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, 15-16 and 18 are amended, claims 3 and 20-21 are cancelled and claims 22-23 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues on page 11 that the combination of Phillips and Li does not disclose the amended limitation of claims 1 and 18, because Li does not disclose “wherein an included angle between rotation axes of any two adjacent optical elements of three optical elements is greater than 0° less than 10°”.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Li to disclose “wherein an included angle between (the rotation axis is the z axis for all prisms and there is no angle between them fig. 1) rotation axes (the four rotating prisms of the cascaded prism pair of the present invention rotating around the optical axis center line Z axis paragraph [0039] of translation) of any two adjacent optical elements (prism 1-2, prism 2-3 and prism 3-4 fig. 1) of three optical elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) is less than 10° (the rotation axis angle difference is 0° because all the prisms rotate around the z axis fig. 1)”.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (rotation axis greater than 0° required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Li (the rotation axis angle difference is 0°). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Second Applicant argues on page 11 that the combination of Amitai and Fukuhara does not disclose the limitation of claims 1 and 18, “an included angle between rotation axes of any two adjacent optical elements of three optical elements is greater than 0° less than 10°”, because it does not cure the deficiencies of Li.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Li to disclose “wherein an included angle between (the rotation axis is the z axis for all prisms and there is no angle between them fig. 1) rotation axes (the four rotating prisms of the cascaded prism pair of the present invention rotating around the optical axis center line Z axis paragraph [0039] of translation) of any two adjacent optical elements (prism 1-2, prism 2-3 and prism 3-4 fig. 1) of three optical elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) is less than 10° (the rotation axis angle difference is 0° because all the prisms rotate around the z axis fig. 1)” and does not rely on Amitai and Fukuhara to teach this limitation.
Third Applicant argues on page 12 that the combination of the cited references does not disclose the new limitations of claims 22-23, "each of three optical elements is coated with an anti-reflection film, and a thickness of the anti-reflection film is equal to a wavelength of the light pulse sequence".
Examiner disagrees and has cited the combination of Phillips, LI and Amitai to disclose the previously claimed limitations of claim 1 applied to claims 22-23 and Xu to disclose the new limitation, “wherein each of three (taught above by Phillips) optical elements (first lens 6 and second lens 7 fig. 3) is coated with an anti-reflection film (the first lens 6 and second lens 7 have an anti-refection coating paragraph [0084] of translation), and a thickness (the thickness of the anti-reflection coating on the first lens 6 is 1064 nm and the second lens 7 can be 1064 nm paragraph [0084] of translation) of the anti-reflection film (anti-reflection film paragraph [0084] of translation) is equal to (the thickness of the film is equal to the wavelength emitted from the light source as a result of the values above and below) a wavelength (a fundamental frequency light source 1 that provides laser light with an output wavelength of 1064 nm paragraph [0010] of translation) of the light pulse sequence (light source 1 fig. 3 can have a pulse width of a millisecond, microsecond, nanosecond, picosecond, or femtosecond paragraph [0021] of translation)”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 20110255070 A1) in view of LI (CN 109633895 A) and Amitai (WO 2004099849 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses in at least figure 1, a method for controlling a scanning field
of view (FOV) of a ranging apparatus comprising (Lidar system 10 fig. 1 including transmit device 14 fig.12):
emitting a light pulse sequence (beam source 12 includes a laser 34 that produces a pulse
paragraph [0038]);
changing the light pulse sequence to exit at different directions via at least three optical
elements (the prism assembly 48 is part of transmit device 14 fig. 12 and lidar system 10 fig.1 and changes the direction of the beam with three prisms paragraphs [0049-0050]):
and controlling the scanning FOV by controlling three optical elements (the
controller 20 may send a signal to the beam source 12 and the motor 54 to initiate a scan of the field of
view frame 32 paragraph [0080] and the motor 54 controls the prism assembly 48 paragraph [0051]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose, controlling an extension direction of the scanning FOV by
controlling initial phases of three optical elements while controlling three optical
elements to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third rotation speed,
respectively, the first rotation speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed being
fixed and different from each other;
wherein an included angle between rotation axes of any two adjacent optical elements of three optical elements is greater than 0° less than 10°.
However Li discloses in at least figure 1, controlling (the scanning method can realize the
scanning of global trajectories and local feature trajectories by controlling the motion switching of the
coarse scanning prism pair and the coarse scanning prism pair paragraph [0087] of translation) an
extension direction (global trajectory L fig. 1) of the scanning FOV (scanning plane 5 fig. 1) by controlling
(the rotation angles theta 1 and theta 2 are adjusted by the calculation obtained in step 4 paragraphs [0062-0070] of translation and the initial values of theta 3 and theta 4 are set paragraph [0077] of translation) the rotation angles (rotation angles theta 1- theta 4 fig. 1) of three optical
elements (rotating prisms 1-4 fig. 1), while controlling (this method controls the rotational motion of
two sets of cascaded rotating prism pairs paragraph [0034] of translation) three optical
elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third
rotation speed, respectively (the rotation of the four rotating prisms is independent of each other, and
there is no coupled motion between any two of them paragraph [0037] of translation), the first rotation
speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed being fixed and different from each
other (the prisms can rotate at different speeds independent of each other or at the same speed
paragraph [0037] of translation);
wherein an included angle between (the rotation axis is the z axis for all prisms and there is no angle between them fig. 1) rotation axes (the four rotating prisms of the cascaded prism pair of the present invention rotating around the optical axis center line Z axis paragraph [0039] of translation) of any two adjacent optical elements (prism 1-2, prism 2-3 and prism 3-4 fig. 1) of three optical elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) is less than 10° (the rotation axis angle difference is 0° because all the prisms rotate around the z axis fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
rotate the prisms at a fixed speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim
are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in
the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to control the direction of the scan by controlling the initial phase and rotation speeds
as taught by Li in the Lidar system of Phillips. The scanning method meets the requirements of largescale
high- precision beam scanning.
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (rotation axis greater than 0° required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Li (the rotation axis angle difference is 0°). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Further Amitai discloses in at least figure 2A, controlling initial phases by rotation angle (the
phase angle Y is set by the rotation of the Risley prism elements (pg. 7 para. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to set the phase angle of the prisms of Li using their rotation as taught by Arnita in the
Lidar system of Phillips. A more complexed scan pattern can be performed during a shorter time from the beginning to the end of a scan cycle, when the rotation speed and direction of each single prism
array is controlled independently (pg. 11 para. 3).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim
1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
the at least three optical elements include three light refraction elements arranged side by side
along an emission optical path of the light pulse sequence (the prism assembly 48 is along the optical
bath of the beam and has three adjacent prisms that are refraction elements because they change the
direction of the beam paragraph [0050]):
and each of the light refraction elements includes a light exit surface and a light entrance
surface that are not parallel to each other (prisms have angled surfaces to change the direction of the
beam to exit through a non-parallel surface from where it entered fig.12).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim
1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein three optical elements include three wedge angle
prisms (prism assembly 48 includes three wedge prisms paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim
1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein controlling the scanning FOV further includes:
controlling the scanning FOV to be a circular or an approximately circular scanning FOV (the frame 32 may have a circular shape the beam is swept through with the prism assembly 48 paragraph
[0049] where the three prisms are rotated paragraph [0050]) by controlling the first rotation speed (the
first wedge prism 50 may be rotated at a greater rotational frequency than the second wedge prism 52
paragraph [0049]), the second rotation speed (the first wedge prism 50 may be rotated at a greater
rotational frequency than the second wedge prism 52 paragraph [0049]) and the third rotation speed
(the third prism may be rotated at a very slow speed compared to the rotation of the first and second
prisms 50, 52 paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim
1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein controlling the scanning FOV includes:
controlling rotation directions of two adjacent optical elements (wedge prisms 50 and 52 fig. 12)
of three optical elements to be opposite to each other (the first and second prisms rotate in
opposite directions paragraph [0050]), and a difference between rotation rates of the two adjacent optical elements (wedge prisms 50 and 52 fig. 12) to be less than a value (the first and second prisms rotate at the same speed resulting in a difference of O which is less than the rotation speed of the first prism paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim
1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein controlling the scanning FOV further includes:
controlling rotation directions of two adjacent optical elements of three optical
elements to be opposite to each other (the first and second prisms rotate in opposite directions
paragraph [0050]), rotation rates of the two adjacent optical elements to be equal (the first and second
prisms rotate at the same speed paragraph [0050]), and a rotation rate of another optical element of
the at least three optical elements to be different from the rotation rates of the two adjacent optical
elements (the first and second prisms rotate at a different speed than the third prism paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
and the third rotation speed is non-zero (the third prism can rotate at a verry slow speed
compared to the first and second prisms paragraph [0050]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose the second rotation speed is a sum of -1 times an integer
power of the fist rotation speed and a constant, the constant being an integer with an absolute value
larger than 60.
However, a rotation speed of the second prism corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case a rotation speed of the second prism
directly impacts the e.g. the scan pattern of the beam. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a rotation speed of the second prism for the
purpose of e.g. optimizing the scamming pattern of the beam.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 6 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
the second rotation speed (the first wedge prism 50 may be rotated at a greater rotational
frequency than the second wedge prism 52 paragraph [0049])
the third rotation speed of the third optical element is non-zero (the third prism can rotate at a
very slow speed compared to the first and second prisms paragraph [0050]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose the second rotation speed is -2 times an integer power of a
rotation speed of the first optical element and a constant, the constant being an integer with an
absolute value less than 60.
However, a rotation speed of the second prism corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case a rotation speed of the second prism
directly impacts the e.g. the scan pattern of the beam. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233
(C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a rotation speed of the second prism for the
purpose of e.g. optimizing the scamming pattern of the beam.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
the second rotation speed (the first wedge prism 50 may be rotated at a greater rotational
frequency than the second wedge prism 52 paragraph [0049]) and the third rotation speed of the third optical element to be non-zero (the third prism can rotate at a verry slow speed compared to the first and second prisms paragraph [0050]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose controlling a rotation speed of the second optical element to
be a sum of-3 times an integer power of a rotation speed of the first optical element and a constant, the
constant being an integer with an absolute value less than 60.
However, a rotation speed of the second prism corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case a rotation speed of the second prism
directly impacts the e.g. the scan pattern of the beam. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a rotation speed of the second prism for
the purpose of e.g. optimizing the scamming pattern of the beam.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
and the third rotation speed is non-zero (the third prism can rotate at a verry slow speed
compared to the first and second prisms paragraph [0050]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose the second rotation speed is a sum of-1 times an integer power of the fist rotation speed and a constant, the constant being an integer with an absolute value
larger than or equal to 60 and less than an absolute value of the first rotation speed.
However, a rotation speed of the second prism corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a
variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case a rotation speed of the second prism
directly impacts the e.g. the scan pattern of the beam. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a rotation speed of the second prism for the
purpose of e.g. optimizing the scamming pattern of the beam.
Regarding claim 14, Phillips discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses,
wherein:
the second rotation speed (the speed of the second prism is controlled by the motor 54 paragraph [0051]);
the third rotation speed (the speed of the third prism is controlled by the controller 54 paragraph [0051]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose the second rotation speed is a sum a first integer multiple of
a first integer power of the first rotation speed and a first constant;
and the third rotation speed is a sum of a second integer multiple of a second integer power of
the first rotation speed and a second constant opposite to the first constant.
However, a rotation speed of the second and third prisms correspond to result-effective
variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case a rotation speed of the
second prism directly impacts the e.g. the scan pattern of the beam. Further, as a result -effective
variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re
Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
controlling a difference between the initial phase of one of three optical elements
and the initial phase of the another one of tree optical elements that is adjacent to at least
one of the three optical elements to change between [0, 2rr] (the initial phase difference between the
first two prisms has to be between 0 and 2rr because one full rotation is 2rr and each prism will start
rotating a point in the range of a full rotation in opposite directions paragraph [0050]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose, controlling the initial phases of three optical
elements while controlling three optical elements to rotate at the first rotation speed, the
second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed, respectively.
However Li further discloses, while controlling (this method controls the rotational motion of
two sets of cascaded rotating prism pairs paragraph [0034] of translation) three optical
elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third
rotation speed, respectively (the rotation of the four rotating prisms is independent of each other, and
there is no coupled motion between any two of them paragraph [0037] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to control rotation speeds as taught by Li in the Lidar system of Phillips. The scanning
method meets the requirements of large-scale high- precision beam scanning.
Additionally further Amitai discloses, controlling initial phases (the phase angle Y is set by the
rotation of the Risley prism elements (pg. 7 para. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to set the phase angle of the prisms of Li using their rotation as taught by Arnita in the
Lidar system of Phillips. A more complexed scan pattern can be performed during a shorter time from
the beginning to the end of a scan cycle, when the rotation speed and direction of each single prism
array is controlled independently (pg. 11 para. 3).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
the at least three optical elements include a first optical element, a second optical element, and
a third optical element (prism assembly 48 has three prisms paragraph [0050]); the first optical element
and the second optical element are adjacent to each other (prisms 50 and 52 are adjacent fig.12);
adjusting the initial phase of the third optical element to change a position (the third prism is
rotated at a slower speed relative to the first and second prism resulting in a vertical FOV which is
expanding the full horizonal sweep FOV from the first and second prism paragraph [0050]) of a first
scanning FOV (horizontal sweep angle theta fig. 2) formed by the first optical element (first wedge prism
50 fig. 12) and the second optical element (second wedge prism 52 fig. 12) in a second scanning FOV
(vertical sweep angle phi fig. 2) formed by the first optical element (first wedge prism 50 fig. 12), the
second optical element (second wedge prism 52 fig. 12), and the third optical element (third prism
paragraph [0050]), the first scanning FOV (horizontal sweep angle theta fig. 2) being larger than
(horizontal sweep angle theta can be 28° and the vertical angle phi which can be 7° paragraph [0037])
the second FOV (vertical sweep angle phi fig. 2).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose, controlling the initial phases of three optical
elements while controlling three optical elements to rotate at the first rotation speed, the
second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed, respectively.
However Li further discloses, while controlling (this method controls the rotational motion of
two sets of cascaded rotating prism pairs paragraph [0034] of translation) three optical
elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third
rotation speed, respectively (the rotation of the four rotating prisms is independent of each other, and
there is no coupled motion between any two of them paragraph [0037] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to control rotation speeds as taught by Li in the Lidar system of Phillips. The scanning
method meets the requirements of large-scale high- precision beam scanning.
Additionally Amitai discloses in at least figure 2A, controlling initial phases (the phase angle Y is
set by the rotation of the Risley prism elements (pg. 7 para. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to set the phase angle of the prisms of Li using their rotation as taught by Arnita in the
Lidar system of Phillips. A more complexed scan pattern can be performed during a shorter time from
the beginning to the end of a scan cycle, when the rotation speed and direction of each single prism
array is controlled independently (pg. 11 para. 3).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Phillips further discloses, wherein:
further comprising:
receiving an optical signal of the light pulse sequence reflected by an object and sequentially
passing through three optical elements (the receive device 16 generally guides the beams 30
reflected from one or more objects 28 toward the beam receiver 18 paragraph [0052] which can be the
prism assembly 48 fig. 12); and detecting at least one of distance or position information of the object
according to the light pulse sequence and the optical signal. (the time of flight and speed of the pulse
are used to calculate the distance to the object 28 from which the pulse of the beam 30 was reflected
paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 18, Phillips discloses in at least figure 1, a ranging apparatus comprising (lidar
system 10 fig. 1):
an emitter configured to emit a light pulse sequence (laser 34 produces a pulse paragraph
[0038]);
at least three optical elements configured to change transmission directions of the light pulse
sequence (the prism assembly 48 changes the direction of the beam with three prisms paragraph
[0050]);
Phillips does not explicitly disclose, a control circuit configured to control a scanning field of view
(FOV) (scanning plane 5 fig. 1) by controlling an extension direction of the scanning FOV by controlling initial phases of three optical elements while controlling three optical
elements to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third rotation speed,
respectively, the first rotation speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed being
fixed and different from each other;
wherein an included angle between rotation axes of any two adjacent optical elements of three optical elements is greater than 0° less than 10°.
However Li discloses in at least figure 1, controlling (the scanning method can realize the
scanning of global trajectories and local feature trajectories by controlling the motion switching of the
coarse scanning prism pair and the coarse scanning prism pair paragraph [0087]) an extension direction
(global trajectory L fig. 1) of the scanning FOV (scanning plane 5 fig. 1) by controlling (the rotation angles
theta 1 and theta 2 are adjusted by the calculation obtained in step 4 paragraphs [0062-0070] and the
initial values of theta 3 and theta 4 are set paragraph [0077] of translation) the rotation angles (rotation
angles theta 1- theta 4 fig. 1) of three optical elements (rotating prisms 1-4 fig. 1),
while controlling three optical elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) to rotate at a first rotation
speed, a second rotation speed, and a third rotation speed, respectively (the rotation of the four
rotating prisms is independent of each other, and there is no coupled motion between any two of them
paragraph [0037]), the first rotation speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed
being fixed and different from each other (the prisms can rotate at different speeds independent of
each other or at the same speed paragraph [0037]);
wherein an included angle between (the rotation axis is the z axis for all prisms and there is no angle between them fig. 1) rotation axes (the four rotating prisms of the cascaded prism pair of the present invention rotating around the optical axis center line Z axis paragraph [0039] of translation) of any two adjacent optical elements (prism 1-2, prism 2-3 and prism 3-4 fig. 1) of three optical elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) is less than 10° (the rotation axis angle difference is 0° because all the prisms rotate around the z axis fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
rotate the prisms at a fixed speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim
are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in
the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to control the direction of the scan by controlling the initial phase and rotation speeds
as taught by Li in the Lidar system of Phillips. The scanning method meets the requirements of largescale
high- precision beam scanning.
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (rotation axis greater than 0° required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Li (the rotation axis angle difference is 0°). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Further Amitai discloses in at least figure 2A, controlling initial phases by rotation angle (the
phase angle Y is set by the rotation of the Risley prism elements (pg. 7 para. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to set the phase angle of the prisms of Li using their rotation as taught by Arnita in the
Lidar system of Phillips. A more complexed scan pattern can be performed during a shorter time from
the beginning to the end of a scan cycle, when the rotation speed and direction of each single prism
array is controlled independently (pg. 11 para. 3).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Phillips et al. (US
20110255070 Al) in view of LI (CN 109633895) and Amitai (WO 2004099849 Al) as applied to claim 1
above and in further view of Fukuhara (CN 103056512 B).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Phillips does not disclose wherein:
a sum of phase angles of any two adjacent optical elements of three optical
elements is around a fixed value with a variation range not exceeding 20°;
and the phase angle of an optical element refers to an angle between a zero position of the
optical element and a reference direction.
However Fukuhara discloses in at least fig. 4A, a sum of phase angles of any two adjacent optical
elements of three optical elements is around a fixed value with a variation range not
exceeding 20° (the phase angle difference between the first wedge prism 17a and the second wedge
prism 18a is set to O degrees paragraph [0065] of translation);
and the phase angle of an optical element refers to an angle between a zero position of the
optical element and a reference direction (the phase angle is the relative position of the two prisms
paragraph [0020] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the first and second wedge prisms as taught by Fukuhara as the first and
second optical elements of Phillips. Adjusting the phase difference between the two wedge-shaped
prisms 17a and 18a allows the end surface taper of the resin film to have a desired angle (paragraph
[0066]).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Phillips, Li and Fukuhara discloses all the limitations of
claim 4 and Phillips further discloses the rotation of three optical elements (the three wedge
prims all rotate paragraph [0050]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose wherein the sum of the phase angles of any two adjacent
optical elements is the fixed value.
However Fukuhara further discloses, wherein the sum of the phase angles of any two adjacent
optical elements is the fixed value (the phase angle difference between the first wedge prism 17a and
the second wedge prism 18a is set to O degrees paragraph [0065] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the first and second wedge prisms as taught by Fukuhara as the first and
second optical elements of Phillips. Adjusting the phase difference between the two wedge-shaped
prisms 17a and 18a allows the end surface taper of the resin film to have a desired angle (paragraph
[0066]).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Phillips et al. (US
20110255070 A1) in view of LI (CN 109633895) and Amitai (WO 2004099849 A1) as applied to claim 1
above and in further view of Xu (CN 101572382 B).
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Phillips, Li and Amitai discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Phillips does not disclose, wherein each of three optical elements is coated with an anti-reflection film, and a thickness of the anti-reflection film is equal to a wavelength of the light pulse sequence.
However Xu discloses in at least figure 3, wherein each of three (taught above by Phillips) optical elements (first lens 6 and second lens 7 fig. 3) is coated with an anti-reflection film (the first lens 6 and second lens 7 have an anti-refection coating paragraph [0084] of translation), and a thickness (the thickness of the anti-reflection coating on the first lens 6 is 1064 nm and the second lens 7 can be 1064 nm paragraph [0084] of translation) of the anti-reflection film (anti-reflection film paragraph [0084] of translation) is equal to (the thickness of the film is equal to the wavelength emitted from the light source as a result of the values above and below) a wavelength (a fundamental frequency light source 1 that provides laser light with an output wavelength of 1064nm paragraph [0010] of translation) of the light pulse sequence (light source 1 fig. 3 can have a pulse width of a millisecond, microsecond, nanosecond, picosecond, or femtosecond paragraph [0021] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the antireflection film as taught by Fukuhara on each of the optical elements of Phillips. The light output from the fundamental frequency light source 1 is frequency-doubled in the over-frequency doubling crystal 2 by the first lens 6 and is focused by the second lens 7 to be output as 355 nm ultraviolet laser at the Brinell prism 5 (paragraph [0084]).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Phillips et al. (US 20110255070 Al) in view of LI (CN 109633895), Amitai (WO 2004099849 Al) and Xu (CN 101572382 B)
Regarding claim 23, Phillips discloses in at least figure 1, a method for controlling a scanning field of view (FOV) of a ranging apparatus comprising (Lidar system 10 fig. 1 including transmit device 14 fig.12):
emitting a light pulse sequence (beam source 12 includes a laser 34 that produces a pulse
paragraph [0038]);
changing the light pulse sequence to exit at different directions via at least three optical
elements (the prism assembly 48 is part of transmit device 14 fig. 12 and lidar system 10 fig.1 and changes the direction of the beam with three prisms paragraphs [0049-0050]):
and controlling the scanning FOV by controlling three optical elements (the
controller 20 may send a signal to the beam source 12 and the motor 54 to initiate a scan of the field of
view frame 32 paragraph [0080] and the motor 54 controls the prism assembly 48 paragraph [0051]).
Phillips does not explicitly disclose, controlling an extension direction of the scanning FOV by
controlling initial phases of three optical elements while controlling three optical
elements to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third rotation speed,
respectively, the first rotation speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed being
fixed and different from each other;
wherein each of three optical elements is coated with an anti-reflection film, and a thickness of the anti-reflection film is equal to a wavelength of the light pulse sequence.
However Li discloses in at least figure 1, controlling (the scanning method can realize the
scanning of global trajectories and local feature trajectories by controlling the motion switching of the
coarse scanning prism pair and the coarse scanning prism pair paragraph [0087] of translation) an
extension direction (global trajectory L fig. 1) of the scanning FOV (scanning plane 5 fig. 1) by controlling
(the rotation angles theta 1 and theta 2 are adjusted by the calculation obtained in step 4 paragraphs [0062-0070] of translation and the initial values of theta 3 and theta 4 are set paragraph [0077] of translation) the rotation angles (rotation angles theta 1- theta 4 fig. 1) of three optical
elements (rotating prisms 1-4 fig. 1), while controlling (this method controls the rotational motion of
two sets of cascaded rotating prism pairs paragraph [0034] of translation) three optical
elements (prisms 1-4 fig. 1) to rotate at a first rotation speed, a second rotation speed, and a third
rotation speed, respectively (the rotation of the four rotating prisms is independent of each other, and
there is no coupled motion between any two of them paragraph [0037] of translation), the first rotation
speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed being fixed and different from each
other (the prisms can rotate at different speeds independent of each other or at the same speed
paragraph [0037] of translation);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
rotate the prisms at a fixed speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim
are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in
the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to control the direction of the scan by controlling the initial phase and rotation speeds
as taught by Li in the Lidar system of Phillips. The scanning method meets the requirements of largescale
high- precision beam scanning.
Additionally Amitai discloses in at least figure 2A, controlling initial phases by rotation angle (the
phase angle Y is set by the rotation of the Risley prism elements (pg. 7 para. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to set the phase angle of the prisms of Li using their rotation as taught by Arnita in the
Lidar system of Phillips. A more complexed scan pattern can be performed during a shorter time from the beginning to the end of a scan cycle, when the rotation speed and direction of each single prism
array is controlled independently (pg. 11 para. 3).
Further Xu discloses in at least figure 3, wherein each of three (taught above by Phillips) optical elements (first lens 6 and second lens 7 fig. 3) is coated with an anti-reflection film (the first lens 6 and second lens 7 have an anti-refection coating paragraph [0084] of translation), and a thickness (the thickness of the anti-reflection coating on the first lens 6 is 1064 nm and the second lens 7 can be 1064 nm paragraph [0084] of translation) of the anti-reflection film (anti-reflection film paragraph [0084] of translation) is equal to (the thickness of the film is equal to the wavelength emitted from the light source as a result of the values above and below) a wavelength (a fundamental frequency light source 1 that provides laser light with an output wavelength of 1064nm paragraph [0010] of translation) of the light pulse sequence (light source 1 fig. 3 can have a pulse width of a millisecond, microsecond, nanosecond, picosecond, or femtosecond paragraph [0021] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the antireflection film as taught by Fukuhara on each of the optical elements of Phillips. The light output from the fundamental frequency light source 1 is frequency-doubled in the over-frequency doubling crystal 2 by the first lens 6 and is focused by the second lens 7 to be output as 355 nm ultraviolet laser at the Brinell prism 5 (paragraph [0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furukawa et al. (US 20140123762 A1) discloses a Laser apparatus with an anti-reflective film with a thickness equal to the wavelength.
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 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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights