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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1).
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 1-3, 7-15, 17-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20130293684 A1), in view of Schneider (US 20150268333 A1), further in view of Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1).
Claim 1: Becker teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (Fig 1, field of view 40 and lens 42, [0032]);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view (Fig 1, field of view 48 and lens 46, [0031]).
Becker does not teach wherein the second lens is adjustable to cause an adjustment of the second field of view; and a switch that controls which of the first and second lenses are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view.
Schneider teaches a optoelectric apparatus which has a lens (Fig 1, lens 16) which is able to tilt (Fig 1, showing tilting in 2-dimensions – azimuth and elevation and [0001]).
It would have been obvious to use the tilting lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar system (specifically the lens 46) because, as Schneider teaches, this allows for variable focus without additional components ([0011]) which allows the system to be adaptable to different conditions.
Neither Becker or Schneider teach a switch positioned in an optical path between at least one of the first lens and the second lens and a photodetector circuit, wherein the switch controls which of the first and second lenses are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view.
Finkelstein teaches a system wherein a mirror (Fig. 6A, 6B, mirror 605) can be rotated to allow light from one of two input lenses (Fig. 6A, 6B, lenses 612-1 and 612-2) to be directed to detector array (Fig. 6A, 6B, 610) while blocking light input from the other lens ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to use the a mirror, as taught by Finkelstein, with the LiDAR system as taught by Becker, as modified in view of Schneider, because it reduce interference (See Becker [0013]) while minimizing space needed as only one photodetector array is used instead of two.
Claim 2: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1 but not wherein the second lens is adjustable at a time of manufacture to define an orientation for the second field of view.
However, Schneider teaches that the motion of the lens is determined in advance ([0014]). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that this would include the motion (and thus the orientation) being determined at a time of manufacture.
It would have been obvious to use the predetermined motion of the lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar system as taught by Becker, as modified, because this allows for a variable lens position, and thus a variable focal length, while allowing for ease of use for the end user (since the movement is pre-determined, and thus would require no input from an end user).
Claim 3: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, but not wherein the second lens is adjustable at a time of field deployment to define an orientation for the second field of view.
However, Schneider teaches that the motion of the lens is determined in advance ([0014]). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that this would include the motion (and thus the orientation) being determined at a time of field deployment.
It would have been obvious to use the predetermined motion of the lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar system as taught by Becker, as modified, because this allows for a variable lens position, and thus a variable focal length, while allowing minimal adjustment during the actual scan.
Claim 7: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the second field of view is adjustable in elevation (Schneider Fig 1, showing tilting in two dimensions – azimuth and elevation).
Claim 8: Becker, as modified, teaches system of claim 1 wherein the second field of view is adjustable in azimuth (Schneider Fig 1, showing tilting in two dimensions – azimuth and elevation).
Claim 9: Becker, as modified, teaches system of claim 1, but not wherein the first lens is adjustable to cause an adjustment of the first field of view.
However, it would be obvious that Schneider’s tilting lens apparatus, as described in the above rejection to Claim 1, could also be used with Becker’s lens 42. This would create a variable field of view and thus allow the system to be more adaptable.
Claim 10: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (Becker Fig. 1, showing field of view 48 smaller than field of view 40).
Claim 11: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1 but not further comprising: an adjustable mirror; and a photodetector array; wherein the adjustable mirror lies in an optical path between the adjustable second lens and the photodetector array, and wherein the adjustable mirror is adjustable to steer light from the adjustable mirror at any of a plurality of orientations for the second lens to the photodetector array (Finkelstein [0083]).
Claim 12: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the switch comprises an optical switch (Finkelstein [0083]). This would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be an optical switch as it changes the direction of light.
Claim 13: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 12 further comprising: a photodetector circuit that receives incident light passed by the first and second lenses and the optical switch to detect returns from the laser pulse shots (Becker, Fig 1, photodetectors 38 and 44 paired to lenses 42 and 46).
Claim 14: Becker, as modified in view of Schneider and Farris, teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch (Finkelstein [0083]), which would be understood by one skilled in the art to comprise an electronic switch as the mirror 605 is electromechanically actuated.
Claim 15: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14 further comprising: a first photodetector circuit that receives incident light passed by the first lens and the switch to detect returns from a plurality of the laser pulse shots; and a second photodetector circuit that receives incident light passed by the second lens and the switch to detect returns from a plurality of the laser pulse shots (Becker, Fig 1, photodetectors 38 and 44 paired to lenses 42 and 46).
Claim 17: Becker teaches a lidar method comprising:
[…]
wherein the lenses have different fields of view (Becker Fig. 1, showing field of view 48 smaller than field of view 40);
detecting the return via incident light passed by the selected lens (Becker Fig 1, photodetectors 38 and 44 paired to lenses 42 and 48);
Becker does not teach adjusting a lens within receive optics for a lidar receiver that includes a plurality of lenses, wherein the adjusting causes a field of view for the adjusted lens to shift. selecting which of the lenses will be used for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot based on where the laser pulse shot is targeted in a field of view, and performing the selecting and detecting steps for a plurality of additional laser pulse shots that are targeted in the field of view.
Schneider teaches a optoelectric apparatus which has a lens (Fig 1, lens 16) which is able to tilt (Fig 1, showing tilting in 2-dimensions – azimuth and elevation and [0001]).
It would have been obvious to use the tilting lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar method (specifically the lens 46) because, as Schneider teaches, this allows for variable focus without additional components ([0011]) which allows the system to be adaptable to different conditions.
Neither Becker or Schneider teach selecting, via a switch positioned in an optical path between at least one of the lens and a photodetector circuit, which of the lenses will be used for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot based on where the laser pulse shot is targeted in a field of view, and performing the selecting and detecting steps for a plurality of additional laser pulse shots that are targeted in the field of view.
Finkelstein teaches a system wherein a mirror (Fig. 6A, 6B, mirror 605) can be rotated to allow light from one of two input lenses (Fig. 6A, 6B, lenses 612-1 and 612-2) to be directed to detector array (Fig. 6A, 6B, 610) while blocking light input from the other lens ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to use the a mirror, as taught by Finkelstein, with the LiDAR system as taught by Becker, as modified in view of Schneider, because it reduce interference (See Becker [0013]) while minimizing space needed as only one photodetector array is used instead of two.
Claim 18: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the lenses comprise a first lens corresponding to a first field of view and a second lens corresponding to a second field of view (Becker, Fig 1, photodetectors 38 and 44 paired to lenses 42 and 46),
wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (Becker Fig. 1, showing field of view 48 smaller than field of view 40).
Becker, as modified in view of Schneider and Farris, does not teach wherein the adjusting step comprises adjusting the second lens to define an orientation for the second field of view.
Schneider teaches a optoelectric apparatus which has a lens (Fig 1, lens 16) which is able to tilt (Fig 1, showing tilting in 2-dimensions – azimuth and elevation and [0001]).
It would have been obvious to use the tilting lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar method (specifically the lens 46) as taught by Becker, as modified, because, as Schneider teaches, this allows for variable focus without additional components ([0011]) which allows the system to be adaptable to different conditions.
Claim 19: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 18 but not wherein the adjusting step comprises adjusting the second lens at the time of manufacture for a lidar system that includes the first and second lenses
However, Schneider teaches that the motion of the lens is determined in advance ([0014]). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that this would include the motion (and thus the orientation) being determined at a time of manufacture.
It would have been obvious to use the predetermined motion of the lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar method as taught by Becker as modified, because this allows for a variable lens position, and thus a variable focal length, while allowing for ease of use for the end user (since the movement is pre-determined, and thus would require no input from an end user).
Claim 20: Becker, as modified, teaches method of claim 18, but not wherein the adjusting step comprises adjusting the second lens at a time of field deployment for a lidar system that includes the first and second lenses.
However, Schneider teaches that the motion of the lens is determined in advance ([0014]). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that this would include the motion (and thus the orientation) being determined at a time of field deployment.
It would have been obvious to use the predetermined motion of the lens, as taught by Schneider, with the lidar method as taught by Becker, as modified, because this allows for a variable lens position, and thus a variable focal length, while allowing minimal adjustment during the actual scan.
Claim 24: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the adjusting step causes the field of view for the adjusted lens to shift in an azimuth direction (Schneider Fig 1, showing tilting in two dimensions – azimuth and elevation).
Claim 25: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the adjusting step causes the field of view for the adjusted lens to shift in an elevation direction (Schneider Fig 1, showing tilting in two dimensions – azimuth and elevation).
Claim 26: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17 wherein the adjusting step causes the field of view for the adjusted lens to shift in azimuth and elevation directions (Schneider Fig 1, showing tilting in two dimensions – azimuth and elevation).
Claims 4-6 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, in view of Schneider, in view of Finkelstein, further in view of Juelsgaard (US 20180372875 A1).
Claim 4: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, but not wherein the lidar system is arranged for deployment in a vehicle.
Juelsgaard teaches a LiDAR sensor which can be used on an autonomous semi-truck (abstract and Fig 6A).
It would have been obvious that the LiDAR system, as taught by Becker, as modified, could be placed on a semi-truck, as taught by Juelsgaard, because attaching a LiDAR sensor to a vehicle is something well-known in the art that would yield predictable results.
Claim 5: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 4 wherein the vehicle comprises an automobile. (Juelsgaard abstract and Fig. 6A – truck would be understood in the art to comprise an automobile).
Claim 6: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 4 wherein the vehicle comprises a tractor-trailer truck or a semi. (Juelsgaard abstract and Fig. 6A – truck).
Claim 21: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17, but not wherein the lenses are deployed in a vehicle.
Juelsgaard teaches a LiDAR sensor which can be used on an autonomous semi-truck (abstract and Fig 6A).
It would have been obvious that the method, as taught by Becker, as modified, could be implemented on a semi-truck, as taught by Juelsgaard, because attaching a LiDAR sensor to a vehicle is something well-known in the art that would yield predictable results.
Claim 22: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21 wherein the vehicle comprises an automobile. (Juelsgaard abstract and Fig. 6A – truck would be understood in the art to comprise an automobile).
Claim 23: Becker, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21 wherein the vehicle comprises a tractor-trailer truck or a semi. (Juelsgaard abstract and Fig. 6A – truck).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, in view of Schneider, further in view of Finkelstein, further in view of Van Lierop (US 20200400788 A1).
Claim 16: Becker, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1 but not further comprising:
a lidar transmitter that transmits the laser pulse shots, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror that is scannable to define where the laser pulse shots are targeted in the field of view; and a control circuit that schedules the laser pulse shots based on (1) a laser energy model that models energy available for the laser pulse shots over time and (2) a mirror motion model that models motion for the scannable mirror over time.
However, Finkelstein does teach a pulsed laser ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to use the pulsed laser, as taught by Finkelstein, with the LiDAR system as taught by Becker, as modified, because pulsed light is well known in the art and would yield a predictable result.
Becker, as modified, does not teach wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror that is scannable to define where the laser pulse shots are targeted in the field of view; and a control circuit that schedules the laser pulse shots based on (1) a laser energy model that models energy available for the laser pulse shots over time and (2) a mirror motion model that models motion for the scannable mirror over time.
Van Lierop teaches a LiDAR system which comprises two lasers (Fig 1, lasers 110a and 110b) which are deflected by a mirror (Fig 1, mirror 115 and [0022]). The mirror oscillates in order to scan the laser beams over a scene ([0024]). Further, the lasers are selected or deselected for scanning (i.e.: turned on and off) based on the angular position of the mirror ([0023] – thus implying a model of the mirror motion to determine this angular position).
It would have been obvious to use the mirror and method of emitting pulses based on a mirror position, as taught by Van Lierop, with the LiDAR system as taught by Becker, as modified. First, adding a scanning mirror would allow for further adaptability of the system, as the positioning of the laser beams scanned into a scene could be changed without moving the entire LiDAR apparatus. Second, the “mirror motion model” (as described in Van Lierop as the selecting and deselecting of lasers based on angular position of mirrors) would be obvious because this allows for dynamic change of the field of view to reduce SNR (Van Lierop [0002]) by allowing a different laser to be output at different mirror angular positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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 at 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645