Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/341,376

WIDE FOV LIDAR AND VEHICLE WITH MULTIPLE GALVANOMETER SCANNERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 07, 2021
Examiner
XIAO, YUQING
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hl Klemove CORP.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

62%
Career Allow Rate
142 granted / 230 resolved
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
31 pending
261
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
13.3%
-26.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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 The following addresses applicant’s remarks/ amendments dated October 16, 2025. Claims 1, 9, 12 are amended. Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-20 are pending in the current application and are addressed below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, US 9869754 B1, (Campbell) in view of Streid et.al., US 20080002161 A1, (“Streid”). Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches a lidar (Column 5, Line 38-67, lidar system 100), comprising: a transmitter configured to generate a plurality of first laser pulses in a first direction to detect an object (Column 3, Line 22-44, light source 110); a receiver configured to receive a laser pulse reflected from the object (Column 6, Line 46-52, receiver 140); a first galvanometer scanner comprising a first mirror (Column 5, Line 45-51, galvanometer scanner) […]; a second galvanometer scanner comprising a second mirror (Column 5, Line 45-51, galvanometer scanner), […]; and a signal processor configured to process signals of the transmitter and the receiver (Column 11, Line 43-65, controller 150); wherein the first mirror is further configured to reflect and deflect the plurality of first laser pulses to a second direction (Column 5, Line 38-67, Column 6, Line 6-25), the second direction extending across a first range (Column 6, Line 6-25, vertical FOR as first range) wherein the second mirror is further configured to reflect and deflect a plurality of second laser pulses to a third direction, the second laser pulses being reflected and deflected by the first mirror (Column 6, Line 6-25), the third direction extending across a second range, wherein the second range is wider than the first range (Column 6, Line 6-25, horizontal FOR as second range), wherein the lidar is installed in a vehicle (Column 8, Line 45-48). Campbell fails to teach a first galvanometer scanner comprising a first mirror, the first mirror being configured to move in a first rotating direction, the first rotating direction being about a first axis; a second galvanometer scanner comprising a second mirror, the second mirror being configured to move in a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction, the second rotating direction being about a second axis, the second axis being parallel to the first axis. However, Streid teaches a first galvanometer scanner comprising a first mirror, the first mirror being configured to move in a first rotating direction ([0060]- [0061] Fig. 4, folding mirror 56 as first mirror, rotational axis 70 as first axis), the first rotating direction being about a first axis; a second galvanometer scanner comprising a second mirror, the second mirror being configured to move in a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction ([0060]-[0061] Fig 4, scanning mirror 58 as second mirror, rotational axis 64 as second axis), the second rotating direction being about a second axis, the second axis being parallel to the first axis ([0061] It will be apparent that the rotational axis 70 of the folding mirror is parallel to the rotational axis 64 of the scanning mirror). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the 2D scanning mirrors of Campbell with the scanning mirrors of Stried with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of limiting the space used to perform the scanning function, resulting in more a compact lidar scanning system. Regarding claim 2, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the lidar of claim 1, wherein a plurality of third laser pulses are at a view angle extending on a plane perpendicular to the first axis, the third laser pulses being reflected and deflected by the second mirror (Campbell, Column 5, Line 38-67, Column 6, Line 6-25, See figure 3). Regarding claim 4, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the lidar of claim 1, further comprising: a first motor configured to rotate the first mirror; and a second motor configured to rotate the second mirror (Campbell, Column 5, Line 38-67). Regarding claim 9, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the lidar of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or comprises an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), and performs an autonomous driving operation or an advanced driver assistance operation using information detected by the lidar (Campbell, Column 9, Line 4-56). Regarding claim 10, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the lidar of claim 1, wherein the receiver comprises a photoelectric conversion device arranged in one dimension to receive the laser pulse reflected from the object (Campbell, Column 6, Line 46-67). Regarding claim 12, Campbell teaches a vehicle comprising a lidar (Column 5, Line 38-67, lidar system 100, Column 8, Line 45-48, vehicle), wherein the lidar comprises: a transmitter configured to generate a plurality of first laser pulses in a first direction to detect an object (Column 3, Line 22-44, light source 110); a receiver configured to receive a laser pulse reflected from the object (Column 6, Line 46-52, receiver 140); a first galvanometer scanner comprising a first mirror (Column 5, Line 45-51, galvanometer scanner) […]; a second galvanometer scanner comprising a second mirror (Column 5, Line 45-51, galvanometer scanner), […]; and a signal processor configured to process signals of the transmitter and the receiver (Column 11, Line 43-65, controller 150); wherein the first mirror is further configured to reflect and deflect the plurality of first laser pulses to a second direction (Column 5, Line 38-67, Column 6, Line 6-25), the second direction extending across a first range (Column 6, Line 6-25, vertical FOR as first range) wherein the second mirror is further configured to reflect and deflect a plurality of second laser pulses to a third direction, the second laser pulses being reflected and deflected by the first mirror (Column 6, Line 6-25), the third direction extending across a second range, wherein the second range is wider than the first range (Column 6, Line 6-25, horizontal FOR as second range), wherein the lidar is installed in a vehicle (Column 8, Line 45-48). Campbell fails to teach a first galvanometer scanner comprising a first mirror, the first mirror being configured to move in a first rotating direction, the first rotating direction being about a first axis; a second galvanometer scanner comprising a second mirror, the second mirror being configured to move in a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction, the second rotating direction being about a second axis, the second axis being parallel to the first axis. However, Streid teaches a first galvanometer scanner comprising a first mirror, the first mirror being configured to move in a first rotating direction([0060]- [0061] Fig. 4, folding mirror 56 as first mirror, rotational axis 70 as first axis), the first rotating direction being about a first axis; a second galvanometer scanner comprising a second mirror, the second mirror being configured to move in a second rotating direction opposite to the first rotating direction ([0060]-[0061] Fig 4, scanning mirror 58 as second mirror, rotational axis 64 as second axis), the second rotating direction being about a second axis, the second axis being parallel to the first axis ([0061] It will be apparent that the rotational axis 70 of the folding mirror is parallel to the rotational axis 64 of the scanning mirror). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the 2D scanning mirrors of Campbell with the scanning mirrors of Stried with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of limiting the space used to perform the scanning function, resulting in more a compact lidar scanning system. Regarding claim 13, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teach the vehicle of claim 12, wherein a plurality of third laser pulses deflected at a view angle extending on a plane perpendicular to the first axis, the third laser pulses being reflected and deflected by the second mirror (Campbell, Column 5, Line 38-67, Column 6, Line 6-25, See figure 3). Regarding claim 15, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the lidar of claim 1, further comprising: a first motor configured to rotate the first mirror; and a second motor configured to rotate the second mirror (Campbell, Column 5, Line 38-67). Regarding claim 18, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teach the vehicle of claim 12. Campbell fails to teach wherein the first mirror and the second mirror are disposed such that the first axis is closer to the vertical direction of the vehicle than to the horizontal direction of the vehicle. However, Streid teaches wherein the first mirror and the second mirror are disposed such that the first axis is closer to the vertical direction of the vehicle than to the horizontal direction of the vehicle (Stried [0061] It will be apparent that the rotational axis 70 of the folding mirror is parallel to the rotational axis 64 of the scanning mirror). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the 2D scanning mirrors of Campbell with the scanning mirrors of Stried. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the 2D scanning mirrors of Campbell with the scanning mirrors of Stried with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of limiting the space used to perform the scanning function, resulting in more a compact lidar scanning system. To achieve and implement a wide field of view as taught by Stried, the parallel scan mirrors of Stried would be mounted in a vertical position. The first mirror would therefore be disposed such that the first axis is closer to the vertical direction. Regarding claim 19, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the lidar of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or comprises an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), and performs an autonomous driving operation or an advanced driver assistance operation using information detected by the lidar (Campbell, Column 9, Line 4-56). Regarding claim 20, Campbell, as modified in view of Stried teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the receiver comprises a photoelectric conversion device arranged in one dimension to receive the laser pulse reflected from the object (Campbell, Column 6, Line 46-67). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA MARIA BACA whose telephone number is (703)756-1255. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (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. /ANDREA MARIA BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 26, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12578443
DATA REFINEMENT IN OPTICAL IMAGING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12474476
SOLID-STATE LIGHT STEERING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12461213
Calibration of a Lidar Sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12449549
DISPERSION GATING-BASED ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION MEASUREMENT LASER RADAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 11846726
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR IDENTIFYING OBJECTS DETECTED BY A LIDAR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 19, 2023

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+18.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 230 resolved cases by this examiner