner, raster scanner…to scanning the environment (Coleman; Column 31, line 52).
Regarding claim 7, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1.
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the change device includes a movement device that is designed to change the direction of transmission of the second light via a movement of at least one light source of the at least one transmitter.
Coleman disclosed in Column 31, line 41, an AVLED comprises one or more light sources emitting light to one or more scanning elements such that the light is re-directed into a plurality of angular bins as the scanning element moves. Implies there is a movement device to move the light sources such that to re-direct the light into a plurality of angular bins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to wherein the change device includes a movement device that is designed to change the direction of transmission of the second light via a movement of at least one light source of the at least one transmitter taught by Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using movement device further to move the scanning element such that to re-direct the light into a plurality of angular bins (Coleman; Column 31, line 41).
Regarding claim 8, Passhofer as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 7.
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the at least one transmitter includes a projector.
Coleman disclosed in Column 23, line 42, an AVLED comprises a plurality of projectors wherein the angular output from each projector does not substantially overlap with the angular output form another projector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to wherein the change device includes a movement device that is designed to change the direction of transmission of the second light via a movement of at least one light source of the at least one transmitter; wherein the at least one transmitter includes a projector taught by Coleman with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is including a plurality of projectors wherein the angular output from each projector does not substantially overlap with the angular output from another projector (Coleman; Column 23, line 42).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passhofer, modified in view of Avci et al. (US 11156715 B1, hereinafter “Avci”).
Regarding claim 11, Passhofer teaches above the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the first wavelength is not equal to the second wavelength (Passhofer; Figs. 1-3, [0029], the transmitting device 102 (trigger signal [0024]) can also be designed such that several LED/laser diodes 202a, 202b and 202c are projected onto the diffuser 204 and passing to the receiver 119 (219) through second optical path (Fig. 1 path from transmitter 102 to receiver 119 or Fig. 2, from transmitter 202 to lidar 117); [0030], implement a signal simulator with different wavelengths, for example 810 nm, 905 nm and 1550 nm. Implies, the second wavelength and the first wavelength are different), and
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the separation of the first optical path and of the second optical path by the first optical element is a function of the wavelength.
Avci disclosed in Column 7, line 24, for multiple wavelength beams, wavelength demultiplexers may be used to separate different wavelengths and direct them to dedicated detectors. Fig. 2 illustrates an example of a two-wavelength configuration, where a wavelength demultiplexer (DEMUX) 215 separates the first wavelength, λ1 (path toward PD 218), from the second wavelength, λ2 (path toward PD 207). The DEMUX 215 may be for example, and without limitation, a dichroic mirror, a Bragg grating or any other suitable wavelength demultiplexer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include wherein the separation of the first optical path and of the second optical path by the first optical element is a function of the wavelength taught by Avci with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a wavelength demultiplexers to separate different wavelengths and direct them to dedicated detectors (Avci; Column 7, line 24).
Regarding claim 12, Passhofer modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 11.
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the optical element is a dichroic mirror.
Avci disclosed in Column 7, line 24, for multiple wavelength beams, wavelength demultiplexers may be used to separate different wavelengths and direct them to dedicated detectors. Fig. 2 illustrates an example of a two-wavelength configuration, where a wavelength demultiplexer (DEMUX) 215 separates the first wavelength, λ1 (path toward PD 218), from the second wavelength, λ2 (path toward PD 207). The DEMUX 215 may be for example, and without limitation, a dichroic mirror, a Bragg grating or any other suitable wavelength demultiplexer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include wherein the separation of the first optical path and of the second optical path by the first optical element is a function of the wavelength; wherein the optical element is a dichroic mirror taught by Avci with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a wavelength demultiplexers (such as a dichroic mirror, a Bragg grating or any other suitable wavelength demultiplexer) to separate different wavelengths and direct them to dedicated detectors (Avci; Column 7, line 24).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passhofer, modified in view of Lawrence et al. (US 20200130188 A1, “Lawrence”).
Regarding claim 13, Passhofer teaches
a lidar sensor (Passhofer; Figs. 1-2, [0023], the test system 101; [0024], the lidar sensor 117 to be tested includes a transmitter 118 which emits via the optics 120); and the device according to claim 1 (please see the claim 1 mapping above).
Passhofer does not teach,
A test stand for a vehicle.
Lawrence disclosed in Fig. 1, [0033]-[0034], ADAS sensor calibrating system 30 for use in calibrating one or more sensors 32 (such as LIDAR sensor) of a vehicle 34 includes a computer system or controller 40, a vehicle support stand 42 upon which vehicle 34 is held stationary whereby vehicle 34 is longitudinally oriented with a robotic target positioning system 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include a test stand for a vehicle taught by Lawrence with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a ADAS sensor calibrating system includes a vehicle stand for calibrating one or more Lidar sensors of a vehicle (Lawrence, Fig. 1, [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Passhofer modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 13.
Passhofer does not teach, wherein the test stand is a roller test stand.
Lawrence disclosed in [0008] According to a further aspect, the vehicle support stand includes moveable forward tire supports and moveable rearward tire supports upon which the opposed sets of tires of the equipped vehicle are disposed. The forward tire supports and/or the rearward tire supports may be configured as rollers (rollers 72 in Figs. 3-6), and the axis of rotation of the rollers may be aligned with the longitudinal axis of the equipped vehicle. In a particular embodiment, the forward tire supports each comprise two sets of rollers that are angled together in a V-shaped configuration for locating the equipped vehicle. The rearward tire supports may each comprise at least one set of rollers that are generally horizontally oriented.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Passhofer to include a test stand for a vehicle; wherein the test stand is a roller test stand taught by Lawrence with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that the forward tire supports and/or the rearward tire supports may be configured as rollers (rollers 72 in Figs. 3-6), and the axis of rotation of the rollers may be aligned with the longitudinal axis of the equipped vehicle. In a particular embodiment, the forward tire supports each comprise two sets of rollers that are angled together in a V-shaped configuration for locating the equipped vehicle (Lawrence; [0008], [0038]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 1, Application No. 18916625 teaches a device for testing a lidar sensor, the lidar sensor being configured to emit a first light having a first wavelength, the device comprising (Application No. 1891662; claim 1, line 1-2):
a trigger detector configured to receive the first light on a first optical path, the trigger detector being configured to generate a trigger signal as a function of the received first light (Application No. 1891662; claim 1, line 3-5);
at least one transmitter configured to emit a second light, the at least one transmitter having a second wavelength, as a function of the trigger signal, the second light being receivable on a second optical path by the lidar sensor (Application No. 1891662; claim 1, line 6-8);
a first optical element configured to separate the first optical path from the second optical path (Application No. 1891662; claim 1, line 9-10); and
Application No. 18916625 does not teach,
a second optical element that is arranged in the second optical path and that is configured to apply a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light.
Passhofer teaches a second optical element that is arranged in the second optical path and that is configured to apply a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0011], [0027]-[0028], optical elements includes Bandpass filter 203, aperture 205 and a diffuser 204 which is posited in the path between transmitter 202 to the Lidar 117 to achieve a homogenous luminance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Application No. 18916625 to include a second optical element that is arranged in the second optical path and that is configured to apply a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light taught by Passhofer with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a second optical element on the second optical path for shaping/transmitting the second light (Passhofer; [0011], [0027]-[0028]).
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 2, Application No. 18916625 as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the first optical path and the second optical path are separated on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar sensor (Application No. 1891662; claim 3).
Application No. 18916625 does not teach,
wherein the second optical element is configured to apply the diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light in the second optical path on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar sensor,
Passhofer teaches, wherein the second optical element is configured to apply the diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light in the second optical path on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar sensor (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0011], [0027]-[0028], a diffuser 204 is posited in the path between transmitter 202 to the Lidar 117 to achieve a homogenous luminance. Furthermore, as shown in the Fig. 2, the diffuser is positioned on the side of the first optical element 212 facing away from the lidar 117 and the first optical path (from lidar 117 to detector 208) and the second optical path (from transmitter 202 to lidar 117) are separated by the first optical element 212 on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Application No. 18916625 to include a second optical element that is arranged in the second optical path and that is configured to apply a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light; wherein the second optical element is configured to apply the diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light in the second optical path on the side of the first optical element facing away from the lidar sensor taught by Passhofer with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a second optical element on the second optical path for shaping/transmitting the second light (Passhofer; [0011], [0027]-[0028]).
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 10, Application No. 18916625 as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one transmitter and the trigger detector are arranged spatially separate from one another (Application No. 18916625; claim 5).
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 11, Application No. 18916625 as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the first wavelength is not equal to the second wavelength, and wherein the separation of the first optical path and of the second optical path by the first optical element is a function of the wavelength (Application No. 18916625; claim 6).
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 12, Application No. 18916625 as modified above teaches, wherein the optical element is a dichroic mirror (Application No. 18916625; claim 7).
Claim 13 and 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 13, Application No. 18916625 as modified above teaches, a test stand for a vehicle comprising: a lidar sensor; and the device according to claim 1 (Application No. 18916625; claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, Application No. 18916625 as modified above teaches, wherein the test stand is a roller test stand (Application No. 18916625; claim 14).
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18916625 modified in view of Passhofer.
Regarding claim 15, Application No. 18916625 teaches, a method for testing a lidar sensor, the method comprising:
emitting a first light having a first wavelength, by the lidar sensor (Application No. 18916625; claim 15, line 2);
receiving the first light on a first optical path by a trigger detector (Application No. 18916625; claim 15, line 3);
generating a trigger signal by the trigger detector as a function of the received first light (Application No. 18916625; claim 15, line 4-5);
emitting a second light, having a second wavelength, by at least one transmitter as a function of the trigger signal (Application No. 18916625; claim 15, line 6-7);
receiving the second light on a second optical path by the lidar sensor (Application No. 18916625; claim 15, line 8);
separating, via a first optical element, the first optical path from the second optical path (Application No. 18916625; claim 15, line 9); and
Application No. 18916625 does not teach,
applying, via a second optical element, a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light in the second optical path.
Passhofer teaches a second optical element that is arranged in the second optical path and that is configured to apply a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light (Passhofer; Fig. 2, [0011], [0027]-[0028], optical elements includes Bandpass filter 203, aperture 205 and a diffuser 204 which is posited in the path between transmitter 202 to the Lidar 117 to achieve a homogenous luminance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Application No. 18916625 to include applying, via a second optical element, a diffuse reflection and/or transmission to the second light in the second optical path taught by Passhofer with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a second optical element on the second optical path for shaping/transmitting the second light (Passhofer; [0011], [0027]-[0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirata et al. (US 20090290204 A1) disclosed in Fig. 4, [0008], an optical scanning actuator includes: a fixed member on which a light source is mounted; a movable member that is caused to vibrate by a driving unit in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical element, an optical element that deflects light emitted from the light source being mounted on the movable member; and a joint unit that connects between the fixed member and the movable member, supports the movable member, and is bent in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the light emitted from the light source according to vibration of the movable member. The light emitted from a light source is scanned in an vibration direction of the movable member by vibration of the optical element along with the vibration of the movable member. The joint unit includes a plurality of pairs of joint members, and the pairs of the joint members are connected to one another via at least one deformation reducing member that reduces bending deformation of the joint members caused by the vibration of the movable member.
Bozchalooi (US 20240127568 A1) disclosed in [0037], while the specific implementation of multi-sensor camera system 300 uses dichroic mirrors in the manner of optical filters to separate the received reflected patterns of multiple wavelengths, other implementations of camera 1 and camera 2 can use other types of optical filters other than dichroic mirrors to achieve the wavelength filtering function without departing from the present disclosure. In further embodiments, instead of using multiple detectors and filters, camera 1 and camera 2 and light projector 110 can be configured to perform time-division measurements, e.g., by sequentially projecting the multiple structured patterns of distinct wavelengths by light projector 110, and sequentially measuring each reflected pattern of a distinct wavelength that has been separated in time, using a single detector/sensor in camera 1 and camera 2.
DeBoer (US 20250111714 A1) disclosed in [0075] As understood from FIGS. 3 and 4, dynamic vehicle testing apparatus 324 is configured as a roll-brake stand having pairs of rollers 326, 328 that rotationally support front and rear tire and wheel assemblies 12a, 12b of vehicle 12. Vehicle 12 is configured to be operated on apparatus 324 such that the vehicle powertrain drives one or more of rollers 326, 328, where the rollers 326, 328 may provide rolling resistance to the driven wheels 12a, 12b of vehicle 12 strictly via inertial resistance. Alternatively, electric motors 330 coupled with rollers 326, 328 may be employed to provide additional resistance to driven wheels of vehicle 12. Although apparatus 324 may have four pairs of rollers 326, 328 for each of the wheel assemblies 12a,12b of vehicle 12, it should be appreciated that an alternatively configured apparatus may have fewer such pairs of rollers, such as two forward sets for a front wheel drive vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-LING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3630. 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.
/CHIA-LING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
