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 Amendment
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 8 that Dussan does not teach modifying the mirrors physical speed, and that Kremer does not teach a specific velocity profile of the steering element linking mirror speed and line density, Steffey teaches these limitations in paragraphs [0082] and [0091]. Thus, this argument is moot, as Steffey is now used to reject the limitations in question.
In response to Applicant arguments on Pages 8-9 that Dussan cannot be combined with Steffey, as Steffey's mirror speed is a fundamentally different control philosophy than Dussan's skipping lines, this interpretation appears incorrect and an improperly narrow interpretation. Applicant only states that this combination would be improper as the control philosophies are different, and fails to further explain how, exactly, this combination would fail.
The mere fact that Dussan does not teach a variable scan speed does not mean a variable scan speed cannot be added to Dussan, as applicant appears to be arguing. As both Dussan and Steffey are in the field of scanning LiDAR, and thus are analogous art. Thus, it would be obvious to try different scanning systems – specifically changing Dussan’s pre-computed list to Steffey’s real time adjustment, which would allow for the system to better adjust to outside conditions in real time.
Further, applicant says “Introducing variable, modulating velocities into the slow axis introduces non-linearities that would complicate the shot list generation and execution.” Examiner notes the mirrors and control method of Steffey are replacing those of Dussan, and not, as applicant appears to imply, being combined.
For the reasons above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan (US 20160047896 A1) in view of Kremer (US 20180113216 A1), and further in view of Steffey (US 20140078519 A1).
Claim 1: Dussan teaches a lidar system comprising:
a light source configured to emit pulses of light (Fig. 1, scanning LADAR system 104 and Fig. 3, laser source 300);
a scanner configured to scan at least a portion of the emitted pulses of light along a scan pattern contained within an adjustable field of regard (Fig. 3, scanner 304 and Fig. 5, scan area 510),
wherein the scanner comprises: a first scanning mirror configured to scan the portion of the emitted pulses of light substantially parallel to a first scan axis to produce a plurality of scan lines of the scan pattern (Fig. 5, mirror 500, Figs 4A-4C - scan area's X-axis, [0069]-[0072] - describing scanning);
and a second scanning mirror configured to distribute the scan lines along a second scan axis (Fig 5, mirror 502, [0069-[0072]),
wherein the scan lines are distributed within the adjustable field of regard according to an adjustable second-axis scan profile that comprises a minimum scan angle along the second scan axis, a maximum scan angle along the second scan axis and a scan-line distribution, ([0072] - rotatable within scan area and [0083] - one mirror adjustable),
wherein: the scan lines are located between the minimum scan angle and the maximum scan angle ([0072] - rotatable within scan area and [0083] - one mirror adjustable);
and the scan-line distribution represents a distribution of scan lines between the minimum and maximum scan angles […] (Figs 8A and [0096] - scan pattern);
a receiver configured to detect at least a portion of the scanned pulses of light scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system (Fig. 1, environmental sensing system 106 and [0029]).
Dussan does not teach, but Kremer does teach a processor configured to adjust the second-axis scan profile comprising adjusting the minimum scan angle, maximum scan angle, or scan-line distribution (Kremer Figs. 8-9C, [0109]-[0116] – min and max elevation shift is also shifting angle).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the elevation change, as taught by Kremer, in the lidar system as taught by Dussan because this allows for the system to be better adjusted to fit current conditions.
Dussan, as modified in view of Kremer, does not teach, but Steffey does teach, the scan line distribution representing scanning speeds of the second scanning mirror, or wherein the scanning speeds of the second scanning mirror comprise a first lower scanning speed that is lower than a second higher scanning speed within the second-axis scan profile, and wherein the scan-line distribution comprises a first higher density of scan lines corresponding to the first lower scanning speed and a second lower density of scan lines corresponding to the second higher scanning speed, the first higher density of scan lines being higher density than the second lower density of scan lines (Steffey [0082] and [0091] - adjusting scan speed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the adjustable scan speed, as taught by Steffey, in the Lidar system, as taught by Dussan, as modified in view of Kremer, because this allows for further adjustment of the system to better respond to outside conditions.
Claim 2: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the second-axis scan profile is a dual-direction scan profile comprising a forward-scan profile followed by a reverse-scan profile, wherein: during the forward-scan profile, the second scanning mirror is configured to distribute the scan lines from the maximum scan angle to the minimum scan angle; and during the reverse-scan profile, the second scanning mirror is configured to distribute the scan lines from the minimum scan angle to the maximum scan angle (Dussan Fig. 8A - back and forth scanning).
Claim 3: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 2, wherein the scan pattern is an interlaced scan pattern wherein the scan lines of the forward-scan profile are interlaced with the scan lines of the reverse- scan profile, wherein: the forward-scan profile comprises two adjacent scan lines; and the reverse-scan profile comprises one scan line disposed between the two adjacent scan lines of the forward-scan profile (Dussan [0107] - interlaced subframes).
Claim 4: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 2, wherein the scan pattern is an interlaced scan pattern wherein the scan lines of the forward-scan profile are interlaced with the scan lines of the reverse- scan profile, wherein one scan line of the reverse-scan profile is located between each pair of adjacent scan lines of the forward-scan profile (Dussan [0107] - interlaced subframes).
Claim 5: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein each scan line has a particular incline angle with respect to the first scan axis (Dussan [0068] - driving with desired scan angle).
Claim 7: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, but not explicitly wherein the incline angle 6 is expressed as 6 = arctan(oy/ox), wherein ox is an angular scan speed along the first scan axis, and oy is an angular scan speed along the second scan axis.
However, this is not novel or non-obvious over Dussan, as modified in view of Kremer. One skilled in the art would recognize that, given scanning speeds in the x and y directions (ox and oy), taking the arctangent of these would give the total angle scanned.
Claim 9: Dussan, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to update the second-axis scan profile to shift an angular range associated with the lower scanning speed from a first scan to a subsequent scan (Dussan [0070] and [0086] – adjusting mirrors).
Claim 10: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more positions of the second scanning mirror comprise a beginning position and an ending position, wherein: the beginning position of the second scanning mirror corresponds to a scan line located at the maximum scan angle; and the ending position of the second scanning mirror corresponds to a scan line located at the minimum scan angle (Fig. 8A, scanning downwards).
Claim 12: Dussan, as modified, teaches lidar system of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the second-axis scan profile comprises adding an angular-offset value to each of the minimum and maximum scan angles to shift the adjustable field of regard along the second scan axis by the angular-offset value (Kremer Figs. 8-9C, [0109]-[0116] – min and max elevation shift is also shifting angle)
Claim 16: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1. However, Dussan as modified in view of Kremer, does not teach, while Kremer does teach wherein the processor is configured to adjust the second- axis scan profile based at least in part on a driving condition of a vehicle in which the lidar system is operating, wherein the driving condition comprises a grade of a road on which the vehicle is operating or a change in the grade of the road on which the vehicle is operating (Kremer [0109] and Fig. 9C, uphill 980 and downhill 970).
It would have been obvious to adjust based on the grade of a road, as taught by Kremer, in the lidar system as taught by Dussan, as modified, because a grade of a road is something often encountered by a vehicle, and would be something it would be obvious to monitor for safe driving.
Claim 17: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 16, wherein the grade of the road comprises an upward slope ahead of the vehicle, and the adjustment of the second-axis scan profile is configured to shift the adjustable field of regard upward (Kremer Fig. 9C, uphill 980).
Claim 18: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 16, wherein the grade of the road comprises a downward slope ahead of the vehicle, and the adjustment of the second-axis scan profileis configured to shift the adjustable field of regard downward (Kremer Fig. 9c, downhill 970).
Claim 19: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the first scanning mirror is driven repeatedly in a back-and-forth motion by a galvanometer scanner (Dussan Fig. 8A, back and forth scanning and [0064]);
and each scan line corresponds to a single forward or backward motion of the galvanometer scanner (Dussan [0064]).
Claim 20: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
wherein the first scanning mirror is a polygon mirror comprising two or more reflective surfaces (Dussan Figs. 11A,B, mirror 1102 and rotational direction 1104),
wherein: the polygon mirror is configured to continuously rotate in one direction about a rotation axis of the polygon mirror (Dussan Fig. 11A, rotational direction 1102);
and the portion of the emitted pulses of light are reflected sequentially from the reflective surfaces as the polygon mirror is rotated, resulting in the portion of the emitted pulses of light being scanned substantially parallel to the first scan axis to produce the plurality of scan lines, wherein each scan line corresponds to a reflection from one of the reflective surfaces (Dussan [0162]).
Claim 21: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein each scan line extends from one edge of the adjustable field of regard to an opposite edge of the adjustable field of regard (Dussan Fig. 8A and [0096]).
Claim 22: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the first scan axis is substantially horizontal; the second scan axis is substantially vertical; and the adjustable minimum scan angle and the adjustable maximum scan angle each corresponds to an elevation angle (Dussan Fig. 5 x and y axes).
Claim 23: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, but not wherein: the first scan axis is substantially vertical; the second scan axis is substantially horizontal; and the adjustable minimum scan angle and the adjustable maximum scan angle each corresponds to an azimuth angle.
However, Dussan teaches wherein the first axis is vertical and the second horizontal (Fig. 5 x and y ax). It would be obvious that these axes could be flipped or rotated to meet the claim limitations without changing the function of the system (See MPEP 2144.04.V.A (reversal of parts) and 2144.04.V.C (rearrangement of parts). Further, the ability to rotate the system as such would make the system for versatile.
Claim 24: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the second scan axis is substantially orthogonal to the first scan axis (Dussan Fig. 5 x and y axes).
Claim 25: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 5. Dunnan, as modified Kremer, does not teach, but Steffey does teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based at least in part on a round-trip time of flight for an emitted pulse of light to travel from the lidar system to the target and back to the lidar system ([0060]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the TOF measurement, as taught by Steffey, in the Lidar system, as taught by Dussan, as modified, because this is a method well-known in the art of LiDAR which yields predictable results.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan (US 20160047896 A1), Kremer (US 20180113216 A1), and Steffey (US 20140078519 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of O’Keeffe (US 20190324124 A1).
Claim 6: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 5. Dunnan, as modified, does not teach, but O’Keeffe does teach wherein when the second scanning mirror distributes the scan lines along the second scan axis by scanning from the maximum scan angle to the minimum scan angle, each scan line is angled toward the minimum scan angle by the particular incline angle (O’Keeffe [0055] – constant angular velocity would mean constant scan angle).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the constant angular velocity, as taught by O’Keeffe, in the LiDAR system, as taught by Dunnan, as modified, because using a constant angular velocity would simplify calculations by allowing the position along this axis to be based on a constant.
Claim 8: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 5. Dunnan, as modified does not teach, but O’Keeffe does teach wherein the one or more scanning speeds of the second scanning mirror comprise a substantially constant scanning speed, and the corresponding scan-line distribution comprises scan lines that are spaced apart substantially uniformly along the second scan axis (O’Keeffe [0055] – constant angular velocity would mean constant scan angle).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the constant angular velocity, as taught by O’Keeffe, in the LiDAR system, as taught by Dunnan, as modified, because using a constant angular velocity would simplify calculations by allowing the position along this axis to be based on a constant.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan (US 20160047896 A1), Kremer (US 20180113216 A1), and Steffey (US 20140078519 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Magee (US 20170328990 A1).
Claim 11: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 5. Dunnan, as modified, does not teach, but Magee does teach wherein adjusting the second-axis scan profile comprises adjusting the minimum and maximum scan angles to reduce an angular range of the adjustable field of regard along the second scan axis so that the lidar system scans a particular region of interest with an increased density of scan lines or the lidar system scans the particular region of interest with an increased frame rate (Magee [0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the, adjustable scan density as taught by Magee, in the Lidar system, as taught by Dussan, as modified, because this allows for a more detailed image of areas of interest while not using unnecessary power by increasing the scan density for all areas.
Claim 13: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1. Dussan, as modified, does not teach, but Magee does teach wherein adjusting the second-axis scan profile comprises adjusting the scan-line distribution to produce an increased density of scan lines for a particular region of interest (Magee [0033] [0036]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the, adjustable scan density as taught by Magee, in the Lidar system, as taught by Dussan, as modified, because this allows for a more detailed image of areas of interest while not using unnecessary power by increasing the scan density for all areas.
Claim 14: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1. Dussan, as modified, does not teach, but Magee does teach wherein the processor is configured to adjust the second- axis scan profile after the lidar system captures a first frame, wherein the adjusted second-axis scan profile is applied to a second frame that is captured after the first frame (Magee [0036]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the, adjustable scan axis profile as taught by Magee, in the Lidar system, as taught by Dussan, as modified, because this allows for the system to be adapted to outside conditions, thus making it versatile.
Claim 15: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1. Dussan, as modified, does not teach, but Magee does teach wherein: the processor is configured to adjust the second-axis scan profile in response to detecting the pulses of light scattered by the target; and the second-axis scan profile is adjusted to provide a scan of the target that has a higher resolution or a higher frame rate than a previous scan (Magee [0033] [0036])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the adjustable scan axis profile as taught by Magee, in the Lidar system, as taught by Dussan, as modified, because this allows for the system to be adapted to outside conditions, thus making it versatile.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan (US 20160047896 A1), Kremer (US 20180113216 A1), and Steffey (US 20140078519 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above further in view of Anderson (US 20050057741 A1).
Claim 26: Dussan, as modified, teaches the lidar system of Claim 1. Dussan, as modified, does not teach, but Steffey does teach wherein the light source has an operating wavelength between approximately 1400nm and approximately 1600nm (Steffey [0058] – one wavelength given is 1550 nm).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the wavelength, as taught by Steffey, in the lidar system as taught by Dussan, as modified, because different wavelengths and the results of using them are well known in the art.
Dussan, as modified in view of Kremer and Steffey, does not teach, but Anderson does teach wherein the lidar system operates in an eye-safe manner ([0036] – using intensity filter).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the intensity filter, as taught by Anderson, in the lidar device, as taught by Dussan as modified in view of Kremer and Steffey, because this allows for the system to be used in more environments (i.e.: crowded areas) without affecting people around it.
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 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645