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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 10 and 17 are persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the newly amended limitation in which “the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are located between the laser source and the first lens” is not persuasive. The limitation at issue presents new matter and 112(b) indefiniteness concerns and those, in addition to an updated prior art rejection, will be addressed herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “(i) the second lens is rotatable with respect to the first lens about a first rotation axis or (ii) the first lens is rotatable with respect to the second lens about a second rotational axis, and wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are located between the laser source and the first lens” (as in the independent claims) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Newly amended claims 1, 10 and 17 present a limitation that requires the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis to be located between the laser source and the first lens. Since an axis is an imaginary line, it is not evident how an imaginary line about which a lens is intended to rotate, is impliedly physically present not at the lens to be rotated, but between that lens and another physical optical component (for each of the two lenses claimed). The instant specification nor the drawings appear to describe, teach or otherwise illustrate a configuration wherein two imaginary lines (axes) have a physical location between two physical components and each also define a respective rotational axis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Newly amended claims 1, 10 and 17 present a limitation that requires the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis to be located between the laser source and the first lens. The instant specification nor the drawings appear to describe, teach or otherwise illustrate a configuration wherein two imaginary lines (axes) have a physical location between two physical components. Additionally, the claim requires both: (a) that only one of the two lenses needs to rotate about an axis; and that (b) two axes must exist, one for each lens and presumably different axes. Thus, it is unclear whether both lenses are intended to be rotatable, each about a different axis, and whether those axes must be perpendicular to one another or if the lenses being independently rotatable itself defines two axes. Further, it is unclear how two axes of rotation are defined in physical space with physical spatial parameters, when axes are inherently imaginary lines. And lastly, it is unclear how the limitation requires that only one lens has an axis of rotation, but that the axis of rotation for lenses must exist between the lenses and the laser source. An axis of rotation is the axis about which a component rotates, in this case one of the lenses. Thus, it is unclear how applicant intends for both a lens to rotate about an axis of rotation but also define the location of the axis of rotation to be not through the lens itself, but located spatially apart from the lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the axis of rotation is supposed to be located at both the lens for purposes of rotation, but also somehow in space between the laser source and the rotating lens. The scope of the claim is indefinite for the above reasons. For purposes of examination, the limitation at issue will be interpreted to the best of the examiner’s ability, as requiring only one of the lenses being rotatable along an axis and that since the axis of rotation is imagined to be located in the center of the lens, it follows then that the axis, as the lens rotates, would always, or at least at times during rotation. And interpretation of the first and second rotation axes being required in a particularly physical location, will be that either lens that rotates will meet this limitation, not that the limitation extends to both lenses.
Additionally, the term “corresponding” renders the limitation “a second lens comprising a second curved portion corresponding to the first curved portion of the first lens” of claims 1, 10 and 17 indefinite, because there is no definition, explanation or drawing specifically indicating or illustrating what is meant by “corresponding” curved lens portions. For purposes of examination, fig. 3A for instance, which illustrates two lens fitted together based on their respective curvatures, will be interpreted as the intention for the term “corresponding”.
Claims 2, 11 and 18 are further indefinite due to the independent claims on which they depend requiring only one of the two lenses to have an axis or rotation, while they require both lenses to have an axis of rotation, and it is unclear (a) whether both lenses must rotate about a respective axis, (b) if the axis are intended to be the same or different in imaginative orientation, and (c) how the limitation is intended to be carried out if the independent claims attempt to require a physical location of each axis. For purposes of examination, the axes will be interpreted as
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baier (US 2019/0302239).
1: Baier discloses a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system [fig. 1, 0032 (lidar system 1)], comprising: a laser source configured to output a first beam [fig.1, 0032 (laser light source 4)]; a first lens comprising a first curved portion [fig. 1, 0032 (concave lens 2)], the first lens configured to receive the first beam to output a second beam [fig. 1 illustrates that lens receives a beam from light source 4 and outputs a beam to lens 3]; and a second lens comprising a second curved portion corresponding to the first curved portion of the first lens [fig. 1, 0032 (convex lens 3)], the second lens configured to receive the second beam to output a third beam [fig. 1 illustrates that lens 3 receives the beam output from lens 2 and outputs a beam – 0033 teaches the beam is passing through both lenses 2 and 3], wherein (i) the second lens is rotatable with respect to the first lens about a first rotation axis [0032 teaches lens 3 rotatable in relation to the first lens 2] or (ii) the first lens is rotatable with respect to the second lens about a second rotation axis, and wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are located between the laser source and the first lens [0032, fig. 1 teach that lens 3 rotates, with an axis of rotation illustrated by the dot on the straight edge of the lens, so that as the lens rotates, at least a portion of the lens would exist on both sides of the imaginary axis line (such as in the instance illustrated in fig. 1)].
2: Baier discloses an actuator configured to rotate the first lens about the second rotation axis or(ii) the second lens about the first rotation axis [0015 teaches two rotation axes, such that the second lens 3 is rotatably supported by a gimbal-type arrangement allowing for rotary movement in two spatial directions].
5: Baier discloses the first curved portion of the first lens or the second curved portion of the second lens is cylindrical [0024].
7: Baier discloses a modulator configured to modulate at least one of a phase or a frequency of the first beam and transmit the modulated first beam to the first lens [lidar system are known to inherently modulate both frequency and phase].
21: Baier discloses an enclosure, wherein the second lens is positioned within and attached to the enclosure [0047 teaches a protective glass for encapsulating lidar system 1 (which from at least fig. 4 includes lenses 2 and 3.].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 8-11, 13-20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baier (US 2019/0302239).
10: Baier teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system [fig. 1, 0032 (lidar system 1)], comprising: a laser source configured to output a first beam [fig.1, 0032 (laser light source 4)]; a first lens comprising a first curved portion [fig. 1, 0032 (concave lens 2)], the first lens configured to receive the first beam to output a second beam [fig. 1 illustrates that lens receives a beam from light source 4 and outputs a beam to lens 3]; and a second lens comprising a second curved portion corresponding to the first curved portion of the first lens [fig. 1, 0032 (convex lens 3)], the second lens configured to receive the second beam to output a third beam [fig. 1 illustrates that lens 3 receives the beam output from lens 2 and outputs a beam – 0033 teaches the beam is passing through both lenses 2 and 3], wherein (i) the second lens is rotatable with respect to the first lens about a first rotation axis [0032 teaches lens 3 rotatable in relation to the first lens 2] or (ii) the first lens is rotatable with respect to the second lens about a second rotation axis, and wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are located between the laser source and the first lens [0032, fig. 1 teach that lens 3 rotates, with an axis of rotation illustrated by the dot on the straight edge of the lens, so that as the lens rotates, at least a portion of the lens would exist on both sides of the imaginary axis line (such as in the instance illustrated in fig. 1)]; and one or more processors configured to: receive a signal from at least one of reflection or scattering of the third beam by an object [0003, 0011, 0032 teach a lidar system 1, which inherently includes a detector to receive a reflected beam from an object]; determine at least one of a range to the object or a velocity of the object based on the signal [also inherent from 0003, 0011, 0032, since lidar systems explicitly function to determine range]; and control operation of an autonomous vehicle responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity [0011 teaches that the lidar system may be an automotive lidar system, i.e. for installation in a motor vehicle. 0003 teaches that it is known for lidar system to be employed in autonomous vehicles for the purpose of detecting the position of an object in the vehicle’s environment in order to avoid a collision, to increase driving safety, and/or during an autonomous driving operation. 0003 additionally describes the operation of lidar relative to the two limitations just above. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the lidar system as described in Baier would reasonably be integrated into an autonomous vehicle driving system.].
17: Baier teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system [fig. 1, 0032 (lidar system 1)], comprising: a laser source configured to output a first beam [fig.1, 0032 (laser light source 4)]; a first lens comprising a first curved portion [fig. 1, 0032 (concave lens 2)], the first lens configured to receive the first beam to output a second beam [fig. 1 illustrates that lens receives a beam from light source 4 and outputs a beam to lens 3]; and a second lens comprising a second curved portion corresponding to the first curved portion of the first lens [fig. 1, 0032 (convex lens 3)], the second lens configured to receive the second beam to output a third beam [fig. 1 illustrates that lens 3 receives the beam output from lens 2 and outputs a beam – 0033 teaches the beam is passing through both lenses 2 and 3], wherein (i) the second lens is rotatable with respect to the first lens about a first rotation axis [0032 teaches lens 3 rotatable in relation to the first lens 2] or (ii) the first lens is rotatable with respect to the second lens about a second rotation axis, and wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are located between the laser source and the first lens [0032, fig. 1 teach that lens 3 rotates, with an axis of rotation illustrated by the dot on the straight edge of the lens, so that as the lens rotates, at least a portion of the lens would exist on both sides of the imaginary axis line (such as in the instance illustrated in fig. 1)]; a steering system [0011 teaches the lidar system installed in a motor vehicle, therefore a steering system is inherent]; a braking system [0011 teaches the lidar system installed in a motor vehicle, therefore a braking system is inherent]; and one or more processors configured to: receive a signal from at least one of reflection or scattering of the third beam by an object [0003, 0011, 0032 teach a lidar system 1, which inherently includes a detector to receive a reflected beam from an object]; determine at least one of a range to the object or a velocity of the object based on the signal [also inherent from 0003, 0011, 0032, since lidar systems explicitly function to determine range]; and control operation of an autonomous vehicle responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity [0011 teaches that the lidar system may be an automotive lidar system, i.e. for installation in a motor vehicle. 0003 teaches that it is known for lidar system to be employed in autonomous vehicles for the purpose of detecting the position of an object in the vehicle’s environment in order to avoid a collision, to increase driving safety, and/or during an autonomous driving operation. 0003 additionally describes the operation of lidar relative to the two limitations just above. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the lidar system as described in Baier would reasonably be integrated into an autonomous vehicle driving system.].
6, 14, 20 mutatis mutandis: Baier does not explicitly teach the first curbed portion of the first lens or the second curbed portion of the second lens, but it does teach that at least one of two lenses is cylindrical, and more preferably circular-cylindrical per 0024. Since Baier teaches a circular-cylindrical lens, it follows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious the use of a spherical lens, as both lenses fulfil the same purpose of offering great symmetry and scanning of a large angle at approximately constant scanning geometry. Thus, use of an all spherical lens does not readily yield unknown, unexpected, or otherwise special effects that cannot or is not also reasonably achieved by a circular-cylindrical lens.
8, 16: Baier does not explicitly teach a position sensor configured to detect a position of at least one of the first lens or the second lens, but does teach a rotor. One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that since it is well known in the art to implement rotary encoders for the purpose of determining position of a rotating component, it follows that such an implement would be a reasonable and known addition to an already existing rotor.
9: Baier does not explicitly teach one or more processors configured to control operation of an actuator based on the position of the at least one of the first lens or the second lens, but does teach a gimbal-type support of lens 3 as well as rotor support of lens 3. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that something must operate to control the rotation of lens 3, and since a processor is a common tool utilized in lidar component control, it follows that such an implementation would be reasonable and well known.
11, 18: 2: Baier teaches an actuator configured to rotate the first lens about the second rotation axis or(ii) the second lens about the first rotation axis [0015 teaches two rotation axes, such that the second lens 3 is rotatably supported by a gimbal-type arrangement allowing for rotary movement in two spatial directions] and for claim 18: to adjust an azimuth angle of the third beam [as supported by at least 0015].
13, 19: Baier teaches the first curved portion of the first lens or the second curved portion of the second lens is cylindrical [0024].
15: Baier teaches a modulator configured to modulate at least one of a phase or a frequency of the first beam and transmit the modulated first beam to the first lens [lidar system are known to inherently modulate both frequency and phase].
22: Baier teaches an enclosure, wherein the second lens is positioned within and attached to the enclosure [0047 teaches a protective glass for encapsulating lidar system 1 (which from at least fig. 4 includes lenses 2 and 3.].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baier (US 2019/0302239) in view of Toyosawa (US 2010/0299082).
4: Baier teaches the two lenses and rotation of lens 3 in the rejection of claim 1. Baier explicitly lacks, but Toyosawa teaches at least one of a spring or an actuated flexure to provide a linear restorative force to rotation [0079]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system with lens rotation disclosed in Baier with the linear restorative force component disclosed in Toyosawa with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of restoring a deformed shape to a shape before deformation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights