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 27 February 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-21 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14 of the Remarks, filed 27 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of DeMersseman et al., US 20190101645 A1 (“DeMersseman”) in view of Sirigu et al., US 20200408948 A1 (“Sirigu”).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 has the typographical error of “The lidar system of claim 1, wherein: wherein …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMersseman et al., US 20190101645 A1 (“DeMersseman”) in view of Sirigu et al., US 20200408948 A1 (“Sirigu”).
Regarding claim 1, DeMersseman discloses a lidar system comprising: a first light source configured to emit a first light beam (Fig. 5, one of the laser diodes in the array of light transmitters 506, light beams 508, Paragraph [0040]: See also: Paragraph [0028]: transmitter array); a second light source configured to emit a second light beam (Fig. 5, one of the laser diodes in the array of light transmitters 506, light beams 508, Paragraph [0040]: See also: Paragraph [0028]: transmitter array); a first detector configured to receive the first light beam as scattered or reflected by a remote target (Fig. 5, one light receiver in array of light receiver 510, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0029]); a second detector configured to receive the second light beam as scattered or reflected by the remote target (Fig. 5, one light receiver in array of light receiver 510, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0029]); a detector optical element having a central axis and an aperture through which the scattered or reflected first and second light beams pass prior to being received by the first and second detectors (Fig. 5, lenses 518, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0031]); (Fig. 5, reflective member 512, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0030]-[0032])
DeMersseman does not teach: and a beam translator having a translator reflective element, wherein the beam translator is positioned in an optical path between the first and second light sources and a scanner such that the first and second light beams emitted by the first and second light sources do not propagate through the detector optical element, the beam translator is configured to receive the first and second light beams, and the beam translator is configured to shift the first and second light beams parallel and adjacent to the central axis of the detector optical element wherein the beam translator is laterally offset relative to the central axis of the detector optical element, and wherein the first and second light beams propagate parallel to the central axis of the detector optical element prior to reaching the beam translator, and propagate parallel to and laterally offset from the central axis of the detector optical element after being shifted by the beam translator; wherein the reflective element partially overlaps the aperture of the optical element.
However, Sirigu teaches a coaxial photosensor that uses a TIR optical component and a beam splitter to shift light from propagating parallel to the axis of the optical receiver lens to being coaxial with the axis of the optical receiver lens (Fig. 4B, LED 404, TIR optical component 408b, BS 418, optical receiver 406, lens 430, Paragraph [0048]). Sirigu also teaches alternative configurations of optical components for a coaxial photosensor. The beamsplitter could be replaced with a mirror with an opening, which would laterally offset the light propagating coaxial with the axis of the optical receiver lens since the light is reflected around the opening (Fig. 5A, mirror 504, opening 505, incident optical signal 508ip, Paragraph [0052]-[0053]). Lastly, the combination of the TIR optical component and the mirror is laterally offset from the axis of the optical receiver lens because the TIR optical component is shifted from the optical receiver lens’ axis (Fig. 4B, LED 404, TIR optical component 408b, BS 418, optical receiver 406, lens 430, Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeMersseman’s detection system by replacing the beamsplitter 534 with the combination of a TIR optical element and mirror with an opening, which is disclosed by Sirigu. This modification would shift the optical path of the light beams from the transmitter axis to the optical path of the detector after the detector lens before they reach the reflective member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve simplicity of assembly and ruggedness of the sensor, as suggested by Sirigu (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the first and second light beams are arranged vertically and are laterally adjacent to the detector optical element (DeMersseman, Fig. 1, illustrates light transmitters 106 and receivers 110 and light beam 108 and lens 118, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein: wherein the translator comprises a first mirror configured to direct the first and second light beams parallel to the central axis of the detector optical element (Sirigu, Fig. 5A, mirror 504, opening 505, incident optical signal 508ip, Paragraph [0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeMersseman’s detection system by replacing the beamsplitter 534 with the combination of a TIR optical element and mirror with an opening, which is disclosed by Sirigu. This modification would shift the optical path of the light beams from the transmitter axis to the optical path of the detector after the detector lens before they reach the reflective member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve simplicity of assembly and ruggedness of the sensor, as suggested by Sirigu (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the first and second light sources are either direct-emitter laser diodes (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, light transmitters 506, Paragraph [0040] and [0028]) or master oscillator power amplifiers incorporating seed laser diodes.
Regarding claim 9, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the detector optical element comprises a lens (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, lenses 518, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0031]) configured to (i) focus the scattered or reflected first light beam onto the first detector (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, lenses 518, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0031]) and (ii) focus the scattered or reflected second light beam onto the second detector (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, lenses 518, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, further comprising a rotating polygon having mirrored faces (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, Fig. 5, reflective member 512, reflective side 514a, light beams 508, Paragraph [0040]; See also: Paragraph [0030]-[0032]) wherein the first and second light beams are directed from the beam translator to the rotating polygon (Sirigu, Fig. 4B, TIR optical component 408b, Paragraph [0048], Fig. 5A, mirror 504, Paragraph [0052]; DeMersseman, Fig. 5, reflective member 512, Paragraph [0040]), the rotating polygon being configured to rotate about a first axis and to scan the first and second light beams in a substantially horizontal plane across a field of regard (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, reflective member 512, reflective side 514a, light beams 508, Paragraph [0038]; See also: Fig. 8, field of view of LIDAR system 852a, Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeMersseman’s detection system by replacing the beamsplitter 534 with the combination of a TIR optical element and mirror with an opening, which is disclosed by Sirigu. This modification would shift the optical path of the light beams from the transmitter axis to the optical path of the detector after the detector lens before they reach the reflective member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve simplicity of assembly and ruggedness of the sensor, as suggested by Sirigu (Paragraph [0062]).
Claims 12 – 13 and 19-20 are method claims corresponding apparatus claim 1. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is a method claims corresponding to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the first and second light beams are arranged vertically with respect to the beam translator (The combination of DeMersseman and Sirigu teach light transmitters 506 that emit light beams 508 parallel to optical axis of lens 518 and a TIR optical element and mirror 504 that shifts light beams perpendicular to optical axes of the light transmitters and lens. Given the orientation of DeMersseman, the light beams are perpendicular to addition of the first and second right angle prisms; DeMersseman, light transmitters 506, lens 518, light beams 508, Paragraph [0040]; Sirigu, Fig. 4B, TIR optical component 408b, Paragraph [0048], Fig. 5A, mirror 504, Paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeMersseman’s detection system by replacing the beamsplitter 534 with the combination of a TIR optical element and mirror with an opening, which is disclosed by Sirigu. This modification would shift the optical path of the light beams from the transmitter axis to the optical path of the detector after the detector lens before they reach the reflective member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve simplicity of assembly and ruggedness of the sensor, as suggested by Sirigu (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the first and second detectors are arranged horizontally (DeMersseman, Fig. 5, receivers 510 substantially in x-y place, Paragraph [0040]).
Claims 3, 5, 11, 15, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, in further view of Gaalema et al., US 10401480 B1 ("Gaalema").
Regarding claim 3, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 2.
DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, does not teach: wherein the beam translator comprises a rhomboid prism.
However, Gaalema teaches a rhomboid prism that is used to shift the axis of a light beam (Fig. 25, rhomboid prism 640, Col. 42 line 65 – Col. 43 line 21).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sirigu’s TIR optical component and mirror with Gaalema’s rhomboid prism. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because a rhomboid prism may allow for ease of assembly and manufacturing as suggested by Gaalema (Col. 43 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 5, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 2.
DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, does not teach: wherein: the beam translator comprises first and second prisms, the first prism is oriented to reflect the first and second light beams by 90 degrees towards the second prism, the translator reflective element comprises the second prism, and the second prism is oriented to reflect the first and second light beams by 90 degrees.
However, Gaalema teaches two reflective prisms that are used to shift the axis of a light beam (Fig. 22, two prisms 610-1 and 610-2, Col. 42 lines 15-41).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sirigu’s TIR optical component and mirror with Gaalema’s two prisms, and the results would have predictably been shifted light beams.
Regarding claim 11, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 10.
DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, does not teach: further comprising a second mirror pivotable along an axis orthogonal to the first axis and configured to direct the first and second light beams in a substantially vertical direction about the field of regard.
However, Gaalema teaches a scanner that is placed after the optical elements corresponding to the axes of the light source and receiver. The scanner consists of a scan mirror placed before a polygon mirror. The scan mirror pivots along the y-axis to scan the beam vertically. (Fig. 3, scanner 120, polygon mirror 301, scanning mirror 302, Col. 16 lines 6-30).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection system disclosed by DeMersseman and Sirigu by adding a scanning mirror to scan light along a substantially vertical direction, which is disclosed by Gaalema. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to scan the output beam along a vertical direction, as suggested by Gaalema (Col. 16 lines 31-34).
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 11 and is rejection for the same reasons.
Claims 18 and 21 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claim 3. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, in further view of Masuda, US 20170131386 A1 (“Masuda”).
Regarding claim 4, DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, discloses the lidar system of claim 2.
DeMersseman, as modified in view of Sirigu, does not teach wherein: the beam translator comprises first and second mirrors, the first mirror is oriented at 45 degrees to the first and second light beams, the translator reflective element comprises the second mirror, and the second mirror is oriented parallel to the first mirror.
However, Masuda teaches a first and second reflection part, which may have a long mirror. The first and second reflection parts shift the optical axis of the transmitting light beam such that it is coaxial with the detector’s axis. (Fig. 2 and Fig. 7; Paragraph [0073] - [0074] first reflection part 1511 and second reflection part 1512).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sirigu’s TIR optical component and mirror with Masuda’s first and second reflection part. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one reflecting component for another and the results would have been predictable.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights