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 5 November 2025.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the claims 1-6.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 3, 5, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 18, 22, and 24 were amended. Claim 7-17 and 19-20 were previously cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-6, 18, and 21-25 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page , filed 5 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Ikeoh et al., US 20210165101 A1 in view of Finkelstein et al., US 20200057151 A1.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 8, “a a” appears to be –a--.
All other claims are rejected due to claim dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “POV” was not disclosed in the specification or the original claims. In the remarks dated 28 May 2025, the Applicant introduced the term “POV” in response to the non-final rejection. In order to further prosecution, the limitation “POV” will be interpreted as “FOV”.
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 18 and 21-25 are 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.
Claim 18 recite the limitation "the one or more detection outputs" in last line of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 21-25 are rejected due to dependency.
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, 4, 6, 18, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeoh et al., US 20210165101 A1 (“Ikeoh”) in view of Finkelstein et al., US 20200057151 A1 (“Finkelstein”).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeoh discloses an apparatus, the apparatus being part of a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) module of a vehicle (Fig. 24, vehicle 501, LIDAR device 100, Paragraph [0145]) and comprising: a flash LiDAR light source (Fig. 1, light emitter 1, laser beam source 11, Paragraph [0043]; Fig. 2, VCSEL array 11A, Paragraph [0048]); a multi-facet polygon having a plurality facets with each facet providing a light reflecting surface (Fig. 1, movable minor 14, Paragraph [0043]; Fig. 8, polygon mirror 14B, plane mirrors 142a to 142f, Paragraph [0067]), each light reflecting surface reflecting light from the flash LiDAR light source at a different angle for a different field of view (FOV), such that the different FOVs each cover a different portion of a large FOV and combine to cover the entire large FOV (Fig. 8, polygon mirror 14B, plane mirrors 142a to 142f, rotation axis 141, Paragraph [0067]-[0068]; See also Fig. 1, scanning range 4, Paragraph [0046]); a single photodetector array having a plurality of sections, with each section configured to receive reflected light from a different one of the different FOVs (Fig. 1, light-receiving element 21, Paragraph [0044]); and a controller configured to: control the light source and the polygon to project the light to illuminate the different FOVs (Fig. 1, control circuit 32, Paragraph [0045]); […]; detect, using the photodetector array, reflected light received from the different FOVs to generate at one time a combined FOV including all the different FOVs (Fig. 1, light receiver 2, light-receiving element 21, Paragraph [0044]-[0046]); and perform at least one of a detection operation or a ranging operation of an object in the combined FOV based on one or more detection outputs of the photodetector array that correspond to the generated combined FOV (Fig. 1, light-receiving element 21, signal processing circuit 33, Paragraph [0046]-[0047]).
Ikeoh does not teach: control the photodetector array to start the exposure of all sections of the array of photodetectors at the same time after the illumination of all of the FOVs completes.
However, Finkelstein teaches a detector array where the TOF pixels may be operated in a global shutter scheme that operates the TOF pixels to simultaneously take a snapshot of the FOV. (Fig. 3, detector array 310, control circuit 105, Paragraph [0081]).
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 Ikeoh’s light receiver by simultaneously activating the light receiving elements to capture the FOV, which is disclosed by Finkelstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “capture a ‘snapshot’ of the FoV”, as suggested by Finkelstein (Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the multi-facet polygon is rotated with all the different FOVs being illuminated and detected within a single rotation of the polygon (Ikeoh, Fig. 8, polygon minor 14B, plane mirrors 142a to 142f, Paragraph [0067]-[0068]: rotation about axis scans XZ-plane of FOV and each plane mirror scans up Y direction of FOV).
Regarding claim 4, Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein different FOVs span different ranges along at least one of a vertical axis or a horizontal axis (Ikeoh, Fig. 8, polygon minor 14B, plane mirrors 142a to 142f, Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the controller is further configured to rotate the multi-facet polygon once through all of the light reflecting surfaces of the multi-facet polygon (Ikeoh, Fig. 8, polygon minor 14B, plane mirrors 142a to 142f, Paragraph [0067]-[0068]; Fig. 1, control circuit 32, Paragraph [0045]) and start an exposure time of all sections of the photodetector array at the same time after the illumination of a last light reflecting surface (Finkelstein, Fig. 3, detector array 310, control circuit 105, Paragraph [0081]).
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 Ikeoh’s light receiver by simultaneously activating the light receiving elements to capture the FOV, which is disclosed by Finkelstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “capture a ‘snapshot’ of the FoV”, as suggested by Finkelstein (Paragraph [0081]).
Claims 18, 21, 23, and 25 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1, 2, 4 and 6. Claims 18, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, in further view of Yang et al., US 20230028159 A1 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, does not teach: wherein the multi-facet polygon is stationary and further comprising a plurality of light sources, with one light source for each different FOV, such that the entire combined FOV is illuminated at the same time.
However, Yang teaches a control module that starts and stops the scanning module’s motor (Fig. 4, control module 6, Paragraph [0197]: control module 6 starts and stops the scanning module’s motor). Yang also teaches two laser transceiver module groups that are both aimed at a polygon mirror to illuminate two sub-fields of view that are stitched together (Fig. 12, scanning module 4, two laser transceiver module groups 2, Paragraph [0238]).
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 Ikeoh’s LIDAR system by adding a second laser to illuminate the full FOV when the polygon is stationary, which is disclosed by Adachi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to expand the FOV of the LIDAR, as suggested by Yang (Paragraph [0238]).
Claim 22 is method claims corresponding to apparatus claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, in further view of Adachi et al., US 20050219504 A1 (“Adachi”).
Regarding claim 5, Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ikeoh, as modified in view of Finkelstein, does not teach: wherein the multi-facet polygon has four facets with the following slope angles β, where b is a common base angle and φ is the angle of the combined FOV: b/2 + φ /16, b/2 + 3 φ /16, b/2 + 5 φ /16, b/2+7 φ /16.
However, Adachi teaches a polygon mirror where the angle of the first five faces with respect to the bottom is θ1, θ1-Δ1, θ1-2Δ1, θ1-3Δ1, θ1-4Δ1. (Fig. 4, polygon mirror 4, face 4a-4e, Paragraph [0035]).
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 Ikeoh’s polygon mirror by having the angles of face mirrors of the polygon mirror take the form θ1 - xΔ1, where x = 0,…,4, which is disclosed by Adachi. It would have been an obvious modification to slightly adjust the angles and number of faces of Adachi’s polygon mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a scanning range in the vertical direction, as suggested by Adachi (Paragraph [0033]).
Claim 24 is method claims corresponding to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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