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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 March 2026 by the applicant has been considered and is included in the file.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-30 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 22 and 28 were amended. No new matter was introduced.
Claim 7 was canceled.
In response to amendments filed on 18 February 2026 (as noted in the Advisory Action, dated 26 February 2026) and 20 April 2026, prior rejections to claims 1, 9, 17, 22 and 28 under 35 USC § 112(a) have been overcome and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 (and similarly claims 17, 22 and 28) under USC §103, applicant notes (pg. 9, 3rd paragraph) that Smits (US 20160041266 A1) does not teach the newly introduced limitation wherein the scanner comprises a moveable mirror, and wherein the movable mirror is shared between transmission and reception optical pathways. As noted in prior office actions, Zhang (US 1167 5055 B2) teaches a shared optical path, and further discusses that individual returned light signals correspond to a beam steering angle (as directed by MEMS beam steering system (724)), and the beam steering angle is used by the system to know which subset of detector segments will/should receive a returned light signal.
Secondly, applicant argues (pg. 9, paragraphs 4-5) that it is not obvious to combine Zhang and Smits, as Smits teaches away from the current application, as the system of Smits does not suggest a co-location of the emitter and receiver which would function if the mirror of Zhang is integrated. Smits includes an embodiment where transmitters and receivers are essentially co-located (such as Fig. 12, [0180]) in addition to embodiments where the separate transmitters and receivers have been replaced with a transceiver (Fig. 13, 14B, [0184], [0191]). Both embodiments are noted to include a shared set of optics, which may include lenses and/or scanning mirrors (such as Fig. 14B (1414)). Therefore, Smits would not teach away from the current application, and the inclusion of embodiments which have shared optical components support a combination of the system of Smits with the notably shared scanning mirror of Zhang, which may rotate between emission and reception of an echo. The rejection of independent claims 1, 17, 22 and 28 have been updated below to reflect the embodiment of Smits which teaches a shared optical component, where at least a part of the optical component comprises a movable mirror (See MPEP 608.01(m) and 2111.03 for information on Form of Claims and Transitional Phrases).
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 1-6, 8-9, 15-20 and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (US 20160041266 A1), and in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Smits teaches a LiDAR-based sensor system and a method of operation of the system, comprising:
an optical transmitter ([0050],[0084], [0180] - [0182]; Fig. 12 emitter (1212) which is similar to emitter (312) described for Fig. 3));
a scanner ([0085]; [0180] - [0182]; Fig. 12 scanner components within (1210) and (1220));
a segmented optical detector including a plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the segmented optical detector ([0092] - [0098], [0180] - [0182]; Fig. 12, receiver (1220) includes an array of photon detectors (1226) as described in Fig. 3); and
a controller ([0070]; Fig. 3 (308)),
wherein the optical transmitter is operable to transmit a ranging signal via an optical component of the scanner, wherein the optical component of the scanner comprises a movable mirror ([0085] - [0091], [0141] - [0143], [0180] - [0181]; Figs. 3, 6A and 12, where transmission optics may include components such as a scannable mirror (314, 614, 1214)),
wherein the scanner is operable to change an orientation of the optical component after the ranging signal is transmitted via the optical component and before a return signal corresponding to the ranging signal is received ([0144] – [0150]; where at
t
0
the transmitter emits the first beam, at
t
1
the optical system rotates the optical component, and at
t
2
the first beam is detected) via the optical component ([0088]-[0091], where the target is scanned via a rotation of the scanning optical components as a function of time in relation to emission and where the scanning mirror (314, 614, 1214) may be a MEMs, polygon mirror system, or lightweight mirror to enable higher scanning frequencies such as 100 kHz),
wherein the segmented optical detector is operable to receive the return signal corresponding to the ranging signal via the optical component after the change in the orientation of the optical component ([0085] - [0091], [0141] - [0143], [0180] - [0181]; Figs. 3, 6A and 12, where reception optics may include components such as a scannable mirror or lens (324, 624, 1224), and specifically where lens (1224) may encompass the transmission mirror (1214) as parts of the same, shared optical component),
and the controller is operable to detect a location of a return spot of the return signal based on outputs of one or more of the discrete sense nodes ([0098]; Fig. 3 'lit up pixel' (328)), and
wherein the controller is operable to determine a distance to an object that reflected the return signal based, at least in part, on (1) the location of the return spot and (2) a residual time of flight of the return signal ([0100]).
Smits does not explicitly teach a shared optical component which explicitly moves between transmitting and receiving signals.
Zhang teaches receiving of a return signal via a shared optical component such as a mirror, and where the mirror may adjust location between emission and detection (Col. 9, lines 21-32, Col. 12, lines 3-32; Fig. 4, where the signal steering system's (404) optical redirection elements may be the same components (ex. shared) between transmitted and returned signals, and where individual returned light signals correspond to beam steering angles are used to determine which subset of detector elements will/should receive a returned light signal).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to use a shared optical component to steer both a transmitted and return signal with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, Smits notes that in some embodiments, detectors and receivers can be situated to be approximately co-located ([0177]), and includes both an embodiment with separate (Fig. 3) and shared optical components (Fig. 12) which would incorporate the shared mirror of Zhang with predictable results of directing both transmitted and received signals with a shared optical component, with known timing of rotation between emission and detection, without affecting the functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the ranging signal includes a plurality of pulses in sequence ([0111]).
Regarding claim 3, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ranging signal may be a pulsed signal ([0032]), but does not explicitly teach the pulse repetition frequency is within a certain range.
Zhang teaches a pulse repetition frequency of the optical transmitter is between 1 MHz and 2 MHz (Col. 7, lines 45-60).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to select a pulse repetition frequency in the range of 1 Mhz to 2 Mhz with a reasonable expectation of success. As Zhang explains, the density of a LiDAR point cloud increases with a repetition rate (Col. 7, lines 33-35), and the described fast pixel circuit in Smits ([0081]) would incorporate the pulse repetition frequency of Zhang with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the scanner is operable to scan a 40 degree by 40 degree field of view ([0072]; Fig. 3) at a range of 1.5 km in 1 second or less ([0220]) using gapless scan lines ([0228]-[0229]; where ‘gapless’ is interpreted as scan lines having overlapping coverage and therefore is included in a scanning pattern which includes 100 lines per elevation degree.).
Regarding claim 5, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 4, wherein
the scanner is configured to scan the gapless scan lines ([0228]-[0229]; where ‘gapless’ is interpreted as scan lines having overlapping coverage and therefore is included in a scanning pattern which includes 100 lines per elevation degree.) bi-directionally ([0139]; Fig. 6A, where a target is scanned in two dimensions).
Regarding claim 6, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the scanner comprises a resonant and servomotor- controlled 2D scan mirror ([0088]; Fig. 3, rotating mirror (314), may be a MEM mirror which scans in at least two-dimensions) or a rotating polygon with angled facets.
Regarding claim 8, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the optical transmitter is operable to transmit the ranging signal, via the optical component of the scanner, to a first scan point of a plurality of scan points ([0145]; Fig. 6A, where optical system (614) is rotated at a first set of transmitter angles and reflects a first outgoing beam (660) towards object C.).
Regarding claim 9, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 8, wherein
the scanner is operable to change an orientation of the optical component after the ranging signal is transmitted via the optical component and before the return signal corresponding to the ranging signal is received by:
moving the optical component of the scanner to an orientation associated with a second scan point ([0148]; Fig. 6B second pulsed beam at t1 (662)) of the plurality of scan points during a ranging period of the first scan point ([0145]-[0150]), the ranging period including at least a time period between the optical transmitter transmitting the ranging signal and the optical detector the return signal ([0145]-[0150]; where the ranging period occurs between t0 and t2 for the first transmission).
Regarding claim 15, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the optical transmitter, the scanner, and the segmented optical detector are components of a first LIDAR channel operable to scan a field of view of the LIDAR-based sensor system in a first direction ([0184]-[0185]; Fig. 13 first channel transceiver (1310)), and wherein the LIDAR-based sensor system further comprises a second LIDAR channel operable to scan the field of view ([0186]; Fig. 13 second channel transceiver (1320)) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction ([0185]-[0186]).
Regarding claim 16, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 15, wherein
the second LIDAR channel includes a second optical transmitter ([0185] – [0186]; Fig. 13, with a first elevation scanning transceiver (1310) and second azimuth scanning transceiver (1320)), a second scanner ([0185]; Fig. 13 (1324)), and a second segmented optical detector including a second plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the second segmented optical detector ([0187]; second detector (1326) which may be a 1D array).
Claim 18 is similarly rejected to claim 2.
Claim 19 is similarly rejected to claim 4.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
Regarding claims 22 and 28, Smits teaches a method and LIDAR-based receiver system, comprising
by a segmented optical detector including a plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the segmented optical detector ([0092] - [0098], [0180] - [0182]; Fig. 12, receiver (1220) includes an array of photon detectors (1226) as described in Fig. 3), generating a plurality of electrical signals during a ranging period of a scan point ([0116]) , wherein each electrical signal in the plurality of electrical signals corresponds to a respective discrete sense node in the plurality of discrete sense nodes and represents an optical signal sensed by the respective discrete sense node ([0104]-[0106]), wherein the optical signal is received by the respective discrete sense node from an optical component,
and wherein an orientation of the optical component is changed after the optical signal is transmitted and before the optical signal is received from the optical component ([0144] – [0150]; where at
t
0
the transmitter emits the first beam, at
t
1
the optical system rotates the optical component, and at
t
2
the first beam is detected), wherein the optical component comprises a movable mirror ([0085] - [0091], [0141] - [0143], [0180] - [0181]; Figs. 3, 6A and 12, where transmission optics may include components such as a scannable mirror (314, 614, 1214));
and by a controller ([0070]; Fig. 3 (308))
receiving the plurality of electrical signals generated by the segmented optical detector ([0133]; Fig 4C (444))
determining, based on the plurality of sampled values, whether the segmented optical detector has received a return spot ([0120]; Fig. 4A (406))
and when the controller determines that the segmented optical detector has received the return spot, determining which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes of the segmented optical detector received the return spot ([0098]; Fig. 3 'lit up pixel' (328))
determining a residual time of flight of a return signal corresponding to the return spot ([0121]; Fig. 4A (408))
and determining a distance to a scan point from which the return signal was reflected based, at least in part, on (1) which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes received the return spot and (2) the residual time of flight of the return signal. ([0100], [0121]).
Smits does not explicitly teach a shared optical component which explicitly moves between transmitting and receiving signals, or teach sampling the plurality of electrical signals of the segmented optical detector at multiple times during the ranging period.
Zhang teaches both receiving of a return signal via the optical component of the scanner (Col. 9, lines 21-32; Fig. 4, where the signal steering system's (404) optical redirection elements may be the same components (ex. shared) between transmitted and returned signals) and sampling the plurality of electrical signals of the segmented optical detector at multiple times during the ranging period, thereby generating a plurality of sampled values (Col. 13, lines 6-29; Fig. 10 (Step 1040) monitoring detector segments for return pulses).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to utilize a shared optical component for receiving and transmitting signals, as well as actively sample the signals of an optical detector during the monitoring, with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes that a passive trigger may be used to begin scans or analysis, and this passive trigger may be based on the detection of photons during scanning ([0197]-[0198]), which could incorporate the monitoring of detector segments in Zhang with predictable results. Additionally, Smits notes that in some embodiments, detectors and receivers can be situated to be approximately co-located ([0177]), and includes an embodiment with shared optical components (Fig. 12) which would incorporate the shared optical component of Zhang with predictable results of directing both transmitted and received signals with a shared optical component without affecting the functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 23, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising
storing, by the controller, additional data indicating at least one of: a start time of the ranging period, a plurality of times when the plurality of electrical signals are sampled, and/or durations of one or more sampling periods. ([0121], [0133]; Fig. 4C (442) generates outgoing timestamp, (448) compares outgoing and incoming timestamps)
Regarding claim 24, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
determining whether the segmented optical detector has received the return spot includes comparing the plurality of sampled values to a detection threshold value ([0040]; where the preferred embodiment is a SPAD pixel operating to detect at least single photons.).
Regarding claim 25, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
determining whether the segmented optical detector has received the return spot includes performing pattern analysis on the plurality of sampled values to determine whether the plurality of sampled values conform to any of a plurality of stored patterns ([0168]-[0171]; Fig. 10A-10C, where target size can be determined by detected photon intensity profiles).
Regarding claim 26, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
the determining which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes of the segmented optical detector received the return spot is based on an identification of a particular discrete sense node of the plurality of discrete sense nodes producing a highest sampled value during the ranging period as the discrete sense node that received the return spot ([0106]).
Regarding claim 27, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
the distance to the scan point is determined using a triangulation-augmented time-of-flight calculation ([0100]).
Regarding claim 29, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 28, wherein
the distance to the scan point is determined using a triangulation-augmented time-of flight calculation ([0100]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2) and further in view of Hughes (20210325663 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the scanner has an angular scanning speed ([0090]) and a range of the sensor system is at least 1.5 km ([0220]), but does not explicitly teach an angular scanning speed of the scanner is between 10 and 12 radians / second.
Hughes teaches an angular scanning speed of a scanner which is between 10 and 12 radians / second ([0088]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Hughes to utilize a slow scanning speed of approximated 10 rad/s with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the system may scan at a resonant frequency of a MEMS device within the system, or may scan anywhere between a few Hertz and greater than 100 kHz, depending on the MEMS device ([0090]). A scan speed of specifically 10-12 rad/s equates to approximately 1.6-1.9 Hz, which could be utilized within the system of Smits by the teachings of Hughes to yield the predictable results of a known, specific, scanning speed for scanning optics within a LiDAR system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2), further in view of Hughes (20210325663 A1). and further still in view of Sood et al. (hereinafter Sood, “SiGe Based Visible-NIR Photodetector Technology for Optoelectronic Applications”, 25 February 2015).
Regarding claim 11, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 10, wherein a detector has a plurality of discrete sense nodes ([0092]), but does not explicitly teach the number of nodes n in a row of a detector, nor the length of the detector on n nodes.
Zhang teaches the plurality of discrete sense nodes includes 8-12 discrete sense nodes (Col. 11 lines 11-64; Detector arrays may be 1xN or NxM; Fig. 8A shows a 9x9 grid, and detector may be an SiGe detector).
Sood teaches the state of the art for SiGe detectors, and acts as a reference of their possible sizes. For a detector to be between 20-25
μ
m
with 8-12 discrete sense nodes, each node must be between
~
2
-
3
μ
m
. Sood indicates a known width of SiGe is approximately 2.6 microns, which would fall in the range indicated in the instant application (Section 4.2, Fig. 11b).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Sood to select specifically sized detector nodes with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the system may use a 1D (1xN) array of pixels, and that the detector pixels may be any photon-sensitive technology ([0033]), which could incorporate the specific detectors of Zhang with predictable results of a system utilizing a detector array of SiGe detectors where the array size is chosen based on specific size/physical dimensions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (US 20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2) and further in view of Raring et al. (hereinafter Raring, US 10222474 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Smits teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on the type of laser or wavelength range.
Zhang teaches a LiDAR system where an optical transmitter includes a fiber laser (Col. 6, lines 20-25).
Raring teaches a LIDAR system where the optical transmitter utilizes a wavelength of between 1300 - 1310 nm (Col. 11 lines 36-39).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Raring to utilize a fiber laser with a wavelength of between 1300-1310 nm with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes specific use of transmitters within the near-infrared range, which includes the range of 1300-1310 nm, and therefore Smits could incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Raring with predictable results of use of a laser source in a LiDAR system, which is a fiber laser emitting in the 1300-1310 nm range.
Claims 13, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2), and further in view of Schultz et al. (hereinafter Schultz, US 20210263158).
Regarding claim 13, Smits teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the vehicle which the LiDAR based system is attached to.
Schultz teaches a LiDAR-based sensor system ([0049]; Fig. 2(22)) is a component of or is configured to communicate with a navigation system ([0049]; Fig. 2 GPS (24) and inertial navigation unit (26) within a geo-locating system (14)) of a helicopter, an airplane, an unmanned aerial vehicle ([0045]; Fig. 10 airplane houses platform (12)), or a watercraft.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Schultz to incorporate the LIDAR system into a vehicle such as an airplane with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the use of their systems within vehicle applications to avoid collisions ([0047]), and can be connected to GPS systems ([0068]; Fig. 2 (258)) and therefore could be used within an aircraft with predictable results of use of a LiDAR system on a variety of craft, such as an aircraft, while being in communication with a navigation system.
Regarding claim 14, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach identification of objects (such as wires or utility lines).
Schultz teaches identification of objects, where the object is a guide wire or utility line ([0092]) , having a diameter of at least 4 inches ([0086]; wherein resolution of points may be between 1 cm and 4 cm, allowing for identification of any object larger than this), and wherein the controller is further configured to identify the object as a guide wire or utility line ([0094]).
Examiners note about the interpretation of ‘guide wire’: Upon review of the prior art and the instant applications specification (as defined in [0039] “guide wires (e.g., for radio towers or utility towers”), the examiner interprets ‘guide wire’ to be related to ‘guy wire’ or ‘stay’, terms for tensioned cables meant to give stability to freestanding structures.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Schultz to use the LIDAR system of a vehicle for identification of wires and cables with a reasonable expectation of success. The point density within the point grid as taught in Schultz indicates a resolution size between 1 cm and 4 cm ([0086]) at a flying altitude of 2000’ ([0086]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would know a smaller resolution length would allow for identification of a larger object. Smits notes the resolution of their LIDAR system at ranges between 1000 and 5000 ft to be between 1/5 ft and 1 ft, respectively. Similar to the resolution of points taught by Schultz, this resolution range would be able to identify objects sized at least 4 inches in diameter, such as utility poles and other large diameter wires, with predictable results of object identification within a resolution range.
The method of claim 21 is similarly rejected to the system of claim 14.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (US 20160041266 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2) and further in view of Sood et al. (hereinafter Sood, “SiGe Based Visible-NIR Photodetector Technology for Optoelectronic Applications”, 25 February 2015).
Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 28, wherein a detector has a plurality of discrete sense nodes ([0092]), but does not explicitly teach the number of nodes n in a row of a detector, nor the length of the detector on n nodes.
Zhang teaches the plurality of discrete sense nodes includes 8-12 discrete sense nodes (Col. 11 lines 11-64; Detector arrays may be 1xN or NxM; Fig. 8A shows a 9x9 grid, and detector may be an SiGe detector).
Sood teaches the state of the art for SiGe detectors, and acts as a reference of their possible sizes. For a detector to be between 20-25
μ
m
with 8-12 discrete sense nodes, each node must be between
~
2
-
3
μ
m
. Sood indicates a known width of SiGe is approximately 2.6 microns, which would fall in the range indicated in the instant application (Section 4.2, Fig. 11b).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Sood to select specifically sized detector nodes with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the system may use a 1D (1xN) array of pixels, and that the detector pixels may be any photon-sensitive technology ([0033]), which could incorporate the specific detectors of Zhang with predictable results of a system utilizing a detector array of SiGe detectors where the array size is chosen based on specific size/physical dimensions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"Experimental Investigation of Bending Fatigue Response of Grouted Stay Cables", Sharon L. Wood; and Karl H. Frank, JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2010 (Year: 2010) is used to show that stays on bridges can have diameters in the range of 4 inches (10.2 cm or 102 mm) (Fig. 3).
"System identification of a cable-stayed bridge using vibration responses measured by a wireless sensor network", Kim et al. Article in Smart Structures and Systems · May 2013 (Year: 2013) teaches other cable size ranges of stay wires on bridges (Table 1).
“RULES FOR Overhead Electric Line Construction”, State of California Public Utilities Commission (1998) teaches on the average, and minimum, sizes of guys, grounding or lightning protection wires, or conductor wires in various powerline applications.
Ray et al. (US 20090123158 A1) teaches a LIDAR system with a rotating mirror unit shared by a receiver and transmitter, where an offset angle between emission and reception is used to compensate for a change between a cone of illumination of the transmitting portion and a field-of-view of the receiving portion resulting from the rotation of the mirror unit.
Ren et al. (WO 2020164223 A1) teaches a LIDAR, or laser RADAR, system which includes a rotating reflection mechanism, a transceiver, and a mirror galvanometer where emission to and reception from the environment may occur with rotation of the rotating mechanism happening between the two events.
Bridges et al. (US 20150355317 A1) teaches a 3D time of flight camera where a mirror is rotated about an axis for scanning purposes, and where the mirror is rotated about its first and/or second axis between emission and reflected signal detection.
Gunnam et al. (US 20190179018 A1) teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes a scanning, rotating mirror with at least one laser emitter/detector combination which cans across a plane where the mirror is rotated at very fast speeds, such as thousands of revolutions per minute.
da Silva et al. (US 20120236379 A1) teaches a LADAR which utilizes a scanning mirror (MEMS) for scanning, where the mirror oscillates between emission and detection as the laser emits at discrete points in time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights