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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 09/10/2025, introduces new limitation(s) not previously considered and therefore overcomes the prior art rejection(s). However, the amendment gives rise to a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on new analysis of the references previously applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer (US20170328987A1) in view of Sherman (US9244270B1).
Regarding claim 1, Singer teaches a distance-measuring unit for measuring a detection field based on a time-of-flight signal (Fig. 5, wherein the four modules 146, 148, 150 and 152 are each further detailed in Fig. 4; ¶ 22) the distance-measuring unit comprising:
an emitter unit (Fig. 4, 114 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5) configured for emitting laser pulses (Fig. 4, 122);
an optical unit comprising [1: micromirror actuators] and configured for guiding the laser pulses (Fig. 4, 116 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5) into different solid angle segments (Fig. 6B; Fig. 4, 124);
a sensor unit (Fig. 4, 118 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5) configured for receiving echo pulses from the solid angle segments (Fig. 4, 130); and
a logic assembly configured to read the sensor unit (Fig. 4, 120+112 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5), wherein
the emitter unit and the sensor unit are solid-angle-sensitive (Fig. 6B), wherein
the emitter unit and the sensor unit are configured such that the detection field into which the emitter unit emits light and from which the sensor unit receives the echo pulses is subdivided in one direction into emitter solid angle segments (Fig. 6B, segment 154+158 and another segment 156+160; ¶¶ 16-17) by solid-angle-selective emission along a first axis (Fig. 6B, subdivided in the horizontal direction) and in an angled manner or perpendicular thereto into receiver solid angle segments (Fig. 6B, segment 154+156 and another segment 158+160; ¶¶ 16-17) by solid-angle-sensitive reception along a second axis angled or perpendicular to the first axis (Fig. 6B, subdivided in the vertical direction), wherein
each of the emitter solid angle segments is subdivided into a plurality of solid angle segments (Fig. 6B, field 154+158 subdivided into 154 and 158, field 156+160 subdivided into 154 and 158), and
wherein at least the emitter unit, the optical unit, and the sensor unit are arranged on a common substrate (Fig. 5, 106).
Singer does not teach: (1) [the optical unit comprising] a lens or a lens system. However, Sherman teaches the optical unit comprising a lens system in Fig. 1, showing a MEMS array 121 paired with output lens array 124 sharing substrate 110S. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical unit of Singer to include the lens system of Sherman with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so allows for precise beam direction control, filtering of unwanted spatial frequencies, and enhanced beam quality (Sherman, col. 7:38-46; col. 8:7-10).
Regarding claim 2, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein a mounting stop is provided for at least one of the emitter unit, the optical unit, and the sensor unit on the common substrate (singer, Fig. 4, 142).
Regarding claim 3, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the logic assembly is also arranged on the common substrate (Singer, Fig. 5, 106).
Regarding claim 5, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the emitter unit and the optical unit are arranged on the logic assembly (Singer, Fig. 4, 114 and 122 arranged on 120+112).
Regarding claim 12, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the optical unit is a micromirror actuator (Singer, Fig. 4, 116).
Regarding claim 13, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the emitter unit comprises a plurality of emitter units (Singer, Fig. 5, modules 146, 148, 150 and 152, each comprising Fig. 4, 114), wherein the optical unit comprises a plurality of optical units (Singer, Fig. 5, modules 146, 148, 150 and 152, each comprising Fig. 4, 116), and wherein the solid angle segments of each of the optical units are situated at least partly disjointly with respect to one another (Singer, Fig. 5, non-overlapping solid angle segments of optical units Fig. 4, 116 associated with each module 146, 148, 150 and 152).
Regarding claim 14, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 12, and further teaches: wherein the optical unit comprises a plurality of micromirror actuators (Singer, Fig. 4, 116 of Fig. 5, modules 146, 148, 150 and 152), each spanning an angular range (Singer, Fig. 6B), and wherein the plurality of micromirror actuators are arranged such that angel ranges are placed horizontally against one another (Singer, Fig. 6B, 154+158 placed horizontally against 156+160).
Regarding claim 15, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 14, and further teaches: wherein the distance-measuring unit is configured such that the solid angle segments, which adjoin one another but are assigned to different angular ranges (Singer, Fig. 6B) and thus different micromirror actuators (Singer, Fig. 4, 116 of Fig. 5, modules 146, 148, 150 and 152), are scanned in a temporally offset manner (Singer, ¶¶ 22 & 27).
Regarding claim 17, Singer teaches a distance-measuring unit for measuring a detection field based on a time-of-flight signal (Fig. 5, wherein the four modules 146, 148, 150 and 152 are each further detailed in Fig. 4; ¶ 22) the distance-measuring unit comprising:
an emitter unit (Fig. 4, 114 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5) configured for emitting laser pulses (Fig. 4, 122);
an optical unit comprising [1: micromirror actuators] and configured for guiding the laser pulses (Fig. 4, 116 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5) into different solid angle segments (Fig. 6B; Fig. 4, 124);
a sensor unit (Fig. 4, 118 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5) configured for receiving echo pulses from the solid angle segments (Fig. 4, 130); and
a logic assembly configured to read the sensor unit (Fig. 4, 120+112 corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5), wherein
the emitter unit and the sensor unit are solid-angle-sensitive (Fig. 6B), wherein
the emitter unit and the sensor unit are configured such that the detection field into which the emitter unit emits light and from which the sensor unit receives the echo pulses is subdivided in one direction into emitter solid angle segments (Fig. 6B, field 154+158 in one direction next to field 156+160) and in an angled manner or perpendicular thereto into receiver solid angle segments (Fig. 4, emitter solid angle 124 angled relative to receiver solid angle 130, corresponding to each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 of Fig. 5; ¶¶ 16-17), wherein
each of the emitter solid angle segments is subdivided into a plurality of solid angle segments (Fig. 6B, field 154+158 subdivided into 154 and 158, field 156+160 subdivided into 154 and 158),
wherein the sensor unit comprises a plurality of sensor elements (Fig. 5, each module 146, 148, 150 and 152 comprising Fig. 4, 118),
wherein the sensor elements correspond to the receiver solid angle segments (Fig. 6B subdivided to each sensor element of Fig. 5; ¶¶ 16-17), and
wherein the sensor elements are arranged in a fixed configuration with respect to each other (Fig. 5, module 146, 148, 150 and 152), and
wherein at least the emitter unit, the optical unit, and the sensor unit are arranged on a common substrate (Fig. 5, 106).
Singer does not teach: (1) [the optical unit comprising] a lens or a lens system. However, Sherman teaches the optical unit comprising a lens system in Fig. 1, showing a MEMS array 121 paired with output lens array 124 sharing substrate 110S. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical unit of Singer to include the lens system of Sherman with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so allows for precise beam direction control, filtering of unwanted spatial frequencies, and enhanced beam quality (Sherman, col. 7:38-46; col. 8:7-10).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Sherman further in view of Aoyagi (JP2009229601A).
Regarding claim 4, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the logic assembly and the sensor unit are arranged next to one another on the common substrate (Singer, Fig. 4, 120 next to 118 on substrate 106), […]. The combination does not expressly teach: […] and wherein the common substrate comprises a cutout or a through hole between the logic assembly and the sensor unit. However, Aoyagi teaches: […] and wherein the common substrate (Fig. 5, 30) is provided with a cutout (Fig. 5, 35) between the logic assembly (Fig. 5, 41) and the sensor unit (Fig. 5, 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the common substrate of Singer in view of Sherman and a cutout as taught by Aoyagi with the motivation to provide for improved structural alignment and coupling efficiency between the optical and electrical modules see (Aoyagi, p. 6).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Sherman further in view of Bosch (US20140347650A1).
Regarding claim 10, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, and further teaches: further comprising a common housing (Sherman, Fig. 1, housing comprising scanner 190) housing the emitter unit, the optical unit, and the sensor unit (Singer, Fig. 5), and wherein the common housing houses the lens of the optical unit (Sherman, Fig. 1A, 124) and [1: …]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Singer in view of Sherman with the housing of Sherman since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). The artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would recognize that adopting a housing to host the optical components confers the advantages of providing mechanical protection, contamination prevention, maintaining optical alignment, and extending operational lifespan. This update represents a known design benefit yielding predictable advantages and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan.
Singer in view of Sherman does not teach: (1) a lens of the sensor unit.
However, Bosch teaches the limitation in Fig. 3C, 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Singer in view of Sherman with the lens of Bosch with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so allows for increasing light reception capabilities, thereby enhancing measurement sensitivity and accuracy (Bosch, ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 11, Singer in view of Sherman and Bosch teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 10, and further teaches: wherein the lens of the optical unit (Fig. 3C, 21) and the lens of the sensor unit (Fig. 3C, 24) are separate components that are each placed against an opening of a housing element (Figs. 3A-3C, common housing surrounding all components; also see Fig. 6, common housing illustrated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Singer in view of Sherman and Bosch with the additional teachings of Bosch since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). The artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would recognize that placing the lenses of the optical unit and sensor unit against the opening of a housing element confers the advantages of enhancing mechanical stability and maintaining optical alignment, and thereby prolonging optical performance and robustness against mechanical impacts and vibrations. This update represents a known design benefit yielding predictable advantages and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Sherman in further view of Pacala (US20190064355A1).
Regarding claim 16, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, however fails to teach a motor vehicle comprising said distance-measuring unit. Pacala teaches the employment of a distance-measuring unit by a motor vehicle in ¶¶ 2-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance-measuring unit of Singer in view of Sherman with the teachings of Pacala with the motivation to imbue vehicles with object detection and avoidance and navigation capabilities, improving overall situational awareness and enhancing informed decision-making to the vehicle and/or user (see Pacala, ¶¶ 2-4).
Claim 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Sherman further in view of Pacala further in view of Fulkerson (US20150372451A1).
Regarding claim 6, Singer in view of Sherman teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 1, and further teaches [1: a light source] of the emitter unit arranged on the common substrate (Singer, Figs. 4-5, 114 arranged on 106), [2: …]. Singer in view of Sherman does not teach: (1) further comprising a driver unit configured for pulsed operation [of the emitter unit arranged on the common substrate]. Pacala teaches: a driver unit (Fig. 6, 612) configured for pulsed operation of the emitter unit (Fig. 6, 604a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emitter unit of Singer in view of Sherman with the teachings of Pacala with the motivation to provide tailored control for each emitter unit thereby providing improved power management adapted towards application needs (see Pacala, ¶ 112).
Singer in view of Sherman and Pacala does not teach: (2) the driver unit comprising an energy store and a transistor connected in a series with the emitter unit. However, Fulkerson teaches in Fig. 3 an energy store (Vsupply from C1-C3) and a transistor (Q1) connected in series with the emitter unit (240). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driver unit of Singer in view of Sherman and Pacala with the teachings of Fulkerson with the motivation to provide for improved thermal stress management, thereby elevating the reliability and longevity of the system (see Fulkerson, ¶¶ 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, Singer in view of Sherman, Pacala and Fulkerson teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 6, and further teaches: wherein at least the transistor (Singer, Fig. 4, 114 as combined with Pacala and Fulkerson) is arranged on the logic assembly (Singer, Figs. 4, 112).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Sherman further in view of Pacala further in view of Fulkerson further in view of Friedrich (US20150061069A1).
Regarding claim 8, Singer in view of Sherman, Pacala and Fulkerson teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 6, and further teaches: wherein the energy store comprises a […1] capacitor (Fulkerson, Fig. 3. C1-C3) […2]. Singer in view of Sherman, Pacala and Fulkerson does not teach: […1] polysilicon; […2] in or on a silicon substrate. Friedrich in [0015] teaches: in or on a silicon substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the common substrate of Singer in view of Sherman, Pacala and Fulkerson with the silicon substrate of Friedrich since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). One of ordinary skill in the art of optical systems design would have found it obvious to update the common substrate of Singer in view of Sherman, Pacala and Fulkerson with the silicon substrate of Friedrich with the motivation to enable higher density packaging and interconnects offering lower parasitic and greater system performance, in addition to improved thermal conductivity for expanded thermal management and tolerance. This update would have been accomplished with no unpredictable results thus renders the limitation obvious.
Friedrich in [0021] further teaches: the energy store comprises a polysilicon capacitor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitor of Singer in view of Sherman/Pacala/Fulkerson/Friedrich with the polysilicon capacitor of Friedrich since doing so would be a simple substitution of a generic capacitor taught by Fulkerson for a polysilicon capacitor of Friedrich producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B).
Regarding claim 9, Singer in view of Sherman, Pacala, Fulkerson and Friedrich teaches the distance-measuring unit of claim 8, and further teaches: wherein the silicon substrate of the polysilicon capacitor forms the common substrate on which at least the emitter unit, the optical unit, and the sensor unit are arranged (see claim 8 analysis).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Steinberg (US20190227175A1) which discloses beam emission at a solid angle distinguished from the beam reception solid angle in Fig. 2G.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645