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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite, “wherein at least one of the first lens or the second lens is rotatable about an axis that is offset from the at least one of the first lens of the second lens”, and this is indefinite for two reasons:
It is unclear from the instant claims, specification and drawings what is intended by “offset” as relating to one of the lenses with respect to the other lens. The specification at par. 0106 includes the only recitation of “offset” found in the specification, but it does not clearly describe how the offset is specifically related to each of the lenses. Further, without additional description of the drawings, the drawings appear to illustrate the lenses with no axial offset. For example, drawings 3A-5 are similar to the prior art reference figure 1 but don’t clearly illustrate the offset as set forth in the claims.
It is further unclear from this limitation whether the offset is intended to related to only one specific lens or to either lens. That is to say, the claim sets forth that one of the lenses is rotatable upon an axis relative to the other lens, but that the axis is offset “from the at least one of the first lens of the second lens”. It seems as though Applicant may intend for the offset to only be relative to the lens that does not rotate, however, the claims are written in such a way that allows for the offset to be relative to either of the lenses. Either way, the offset is not clearly described or defined in such a way that renders obvious what is intended by Applicant, even upon consideration of the instant specification and drawings.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as an offset relating to the non-rotating lens in such a way that facilitates the change in direction of light transmission from one of the lenses.
The above claims also recite “…and that passes through a particular area of curvature of the convex portion or the concave portion…”, which is indefinite because the claims do not clearly tie any of the light beams with passing through the particular area of curvature. Therefore, it is unclear (1) what is intended to pass through the curvature, and (2) if it is one of the beams, which beam is intended to pass through the curvature, and (3) of which lens curvature is being passed through. It appears that there needs to be an indication that the curvature is intended to be related to the rotatable lens, for example, or to the non-rotatable lens, or to the lens with the desired convex or concave property. As written, the metes and bounds of this claim limitation is not clearly set forth and will be interpreted as any of the beams being transmitted through any part of either lens, because both lenses include curvatures that the beam(s) are transmitted through.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7 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 one of a convex portion or a concave 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 2 receives a beam from light source 4 and outputs a beam to lens 3]; and
a second lens comprising the other of the convex portion or the concave portion [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 at least one of the first lens or the second lens is rotatable about an axis that is offset from the at least one of the first lens or the second lens [fig. 1, 0032, lens 3 is rotatable relative to lens 2; and regarding an offset, 0033 teaches “while the beam is passing through both lenses 2, 3, the behavior of a prism is obtained which has different angles of refraction depending on the angle of rotation of the second lens 3, thereby leading to a beam deflection that is a function of the angle of rotation of second lens 3”.] and that passes through a particular area of curvature of the convex portion or the concave portion of the at least one of the first lens or the second lens [fig. 1, 0032-0033 teach that each beam passes through some curvature of each lens, since lens 2 has a concave curved portion and since lens 3 has a convex curved portion].
2: Baier discloses an actuator configured to rotate the at least one of the first lens or the second lens about the axis [0032, lens 3 is rotatable in relation to lens 2, via rotor taught in 0011].
5: Baier discloses the convex portion of the at least one of the first lens or 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].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8-20 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 one of a convex portion or a concave 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 2 receives a beam from light source 4 and outputs a beam to lens 3]; and
a second lens comprising the other of the convex portion or the concave portion [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 at least one of the first lens or the second lens is rotatable about an axis that is offset from the at least one of the first lens or the second lens [fig. 1, 0032, lens 3 is rotatable relative to lens 2; and regarding an offset, 0033 teaches “while the beam is passing through both lenses 2, 3, the behavior of a prism is obtained which has different angles of refraction depending on the angle of rotation of the second lens 3, thereby leading to a beam deflection that is a function of the angle of rotation of second lens 3”.] and that passes through a particular area of curvature of the convex portion or the concave portion of the at least one of the first lens or the second lens [fig. 1, 0032-0033 teach that each beam passes through some curvature of each lens, since lens 2 has a concave curved portion and since lens 3 has a convex curved portion]; 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 and 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 and 0032, since lidar systems are explicitly function to determine range as claimed]; 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 systems to be employed in autonomous vehicles for the purpose or detecting the position of an object in order to avoid a collision, to increase driving safety, and 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 the reference could reasonably be integrated into an autonomous driving vehicle/system.].
17: Baier teaches a laser source configured to output a first beam [fig. 1, 0032 (laser light source 4)];
a first lens comprising one of a convex portion or a concave 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 2 receives a beam from light source 4 and outputs a beam to lens 3]; and
a second lens comprising the other of the convex portion or the concave portion [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 at least one of the first lens or the second lens is rotatable about an axis that is offset from the at least one of the first lens or the second lens [fig. 1, 0032, lens 3 is rotatable relative to lens 2; and regarding an offset, 0033 teaches “while the beam is passing through both lenses 2, 3, the behavior of a prism is obtained which has different angles of refraction depending on the angle of rotation of the second lens 3, thereby leading to a beam deflection that is a function of the angle of rotation of second lens 3”.] and that passes through a particular area of curvature of the convex portion or the concave portion of the at least one of the first lens or the second lens [fig. 1, 0032-0033 teach that each beam passes through some curvature of each lens, since lens 2 has a concave curved portion and since lens 3 has a convex curved portion];
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 and 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 and 0032, since lidar systems are explicitly function to determine range as claimed]; and
control operation of at least one of the steering system or the braking system based on 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 systems to be employed in autonomous vehicles for the purpose or detecting the position of an object in order to avoid a collision, to increase driving safety, and 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 the reference could reasonably be integrated into an autonomous driving vehicle/system].
3, 12 mutatis mutandis: Baier teaches the axis is a first axis, and the actuator is configured to rotate the at least one of the first lens or the second lens relative to a second axis along which the first lens receives the first beam and adjusts an angle of the third beam relative to the first beam [0015 teaches that “the second lens [3] is rotatably supported in at least one spatial direction and further, an embodiment in which a gimbal-type support is used for the second lens 3 so as to allow for a rotary movement in two spatial directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious the combination of embodiments described herein because the disclosure of Baier supports them as being usable together.].
6, 14, 20 mutatis mutandis: Baier does not explicitly teach the convex portion of the at least one of the first lens or the second lens is spherical, 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 mutatis mutandis: 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: Baier teaches an actuator configured to rotate the at least one of the first lens or the second lens about the axis [0032, lens 3 is rotatable in relation to lens 2, via rotor taught in 0011].
13, 19 mutatis mutandis: Baier teaches the convex portion of the at least one of the first lens or 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].
18: Baier does not explicitly teach an actuator configured to rotate the at least one of the first lens or the second lens about the axis, 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.
Baier does not explicitly teach to adjust an azimuth angle of the third beam, but 0015 teaches that “the second lens [3] is rotatably supported in at least one spatial direction and further, an embodiment in which a gimbal-type support is used for the second lens 3 so as to allow for a rotary movement in two spatial directions, including in an azimuthal direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious the combination of embodiments described herein because the disclosure of Baier supports them as being usable together.
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.
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