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 .
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 03/09/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 6 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been added.
The 112(a) and 112b rejection of claims 5 has been withdrawn.
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-13, filed 03/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 8-12 under 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Holleczek et al. (US 20200209360 A1) and Broggi et al. (US 20070291130 A1) necessitated by the claim amendment.
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, one figure (a single figure) with wherein the laser beam splitting unit is arranged in an optical path of the emitted pulsed laser beams downstream of the diversion mirror, wherein the laser beam splitting unit is positioned at a distance from the diversion mirror such that each of the pulsed laser beams generated by the laser light source are incident on the diversion mirror at a specified position and uniformly split into the plurality of pulsed individual beams by the laser beam splitting unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No figures shown a plurality of pulsed laser beams or pulsed laser beams.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, last line “,” after splitting unit should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 3-4, 6-11, 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
It is unclear from the language of claim 1 the following:
wherein the laser beam splitting unit is arranged in an optical path of the emitted pulsed laser beams downstream of the diversion mirror,wherein the laser beam splitting unit is positioned at a distance from the diversion mirror such that each of the pulsed laser beams generated by the laser light source are incident on the diversion mirror at a specified position and uniformly split into the plurality of pulsed individual beams by the laser beam splitting unit.
Uniformly is unclear and relative, the specification ([0036]) only states “…The laser beam splitting unit should be configured accordingly such that the pulsed laser beam, after being diverted by the diversion mirror, is reliably and uniformly split into the plurality of pulsed individual beams.” but does provide any guidance or details on how the pulsed laser beams are uniformly split….
Claims 3-4, 6-11, 13 are rejected due to claim dependency
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 1, 3-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumoulin et al. (EP 3460520 A1, “Dumoulin”) in view of Holleczek et al. (US 20200209360 A1 “Holleczek”).
Regarding claim 1, Dumoulin teaches a laser emission apparatus for a LiDAR based surround sensor for use in a vehicle (para 1, 5 and 8), comprising:
a laser light source for generating pulsed laser beams (Para 48);
a laser beam splitting unit comprising a diffraction element (Para 46, diffractive optical beamsplitter. See also, fig. 3: holographic structure 22), which produces, from the pulsed laser beams, a plurality of pulsed individual beams, which are arranged in a horizontal plane and are aligned distributed in a specified angular range with a uniform angular distance (Fig. 1: beams 6, patterns 7A, 7B; para 25, 93-97, the laser scanner provides scanning with at least two different multi-beam scan patterns 7A, 7B based on the multiple measuring beams 6; these patterns differ in number of beams, spread direction, density, and distribution. The beam spacing / distribution aspects in para 25 (different beam spacing / distributions) is consistent with uniform angular spacing between adjacent individual beams in a multi-beam pattern, such as patterns 7A and 7B in Fig. 1a.); and
a movable diversion mirror pivotable both about a horizontal axis and also about a vertical axis in order to divert the pulsed laser beams into a two-dimensional emission region (Fig. 1a, para 92: mirror 5 rotates itself about axis 2B and rotates in combination with the device about axis 2A and is thus pivotable in two axis),
wherein the laser beam splitting unit is arranged in the optical path of the emitted pulsed laser beams (downstream) [upstream] of the diversion mirror (Fig. 1a, para 46 and 109: as shown in fig 1a, mirror 5 is the last element in the transmission path. The diffractive optical beamsplitter is used to reduce the number of transmitters. See also, 112b above).
Dumoulin fails to explicitly teach but Holleczek teaches wherein the laser beam splitting unit is arranged in an optical path of the emitted pulsed laser beams downstream of the diversion mirror, wherein the laser beam splitting unit is positioned at a distance from the diversion mirror such that each of the pulsed laser beams generated by the laser light source are incident on the diversion mirror at a specified position and uniformly split into the plurality of pulsed individual beams by the laser beam splitting unit (Holleczek teaches that an electromagnetic beam is first deflected by a rotatable or pivotable mirror 6 and then is split by a beam splitter 8 connected downstream from the mirror into multiple beams 4, 12. Holleczek further states that the beam may be split uniformly or non-uniformly by a prism, beam-splitter cube, or diffractive optical element, and the generated beams 4, 12 are operated in a pulsed manner [0005], [0008], [0026], claim 15, and Figs. 1a-3.
For the “incident on the diversion mirror at a specified position” aspect, Holleczek’s Fig. 4, [0029] teaches that multiple lasers 2 are positioned so that all generated beams 4 hit mirror 6 at the point of intersection with vertical rotation axis V, i.e., at a defined mirror location.),
wherein the diversion mirror is pivotable about the vertical axis in an angular range in order to ensure coverage of the angular distance between adjacent pulsed individual beams by way of the diversion of the pulsed l laser beams incident on the laser beam splitting unit (Holleczek explains that conventional scanners have spacing between scan paths, and that to cover the gaps between the scan paths and increase resolution a better approach is needed [0002]- [0006]. Holleczek then teaches that at least two beams are generated and scanned by a mirror so that at least two scanning paths situated adjacent to one another are generated, and that possible gaps between the scanning paths may thus be narrowed during the swiveling movement of the mirror [0015]- [0018]. Holleczek also teaches that the mirror, optics, and detector may rotate along a vertically running rotation axis, and that the mirror is pivotable orthogonally with respect to that rotation axis. Holleczek further teaches that the generated beams are pulsed, and shows the mirror 6, vertical axis V, horizontal axis H, and adjacent-beam/group geometries in Figs. 1a, 1b, 2, and 3; [0026]- [0028], claims 13-15).
It would have been obvious to modify Dumoulin’s multi-beam LiDAR scanner with Holleczek’s downstream beam-splitting and mirror-control arrangement in order to increase scan resolution / coverage and narrow the spacing between adjacent beam paths while maintaining scan efficiency in a pulsed multi-beam LiDAR system.
Regarding claim 3, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, teaches the laser emission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diffraction element is a translucent carrier element with a line pattern (Dumoulin, Para 46, diffractive optical beamsplitter).
Regarding claim 4, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, teaches the laser emission apparatus according to claim l, wherein the laser beam splitting unit has a refraction element, which refracts the plurality of pulsed individual beams together, for fanning out the plurality of pulsed individual beams within the plane (Dumoulin, Para 79, using both refractive and diffractive elements, it is also possible to arrange for multiple beams in different angular directions from the same chip.).
Regarding claim 8, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, teaches the laser emission apparatus according to claim l, wherein the laser beam splitting unit has at least one optical element for beam shaping the pulsed laser beam and/or the pulsed individual beams (Para 111).
Regarding claim 9, Dumoulin teaches a LiDAR-based surround sensor, for use in a vehicle, comprising:
a laser emission apparatus according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1); and
a reception unit for receiving reflections of the pulsed individual beams emitted by the laser emission apparatus in the emission region (Dumoulin, Para 23).
Regarding claim 10, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, teaches the LiDAR-based surround sensor according to Claim 9, wherein, for receiving the reflections of the pulsed individual beams emitted by the laser emission apparatus in the emission region, the reception unit has a plurality of reception elements, which are arranged in a two-dimensional field according to an angle resolution of the laser emission apparatus (Dumoulin, Para 56).
Regarding claim 11, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, teaches the LiDAR-based surround sensor according to Claim 10, wherein the LiDAR-based surround sensor has an optical device, which is connected upstream of the reception unit and guides the reflections of the pulsed individual beams emitted by the laser emission apparatus in the emission region onto the reception elements that correspond in terms of the horizontal and vertical angle position thereof (Dumoulin, Fig. 3, Para 116 and 120).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumoulin in view of Holleczek and Lin et al. (DE 102015105393 A1, “Lin”).
Regarding claim 6, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, fails to explicitly teach but Lin teaches the laser emission apparatus according to claim l, wherein the laser beam splitting unit is embodied to produce, from the pulsed laser beams, at least ten pulsed individual beams (Para 34, the transmitted signal 8 can be divided into 23 partial beams S. See also, fig. 3 para 37, the transmission signal 8 is divided into eleven partial beams S).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dumoulin in view of Lin to split the laser beams in at least ten pulsed individual beams. Doing so will provide a higher resolution.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumoulin in view of Holleczek and Mark J. Donovan (US 20170307736 A1, “Donovan”).
Regarding claim 7, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek fails to explicitly teach the laser emission apparatus according to claim l, wherein the laser beam splitting unit is configured0.
As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, Dumoulin discloses a multi-beam laser scanner for LiDAR-type applications which includes a multi-beam transmitter and a beam-deflecting element configured to scan multiple measuring beams over a field of view (FoV) for, inter alia, autonomous driving applications. Dumoulin teaches that for such vehicle applications the required horizontal field of view should be about 80 degrees, with a vertical field of view of about 25 degrees (Para 8). Dumoulin further teaches that the multi-beam scan patterns differ in beam spacing and projected beam distribution, and that the system can provide different multi-beam scan patterns based on application (Para 25, 92-97), thereby indicating that the angular coverage is a design parameter that can be adapted to the requirements of the intended use.
However, in para 60 Donavan describes prior-art automotive LiDAR systems having a 100° horizontal × 25° vertical field of view, and further notes that other commercial systems provide horizontal fields of view up to about 120°, with similar angular resolution. Thus, it was well known in the art, prior to Applicant’s filing date, that automotive LiDAR systems may be configured with horizontal fields of view in the range of about 80°–120°, including approximately 100°, depending on desired coverage and packaging constraints.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, starting from Dumoulin’s multi-beam laser scanner and its disclosed ~80° horizontal FoV, to configure the laser beam splitting unit and associated scan geometry such that the pulsed individual beams are aligned over a specified angular range of at least approximately 100°, as recited in Claim 8, in order to increase horizontal coverage and meet known automotive LiDAR FoV targets, such as those explicitly described in Donavan.
Adjusting the angular range over which the multi-beam pattern is distributed (via the design of the diffractive/holographic structure and/or scan mirror amplitudes) is nothing more than routine optimization of a result-effective variable (the field of view / angular coverage), which Dumoulin already identifies as a key design parameter for autonomous-driving LiDAR, and which the art recognizes as being selectable within the 80°–120° range for given system requirements.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumoulin in view of Holleczek and Broggi et al. (US 20070291130 A1, “Broggi”).
Regarding claim 13, Dumoulin in view of Holleczek, fails to explicitly teach the laser emission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the horizontal plane is oriented parallel to a ground plane in the region of the vehicle, where the horizontal plane is aligned with reference to the vehicle, such that, if the vehicle is inclined, deviations from an absolute horizontal alignment can occur.
Dumoulin teaches a vehicle LiDAR scanner having multiple measuring beams, including beams that may be arranged in a common plane [0016], and further teaches an autonomous-driving vehicle embodiment in which the scanner has a horizontal field of view that is substantially larger than the vertical field of view, teaches pulsed vehicle-mounted LiDAR scanning and coordinate referencing of scanner data (Fig. 1c, [0108], [0107]- [0110]).
While Broggi teaches a vehicle carrying multiple LIDAR sensors that are mounted on and aligned relative to the vehicle structure, including sensors coupled to the roll cage, cab, and bumper, with adjustable mounts for positioning and fixed securement after adjustment. See [0014]-[0018], [0038]-[0039], [0045]-[0048], and Figs. 3-8, 10-12. Broggi also teaches that scan data from a particular LIDAR sensor is translated from the coordinate frame of the particular LIDAR sensor / sensor level coordinate framework to a local level coordinate frame, which shows that the scanning plane is initially defined with reference to the vehicle/sensor rather than absolute horizontal. See [0040]- [0041], [0046]. In addition, Broggi teaches that the vehicle can operate on substantial grades and side slopes, and that GPS/IMU units provide full 3D motion measurement of the vehicle. See [0030], [0064]- [0065], and Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to orient Dumoulin’s horizontal beam plane parallel to a ground plane in the region of the vehicle and aligned with reference to the vehicle, as taught by Broggi’s vehicle-mounted sensor arrangement and sensor-frame processing, because vehicle LiDAR systems are mounted and operated in the vehicle’s own reference frame, while recognizing that when the vehicle is inclined on grades or side slopes, the vehicle-referenced “horizontal” plane can deviate from absolute horizontal alignment until transformed into a local level frame.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645