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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 3/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the U.S. 20230350026 (Goren), with reference to Provisional Application No. 63/069,403.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goren US 20230350026 (U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/069,403 is provided and cited to provide support).
Regarding Claim 1: Goren discloses a LIDAR sensor (page 2 para. 1, “a LIDAR system”) comprising:
a transmitting unit (page 2, paragraph 2, “multi-light source configurations”); and
a deflection unit (page 3, paragraph 3, “scanning mirrors”);
wherein the transmitting unit is configured to generate a laser beam whose local beam distribution along a deflection direction of the deflection unit includes a double peak distribution including a first peak and a second peak (pages 5-6 and Fig. 2B, the two light sources each form a beam, which are separated by a distance d), light energy of which in a central section between the first peak and the second peak is less by a predefined factor than light energy in sections in each case laterally adjacent to the central section which include the first peak and the second peak (pages 5-6 and Fig. 2B, the two beams are separated by distance d, which means there is no light energy between the two peaks), and wherein the transmitting unit is configured to generate the first peak before the second peak (Page 3, paragraphs 2-3, the beams are directed at the same spot of the FOV during scanning, but are separated at a distance such that both beams cannot enter a human eye at the same time), and
wherein the deflection unit is configured to deflect the laser beam generated by the transmitting unit along the deflection direction into surroundings of the LIDAR sensor (page 4, paragraph 3, “scanning mirrors”).
The specific limitation, where “the transmitting unit is configured to generate the first peak before the second peak,” is being interpreted in view of applicant’s specifications. In the specifications, on page 9 line 26 through page 10 line 11, and with Figs. 3A and 3B, applicant describes the local distribution of the laser beam at different points in time. Here, one peak is incident on a specific spot (the retina of eye 100 in applicant’s Fig. 3A) before the second peak during a particular scan. This specific limitation is being interpreted to mean: during scanning, the first peak will be incident on a particular point in space before the second peak.
Regarding Claim 2: Goren discloses the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren further discloses wherein a height of the peaks of the double peak distribution and/or a width of the peaks of the double peak distribution and/or a spacing of the double peak distribution are established in accordance with predefined eye safety requirements of the LIDAR sensor (page 3, paragraph 1, “two laser sources both having a power level at or just below an eye-safe level”; page 3, paragraph 3, “To maintain eye safety and to ensure that light beams emitted by the two light sources will not simultaneously enter the pupil of an eye, the laser light sources may be spaced apart and/or oriented such that the beams emitted by the two laser sources remain at least a certain distance apart from one another and within a predetermined distance from the LIDAR system”).
Regarding Claim 6: Goren discloses the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren further discloses wherein the light energy in the central section of the beam distribution corresponds maximally up to 50% which is present in each case in sections including the peaks (Fig. 2B, the two beams do not overlap and so the energy in the central portion is 0% the light energy of each of the peaks).
Regarding Claim 7: Goren discloses the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren further discloses wherein the light energy in the central section of the beam distribution corresponds maximally up to 20% which is present in each case in sections including the peaks (Fig. 2B, the two beams do not overlap and so the energy in the central portion is 0% the light energy of each of the peaks).
Regarding Claim 8: Goren discloses the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren further discloses wherein the light energy in the central section of the beam distribution corresponds maximally up to 10% which is present in each case in sections including the peaks (Fig. 2B, the two beams do not overlap and so the energy in the central portion is 0% the light energy of each of the peaks).
Regarding Claim 17: Goren discloses the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren further discloses wherein the LIDAR sensor is a point scanner or a line scanner (Fig. 1, scanning in horizontal lines; page 4, paragraphs 3-4, multiple separated beams are directed at the same point in the FOV, and are scanned in a coordinated manner such that they move over the FOV together (while maintaining separation to ensure eye safety)).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren in view of Nothern (US 20210270938 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Goren discloses the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 2. Goren further discloses wherein the LIDAR sensor is configured to ensure the eye safety requirements in a close range of a light exit interface of the LIDAR sensor (Figs. 2B and 2C, distance D; page 6, “within a predetermined distance, D, from the LIDAR system, the beams projected toward the common region of the FOY may remain spaced apart by at least a distance, d (e.g., 5 mm to 7 mm) such that, from a geometrical perspective, both beams cannot simultaneously enter a pupil of an eye.”).
While Goren states that the beam separation can be configured such that eye safety requirements can be met for “the full range of the LIDAR system”, Goren does not explicitly state that the full range of the LIDAR system is at least 10m (page 3, paragraph 3). Therefore, Goren does not explicitly state that the close-range distance could be a distance of up to 10m.
Nothern teaches an eye safe scanning lidar system (Fig. 1) that emits short range and long range pulses that both maintain eye-safe emission levels ([0040] – [0041] “short range pulse 210 has an energy level that is considered eye-safe at a very short distance” and “one or more long range pulses 230 is emitted in a manner that maintains accessible emissions at an eye-safe level”), and that the close range pulse has enough energy such that it is capable of detecting an object with low reflectivity at a distance of 12m ([0037]). Since the short range pulse is capable of reliably detecting an object at 12m, Nothern inherently teaches that the system is capable of maintaining eye safety requirements at distances within 10m of the light exit interface of the lidar sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the lidar sensor disclosed by Goren, by incorporating the method of detection taught by Nothern, where there are short and long range pulses that have different amounts of energy. In this combination, a close range pulse, meant to measure close ranges, would ensure that eye safety requirements are met in a close range that is a distance of up to 10m. Having short and long range pulses with different total amounts of energy would allow the system to maintain eye safety over the entire range of the LIDAR system (Nothern, [0037]), while also increasing the total range of the system. This is because short range pulses with low energy are able to maintain eye safety at distances close to the lidar system, but may not be strong enough to detect objects further away, whereas long range pulses have higher energy and are able to detect these further objects (Nothern, [0037]).
Regarding Claim 4: Goren, in view of Nothern, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 3. In this combination, Nothern further teaches that the close range corresponds to a distance of up to 5 m ([0040] “a short range distance of substantially five meters”).
Regarding Claim 5: Goren, in view of Nothern, teaches the LIDAR sensor system in claim 4. Nothern further teaches that the close range corresponds to a distance of up to 1 m ([0040] “a short range distance of substantially five meters”). This inherently teaches the limitation of maintaining eye safety requirements in a close range of 1 meter. If the short range pulse has an energy such that eye safety requirements are met within 5 meters of the system, eye safety requirements within 1 meter will inherently be maintained.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren in view of Jang (US 20210066893 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited by claim 1. Goren does not disclose wherein a width of sections including the peaks corresponds to 2% to 30% of a total width of the laser beam along the deflection direction.
Jang teaches an eye-safe lidar (Fig. 1, lidar 1000; [1580] beams are emitted such that they meet eye safety requirements) which scans the field of view with a measurement beam that has a double peak distribution (Fig 111, spots 5212 and 5222 form double peak distribution). Jang further teaches a width of the sections including the peaks corresponds to 2% to 30% of a total width of the laser beam along the deflection direction (Figs 111, 122, and 128. [1668] “the distance 5980 between the first laser beam 5971 and the second laser beam 5976 may decrease as the distance from the laser emitting unit increases”. There is inherently a distance between the lidar device and the overlap distance where the width of the two individual beams together, occupies 2-30% of the width of the total transmitted beam).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor disclosed by Goren, such that the beams have a small divergence angle, causing the two beams to overlap at some distance from the lidar system, as taught by Jang. Having this overlap region would increase the overall measurable distance of the lidar device, while ensuring eye-safety requirements at close distance (Jang, [1626] – [1628]).
Regarding Claim 10: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited by claim 1. Goren does not disclose wherein a width of sections including the peaks corresponds to 5% to 25% of a total width of the laser beam along the deflection direction.
Jang teaches an eye-safe lidar (Fig. 1, lidar 1000; [1580] beams are emitted such that they meet eye safety requirements) which scans the field of view with a measurement beam that has a double peak distribution (Fig 111, spots 5212 and 5222 form double peak distribution). Jang further teaches a width of the sections including the peaks corresponds to 5% to 25% of a total width of the laser beam along the deflection direction (Figs 111, 122, and 128. [1668] “the distance 5980 between the first laser beam 5971 and the second laser beam 5976 may decrease as the distance from the laser emitting unit increases”. There is inherently a distance between the lidar device and the overlap distance where the width of the two individual beams together, occupies 5-25% of the width of the total transmitted beam).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor disclosed by Goren, such that the beams have a small divergence angle, causing the two beams to overlap at some distance from the lidar system, as taught by Jang. Having this overlap region would increase the overall measurable distance of the lidar device, while ensuring eye-safety requirements at closer distances (Jang, [1626] – [1628]).
Regarding Claim 11: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited by claim 1. Goren does not disclose wherein the laser beam exiting the LIDAR sensor is a collimated laser beam and a local spacing between the two peaks at a light exit interface is at least 1cm.
Jang teaches this limitation in Fig. 126 and [1658], where the beam size has a particular divergence angle of 0 degrees. Fig. 113 and [1524] “Also, the third and fourth laser emitting elements 5610 and 5620 may be spaced 2 cm apart from each other.” [1683] the divergence angles of VCSELs in the disclosure includes an angle of 0 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser beams disclosed by Goren, such that they are spaced at least 1cm apart and are collimated, as taught by Jang. Jang teaches a system where the individual laser emitting elements are spaced 2cm from each other. Jang also teaches beam separations of other sizes (paragraphs [1523], [1513], and [1667] for example), which could be selected based on different design incentives. The emitter separation distances included in Jang’s disclosure ranges at least from 1mm to 2cm. Selecting this particular configuration could be motivated based on design incentives of the particular lidar sensor and the environment it is intended to be used in. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Regarding Claim 12: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited by claim 1. Goren does not disclose wherein the laser beam exiting the LIDAR sensor is a collimated laser beam and a local spacing between the two peaks at a light exit interface is at least 1.5 cm.
Jang teaches this limitation in Fig. 126 and [1658], where the beam size has a particular divergence angle of 0 degrees. Fig. 113 and [1524] “Also, the third and fourth laser emitting elements 5610 and 5620 may be spaced 2 cm apart from each other.” [1683] the divergence angles of VCSELs in the disclosure includes an angle of 0 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser beams disclosed by Goren, such that they are spaced at least 1.5 cm apart and are collimated, as taught by Jang. Jang teaches a system where the individual laser emitting elements are spaced 2cm from each other. Jang also teaches beam separations of other sizes (paragraphs [1523], [1513], and [1667] for example), which could be selected based on different design incentives. The emitter separation distances included in Jang’s disclosure ranges at least from 1mm to 2cm. Selecting this particular configuration could be motivated based on design incentives of the particular lidar sensor and the environment it is intended to be used in. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Regarding Claim 13: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited by claim 1. Goren does not disclose wherein the laser beam exiting the LIDAR sensor is a collimated laser beam and a local spacing between the two peaks at a light exit interface is at least 2cm.
Jang teaches this limitation in Fig. 126 and [1658], where the beam size has a particular divergence angle of 0 degrees. Fig. 113 and [1524] “Also, the third and fourth laser emitting elements 5610 and 5620 may be spaced 2 cm apart from each other.” [1683] the divergence angles of VCSELs in the disclosure includes an angle of 0 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser beams disclosed by Goren, such that they are spaced 2 cm apart and are collimated, as taught by Jang. Jang teaches a system where the individual laser emitting elements are spaced 2 cm from each other. Jang also teaches beam separations of other sizes (paragraphs [1523], [1513], and [1667] for example), which could be selected based on different design incentives. The emitter separation distances included in Jang’s disclosure ranges at least from 1mm to 2cm. Selecting this particular configuration could be motivated based on design incentives of the particular lidar sensor and the environment it is intended to be used in. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Regarding Claim 14: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren further discloses the LIDAR sensor is configured to generate the double peak distribution using a plurality of optically coupled lasers or an optical system in an optical path of the lidar sensor (page 4 paragraphs 4-5, the beams of individual laser sources are scanned together, and they move as a ‘unit’).
Goren does not expressly teach that the laser source must be a semiconductor laser.
Jang teaches the use of VCSELs in an eye safe lidar system in Fig. 110 and paragraph [1495].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to replace the generic laser source disclosed by Goren, with a VCSEL, as taught by Jang, because this would be a simple substitution of one type of laser source for another. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B.
Regarding Claim 16: Goren discloses the lidar sensor as recited in claim 1. Goren does not expressly state that the transmitting unit is configured to emit laser light at a wavelength in a NIR range.
Jang teaches the use of light sources emitting light in a NIR range in an eye safety lidar system in paragraph [0341].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to replace the generic laser source disclosed by Goren, with a source that emits light in the NIR range, as taught by Jang, because this would be a simple substitution of one type of laser source for another. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren in view of Jang (US 20210066893 A1), further in view of deMesserman (US 20210190919 A1). Goren and Jang teach the LIDAR sensor as recited in claim 14. However, Goren does not disclose wherein the optical system includes a cube-shaped optical element, which is situated within the optical path of the lidar sensor in such a way that two opposing edges with respect to a focal point of the cube are situated within the optical path.
However, deMesserman teaches a cube shaped optical system that is in the path of a single transmitted beam and beam is split into two beams, forming a double peak (Fig. 5C with optical element 504).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitter unit in the system taught by Goren and Jang, such that a double peak configuration is generated using the cube shaped optical element taught by deMesserman. This would just be a different design option that would be predictable to someone ordinarily skilled in the art. It would be using the known work of splitting one beam into a double peak configuration (taught by deMesserman) and applying it to the system that scans with a double peak configuration (taught by Goren and Jang). See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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 at (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 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights