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, 6-7, 9-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to remarks/arguments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on11/26//2025.
Status of the claims:
Claim 1 has been amended.
The amendment fails to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 9, 15 under 102 and claims 6-7, 10-14 under 103. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. See rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-8, filed on 11/26//2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 9, 15 under 102 and claims 6-7, 10-14 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is no longer met by Schwarz because the claim now recites (i) a reflector “located on and connected to the sensor surface,” and (ii) an optical unit implemented as “a converging lens with a first radius of curvature at a central region and a second radius of curvature at peripheral regions.” Applicant further asserts that Schwarz allegedly discloses only a single-radius lens (405) and uses multiple separate optical elements to achieve the desired optical characteristics rather than a unitary multiradius converging lens. These arguments do not overcome the prior art rejections for the reasons provided below.
First, with respect to the reflector placement, Schwarz expressly discloses that the central aperture region 301 is integrated (embodied) into the detector 107 (Schwarz, e.g., Fig. 4 para 38). As explained in the prior Office Action, aperture region 301 functions as a reflective region (mirror) redirecting emitted or returning radiation within the device optical path. Also, the spec does not define “connected” as physically attached; it can include optical coupling or integral optical-stack positioning.
Applicant does not provide persuasive reasoning or evidence that a skilled artisan would interpret “located on and connected to the sensor surface” in a manner excluding a reflective layer or reflective structure integrated on the detector plane as taught by Schwarz. Accordingly, the amended language does not patentably distinguish the claim from Schwarz.
Second, Applicant’s assertion that Schwarz teaches only a lens having “one radius of curvature” is not supported by the reference. Schwarz describes an optical unit comprising lens 405 in combination with micro-optical elements 408 (Fig. 4, para 39-41), which collectively shape, deflect, refract, and redirect the emitted and received beams. The Examiner notes that Schwarz teaches a multi-element optical arrangement that provides location-dependent beam shaping and focusing effects across different regions of the aperture. Applicant’s argument improperly isolates lens 405 from the remainder of the optical unit and does not account for the combined teachings of Schwarz’s optical components as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that Schwarz explicitly describes only a single-radius lens, the modification to employ a converging lens having different radius of curvature in central versus peripheral regions (e.g., an aspheric or regionally varying curvature lens) would have been an obvious design choice to a skilled optical engineer to tailor focal properties for combined emitter/receiver operation, reduce optical element count, or consolidate lens functions into a single component. Applicant does not identify any unexpected results, criticality of dimensions, or technical effect distinguishing the amended feature from well-known optical design practices. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s contention regarding the number of optical elements used in Schwarz (five or more) is likewise unpersuasive. The mere consolidation of known optical functions into a single lens does not impart patentability absent a new or unexpected functional result. Schwarz explicitly teaches the same overall functionality—coupling emitted pulses to a detection field and receiving return pulses via optical redirection—and the art recognizes that multi-element systems and single multi-curvature lenses are interchangeable design alternatives. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) (changes in number of components performing the same function typically a matter of design choice).
Further, the claim does not require:
a monolithic lens with discrete molded zones, nor
physically distinct curvature transitions, nor
that the curvatures be formed in a single piece.
The claim only functionally recites “a converging lens with a first radius of curvature at a central region and a second radius of curvature at peripheral regions,” which is satisfied by Schwarz’s multi-element optical unit operating together to produce different focal characteristics for central and peripheral ray bundles. Such “effective curvature” behavior is well-recognized in the optical arts.
Fig. 4 shows an aspheric converging lens, with visibly different curvature between the central region and peripheral regions. Aspheric / variable-curvature converging lenses are explicitly encompassed by Schwarz’s description because lens 405 is described as the light-collimating element determining scanning angles and beam shape (See for example para 41-42).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejections. The amendments to claim 1 do not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter over the cited references, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are therefore maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwarz et al. (US 20190353755 A1, “Schwarz”).
Regarding claim 1, Schwarz teaches a distance-measuring unit for measuring a distance to an object located in a detection field based on a time-of-flight signal (Para 5 and 8),
the distance-measuring unit (Fig. 4, para 38) comprising:
an emitter unit configured to emit laser pulses (Fig. 4, para 31 and 38, laser 101);
an optical unit (Fig. 4, para 41, lens 405) coupling the emitter unit to the detection field, wherein the optical unit (Fig. 4, lens 405) comprises a first surface (Fig. 4, first side is where beams 406 impinge lens 405) and a second surface (Fig. 4, second surface is where beams 407 exit lens 405) opposite the first surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are separated by a material of the optical unit (Para 41 “Lens 405 shapes divergent beam 406 into an approximately parallel scanning beam 407”). As shown in fig. 4, lens 405 changes the direction property of beams 46 so it is inherent to have a material between the first surface and the second surface of lens 405 to shape divergent beam 406 into an approximately parallel scanning beam 407) wherein the optical unit is configured to guide the laser pulses incident onto the first surface into the detection field (Fig. 4, lens 405 guides incident beams 406 to the detection field), and wherein the laser pulses exit the optical unit into the detection field from the second surface (Fig. 4, beams 407 exit lens 405 into the detection field from the second surface);
a receiver unit (Fig. 4, para 38; optical receiver 102) having a sensitive sensor surface (Fig. 4, para 38; detector element 107) configured to receive laser pulses reflected at the object, as echo pulses,
wherein the receiver unit is coupled to the detection field by the optical unit such that the echo pulses (Fig. 4, Echo pulses are the dot arrows. See also, para 33 and 43, Received electromagnetic radiation 106) received from the detection field and incident onto the second surface are guided through the optical unit onto the sensor surface, wherein the echo pulses exit the optical unit from the first surface (Fig. 4, para 38, as shown in fig. 4, the echo pulses (dot arrows) impinge the second surface and exit lens 405 and guide to detector element 107. See also, para 33 and 43); and
a reflector (Fig. 4, para 38, aperture region 301 is embodied as a mirror) having a reflection surface configured to reflect the laser pulses through the optical unit (Fig. 4), wherein the reflector is arranged between the emitter unit and the optical unit (Fig. 4, region 301 is arranged between the laser source 101 and lens 405),
wherein the reflector and the receiver unit are positioned relative to one another (Fig. 4, region 301 and receiver 102) such that a perpendicular projection of the reflection surface onto the sensor surface covers the sensor surface partially but not fully (fig. 4, region 103 does not cover the sensor surface completely), and wherein the reflector is located on the sensor surface and connected thereto (Fig. 4, para 38, Detector element 107 has, at its center, aperture region 301. Aperture region 301 is embodied as a mirror).
wherein the reflector is located on and connected to the sensor surface (Fig. 4, para 38 “Optical receiver 102 has detector element 107. Detector element 107 has, at its center, aperture region 301. Aperture region 301 is embodied as a mirror.”. So, Mirror 301 is physically located on and integrated into the detector element 107. See also, fig.3 para 35-36),
wherein the optical unit is a converging lens (Para 41, Lens 405 shapes divergent beam 406 into an approximately parallel scanning beam 407. This is the definition of a converging lens) with a first radius of curvature at a central region and a second radius of curvature at peripheral regions laterally surrounding the central region (Fig. 4, para 41-42. Lens 405 is shown in FIG. 4 as an aspheric converging lens, with visibly different curvature between the central region and peripheral regions. Aspheric / variable-curvature converging lenses are explicitly encompassed by Schwarz’s description because lens 405 is described as the light-collimating element determining scanning angles and beam shape. The figure and description show a non-uniform curvature profile. Thus Schwarz inherently discloses a converging lens with different radius across its surface), and
wherein the first radius of curvature is smaller than the second radius of curvature (In Fig. 4, lens 405 has a steeper curvature at the center and a flatter curvature laterally.).
Regarding claim 9, Schwarz teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the distance-measuring unit is configured to emit the laser pulses into different solid angle segments of the detection field (para 32 “In a second orientation of the deflection mirror, emitted electromagnetic radiation 105 can be deflected, as deflected emitted electromagnetic radiation 105-1, through at least one further angle, different from the first angle, into the surrounding area.”).
Regarding claim 15 Schwarz teaches a motor vehicle comprising: the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 1(Para 2, 4 and rejection of claim 1), wherein the distance-measuring unit is configured to measure distances based on time-of-flight signals (Para 2 and 4. See also, para 5, 8).
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.
Claims 6, 7, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz in view of Frederiksen et al. (US 20180106901 A1, “Frederiksen”).
Regarding claim 6, Schwarz fails to explicitly teach but Frederiksen teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflector comprises a prismatic body made of a radiation-transmissive material (Fig. 10, para 56 lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwarz in view of Frederiksen to have a reflector with a prismatic body made of a radiation-transmissive material. Doing so will reduce or eliminated chromatic aberration, leading to higher quality images.
Regarding claim 7, Schwarz, as modified in view of Frederiksen, teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 6, wherein the reflection surface is a total internal reflection surface, and wherein the laser pulses enter the radiation- transmissive material of the reflector and emerge after total internal reflection at the reflection surface (Frederiksen, Fig. 10, para 56 lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 10, Schwarz fails to explicitly teach but Frederiksen teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 9, further comprising a further emitter unit having a further reflector,
wherein the emitter unit is associated with the reflector (Fig. 10, para 57, transmitter 102b and beam splitter 201b), and
wherein each emitter unit, along with its respective reflector, are assigned to its own solid angle segment (Fig. 10 electromagnetic radiation 105a and 105b are associated with beam splitter 201a and 201b. Transmitters 102a and 102b emit a plurality of beams 105a and 105b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwarz in view of Frederiksen to include a second emitter and reflector. Doing so will provide a wider scanning range and detect objects with different/specific ranges.
Regarding claim 11, Schwarz, as modified in view of Frederiksen, teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 10, wherein reflection surfaces of the reflectors are tilted relative to one another (Frederiksen, fig. 10, reflective surfaces of beam splitters 201a and 201b are tilted relative to one another).
Regarding claim 12, The distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 10, further comprising a further receiver unit having a further sensor surface, wherein each sensor surface is respectively assigned its own reflector (Frederiksen, fig. 10 para 57, detection surfaces of receivers 103 a and 103b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwarz in view of Frederiksen to include a second receiver. Doing will provide a precise measurement result by using the second receiver to verify the first measurement as described by Frederiksen in para 19,26.
Regarding claim 13, Schwarz, as modified in view of Frederiksen, teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 10, wherein the laser pulses of different emitter units are guidable into the detection field by the optical unit (Frederiksen, fig. 10 electromagnetic radiations 105 are directed to lenses 107).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz in view of Shpunt et al. (US 20130207970 A1, “Shpunt”).
Regarding claim 14, Schwarz teaches the distance-measuring unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the emitter unit is a laser diode (Fig. 4, para 31 and 38, shows a lidar sensor with a light source 101 which is a laser that emits electromagnetic radiation 105), and the receiver unit is a photodiode (Fig. 4, para 38 and 43, shows a lidar sensor with a receiver 102 that detects reflected light 106).
Schwarz fails to explicitly teach but Shpunt teaches wherein the laser diode and the photodiode are structured on a common semiconductor substrate (fig. 7. See also fig. 6. Laser Die and APD die are on the same silicon optical bench).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schwarz in view of Shpunt to have the transmitter and the receiver on the same silicon bench. Doing so will allow to reduce the size of distance measuring and also the cost.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights