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 11-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s remarks
This is a non-final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 08/31/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 11 and 20 have been amended.
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks pages 5-7, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-12, 14, 18, and 20 under 102 and claims 13, 15-17 and 19 under 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Gimpel does not disclose the newly added limitation of independent claims 11 and 20 reciting, “wherein the aperture blocks exclusively the beams of the beam bundle that are generated by the beam source and that are disposed at an edge of the beam bundle.” Applicant contends that Gimpel’s field aperture 34 does not block light generated by light transmitter 14 but instead masks extraneous light that cannot emanate from light transmitter 14 or transmitted light beam 18. Applicant further argues that the claimed aperture and Gimpel’s field aperture 34 therefore operate in contrary manners.
Applicant’s argument has been considered and is persuasive only to the extent that Gimpel does not explicitly disclose that field aperture 34 blocks exclusively the source-generated beams disposed at an edge of transmitted light beam 18. Accordingly, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Gimpel alone is not maintained.
However, Applicant’s assertion that Gimpel’s field aperture 34 does not block or otherwise affect transmitted light from light transmitter 14 is not persuasive. Gimpel teaches that field aperture 34 affects the passage of transmitted light 18. In particular, Gimpel (Para 90-91) states that there is a conflict between two opposite interests: to thread as much transmitted light 18 as possible through field aperture 34, a large diaphragm aperture is desirable, whereas a small diaphragm is desirable for effectively reducing the reception field of view. Gimpel therefore states that “a compromise therefore has to be found.” Gimpel further teaches that, in the embodiment of Fig. 12, the image of light transmitter 14 may be positioned such that practically all of transmitted light 18 passes through an extremely narrow field aperture 34. Thus, Gimpel recognizes that the dimensions and configuration of field aperture 34 determine the amount of transmitted light 18 that passes through the aperture.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed aperture and Gimpel’s field aperture 34 necessarily perform contrary functions is also not persuasive. Gimpel teaches that field aperture 34 reduces the field of vision of light receiver 26 and masks extraneous light that cannot emanate from light transmitter 14 or transmitted light beam 18. The presently amended claims, however, do not require that the aperture be incapable of additionally blocking extraneous or received light. Rather, the claims require that, with respect to the generated beam bundle, the beams blocked by the aperture are exclusively beams disposed at an edge of the beam bundle. Accordingly, the additional function of Gimpel’s field aperture 34 in reducing extraneous received light does not distinguish the claimed structure merely because the aperture may perform more than one optical function.
Nevertheless, Gimpel does not explicitly identify the portion of transmitted light 18 prevented from passing through field aperture 34 as beams disposed specifically at an edge of the transmitted beam bundle. For this reason, Gimpel alone is not relied upon as teaching the newly added limitation.
The rejection has therefore been modified as set forth below to rely upon Gimpel in view of Cannon et al. (US 20090080091 A1), wherein Cannon teaches an aperture arrangement in which an inner portion of a source generated laser beam passes through the aperture while the peripheral portion of the generated beam is blocked. Cannon is relied upon for the newly added limitation concerning blocking the peripheral or edge beams of the generated beam bundle.
Accordingly, while Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previous anticipation rejection based on Gimpel alone, Applicant’s arguments do not establish patentability over the prior art as presently applied in the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth below.
The rejection of claim 17 has been modified as set forth below to rely upon Gimpel in view of Cannon and Slobodyanyuk et al. (US 20180059221 A1) for clarity.
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 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimpel et al. (US 20190120962 A1 “Gimpel”) in view of Cannon et al. (US 20090080091 A1, “Cannon”).
Regarding claim 11, Gimpel teaches a transmission unit for a LIDAR device for emitting collimated beams into a scanning area (Para 2-3, claim 21), the transmission unit comprising:
at least one beam source (Figs. 11, para 63; light transmitter 14. See also, Figs. 1-2) configured to generate beams in the form of a beam bundle (Fig. 11, Light beam 18), the beam source being configured as a surface emitter (Para 64, the light transmitter 14 can be configured as an LED or as a laser, in particular as a VCSEL laser or as an edge emitting laser diode.) or an emitter array;
a transmission optical unit including at least one lens (Fig. 1, para 18, 66; lens 16); and
a diaphragm with at least one aperture (Fig. 11, para 89-90; a diaphragm formed by field aperture 34), which is configured to delimit a cross section of the beam bundle made up of the generated beams in a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction (Fig.11),
the at least one lens of the transmission optical unit being situated downstream from the diaphragm in an emission direction of the beams (Fig, 11 further shows that the field aperture 34 is positioned upstream of lens 16 in the emission direction, such that the lens is situated downstream from the diaphragm, as required by claim 11).
Gimpel fails to explicitly teach wherein the aperture blocks exclusively the beams of the beam bundle that are generated by the beam source and that are disposed at an edge of the beam bundle.
However, Cannon teaches a laser diode 210 generating laser beam 212 and a structure 216 defining aperture 218 positioned in the path of laser beam 212 such that inner portion 220 passes through aperture 218 while a peripheral portion of laser beam 212, represented by rays 222 and 224, is blocked by structure 216 (Fig. 2; Para 47). Cannon further teaches that, after passing through aperture 218, inner portion 220 is incident upon downstream collimation lens 228 (Para 48). Thus, Cannon teaches selectively blocking the peripheral or edge portion of source generated light while permitting the inner portion to pass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Gimpel's field aperture 34 according to the known aperture arrangement of Cannon such that the inner portion of the transmitted beam passes through the aperture while the peripheral portion is blocked. Gimpel recognizes that the size of field aperture 34 involves a compromise between permitting transmitted light to pass and providing a sufficiently small diaphragm (Para 90). Cannon teaches a known implementation of such an aperture arrangement in which the inner portion of a laser beam passes through the aperture and the peripheral rays are blocked before reaching a downstream collimation lens (Fig. 2; Para 47-48). One of ordinary skill therefore would have been motivated to dimension Gimpel's aperture in this known manner to control the transmitted beam cross section while retaining the central transmitted light portion, with the predictable result of blocking peripheral or edge rays of the source generated beam.
Regarding claim 12, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, teaches the transmission unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the at least one lens of the transmission optical unit includes a focal length which is configured to collimate the beams exiting from the diaphragm (Gimpel, Para 19 and 68; the light transmitter 14 is arranged at the focal point of the lens).
Regarding claim 13, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, teaches the transmission unit as recited in claim 12, wherein the at least one lens of transmission optical unit has a focal length (of at least 40 mm) (in para 68 Gimpel teaches a transmission optical lens having a focal length of 30 mm).
Gimpel, however, does not explicitly teach that the at least one lens has a focal length of at least 40 mm.
Gimpel teaches that focal length is a selectable optical parameter and that different focal lengths may be selected to obtain desired optical characteristics ([Para 70]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a focal length of at least 40 mm through routine optimization of the transmission optics according to the desired beam diameter and collimation characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, teaches the transmission unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the aperture of the diaphragm has an extension in the horizontal direction and/or the vertical direction, by which an edge section of the beam bundle made up of the generated beams is blocked (Cannon further structure 216 defining aperture 218 positioned in the path of laser beam 212 such that an inner portion 220 passes through aperture 218 while a peripheral portion of laser beam 212, represented by rays 222 and 224, is blocked by structure 216 ([Para 47). Cannon further teaches that aperture 218 has dimensions in two transverse directions, including a dimension of approximately 2 mm to 3 mm in the process direction and approximately 4 mm to 5 mm in the scan direction (Para 47). Thus, Cannon teaches an aperture having an extension in a transverse horizontal and/or vertical direction by which an edge or peripheral section of the generated beam is blocked.).
Regarding claim 15, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, fails to explicitly teach the transmission unit as recited in claim 14, wherein the edge section of the beam bundle made up of the generated beams which is blocked by the diaphragm includes a portion of at least 10% of a total radiant energy of the generated beams.
Gimpel teaches that the dimensions of field aperture 34 involve a compromise between permitting transmitted light to pass through the aperture and providing a sufficiently small diaphragm, thereby recognizing aperture size as a parameter affecting the amount of transmitted light passing through the aperture (Para 90). Cannon similarly teaches an aperture of selected dimensions that passes an inner portion of the laser beam while blocking the peripheral portion (Para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the dimensions of the aperture, including selecting dimensions that block at least 10% of the total radiant energy, because the aperture dimensions were known to affect the amount of transmitted light passed or blocked. Selection of the claimed amount would have constituted routine optimization of a result effective variable to obtain a desired balance between transmitted radiant power and beam cross section.
Regarding claim 16, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, fails to explicitly teach the transmission unit as recited in claim 11, wherein to increase an eye safety limiting value, at least regional lateral blocking of the generated beams by the diaphragm is provided.
Cannon teaches regional lateral blocking of the generated beam by positioning aperture 218 such that inner portion 220 passes through the aperture while the peripheral portion represented by rays 222 and 224 is blocked by structure 216 (Para 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ such regional lateral blocking in the transmission unit of Gimpel in order to limit peripheral portions of the transmitted beam and corresponding accessible radiant energy. The recitation that the regional lateral blocking is provided “to increase an eye safety limiting value” states the intended purpose or result of the claimed regional lateral blocking and does not further distinguish the apparatus where the prior art provides the same regional lateral blocking structure capable of providing the stated eye safety effect.
Regarding claim 18, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, teaches the transmission unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the at least one aperture of the diaphragm has a round cross section, or an oval cross section, or a rectangular cross section, or a square cross section, or a linear cross section (Cannon teaches that aperture 218 is generally oval in shape (Para 47).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Gimpel’s aperture with the oval shape taught by Cannon because Cannon teaches the oval aperture as part of the same known beam-limiting arrangement used to pass an inner portion of the laser beam while blocking a peripheral portion. The use of such an oval aperture would therefore have been a predictable implementation of the Cannon aperture arrangement in Gimpel’s transmission unit for controlling the transmitted beam cross section.
Regarding claim 19, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, teaches the transmission unit as recited in claim 11, further comprising: a rotatable or pivotable mirror element downstream from the at least one lens of the transmission optical unit or the diaphragm or the transmission unit, and the mirror is rotatable or pivotable.
Cannon further teaches a scanner mirror downstream from the aperture and transmission optical lenses, wherein the laser beam passes through aperture 218 and collimation lens 228 and is thereafter directed by pre-scan lens 242 onto scanner mirror 256 (Fig. 2; [0047]- [0054]). Cannon further teaches that the scanning assembly may employ a rotating polygonal mirror to sweep the laser beam in a scanning direction ([0003], [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the Gimpel transmission unit with the downstream rotating scanner mirror taught by Cannon in order to scan the transmitted beam across the monitored or scanning area, because Gimpel teaches that, in a laser scanner, a laser beam periodically sweeps over the monitored zone using a deflection unit and that the scanning movement is achieved by a rotating mirror in most laser scanners (Para 3). Thus, the modification would merely apply a known beam scanning mechanism to Gimpel’s laser scanner implementation to obtain the predictable result of directing the transmitted beam over the desired scanning area.
Regarding claim 20, Gimpel teaches a LIDAR device for scanning a scanning area using beams (Para 2, claim 21), comprising:
a transmission unit (Fig. 11, para 63, at least transmitter 14, lens 16. See also, figs. 1-2) configured to emit collimated beams into the scanning area (Para 2, 3. See at least fig. 1, object 22), including:
at least one beam source (Figs. 11, para 63; light transmitter 14. See also, Figs. 1-2) configured to generate beams in the form of a beam bundle (Fig. 11, Light beam 18), the beam source being configured as a surface emitter (Para 64, the light transmitter 14 can be configured as an LED or as a laser, in particular as a VCSEL laser or as an edge emitting laser diode.) or an emitter array,
a transmission optical unit including at least one lens (Fig. 1, para 18, 66; lens 16), and
a diaphragm with at least one aperture (Fig. 11, para 89-90; a diaphragm formed by field aperture 34), which is configured to delimit a cross section of the beam bundle made up of the generated beams in a horizontal direction and/or a vertical direction (Fig.11),
the at least one lens of the transmission optical unit being situated downstream from the diaphragm in an emission direction of the beams (Fig. 11 further shows that the field aperture 34 is positioned upstream of lens 16 in the emission direction, such that the lens is situated downstream from the diaphragm, as required by claim 20); and
a receiver unit configured to receive beams reflected and/or backscattered from the scanning area (Fig. 11, para 63; a light receiver 26. See also, fig. 1).
Gimpel fails to explicitly teach wherein the aperture blocks exclusively the beams of the beam bundle that are generated by the beam source and that are disposed at an edge of the beam bundle.
However, Cannon teaches a laser diode 210 generating laser beam 212 and a structure 216 defining aperture 218 positioned in the path of laser beam 212 such that inner portion 220 passes through aperture 218 while a peripheral portion of laser beam 212, represented by rays 222 and 224, is blocked by structure 216 (Fig. 2; Para 47). Cannon further teaches that, after passing through aperture 218, inner portion 220 is incident upon downstream collimation lens 228 (Para 48). Thus, Cannon teaches selectively blocking the peripheral or edge portion of source generated light while permitting the inner portion to pass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Gimpel's field aperture 34 according to the known aperture arrangement of Cannon such that the inner portion of the transmitted beam passes through the aperture while the peripheral portion is blocked. Gimpel recognizes that the size of field aperture 34 involves a compromise between permitting transmitted light to pass and providing a sufficiently small diaphragm (Para 90). Cannon teaches a known implementation of such an aperture arrangement in which the inner portion of a laser beam passes through the aperture and the peripheral rays are blocked before reaching a downstream collimation lens (Fig. 2; Para 47-48). One of ordinary skill therefore would have been motivated to dimension Gimpel's aperture in this known manner to control the transmitted beam cross section while retaining the central transmitted light portion, with the predictable result of blocking peripheral or edge rays of the source generated beam.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimpel in view of Cannon and Slobodyanyuk et al. (US 20180059221 A1, “Slobodyanyuk”).
Regarding claim 17, Gimpel, in view of Cannon, fails to explicitly teach the transmission unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the generated beams have a linear cross section or a rectangular cross section, the generated beams having a greater extension in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches a LIDAR optical beam scanner 510 including a light source, such as a laser or laser array, and a beam shaping subsystem 515 configured to transform light from the source into an elongated optical beam, such as a rectangle, having a large aspect ratio of height over width (Fig. 5; Para 47). Slobodyanyuk further teaches that the elongated illumination area may be provided as a vertical stripe and scanned in a horizontal plane (Para 53), and that the light beam may be focused into a thin line illumination pattern by orienting the direction of lower divergence with the width direction of the beam (Para 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the generated beam of Gimpel according to Slobodyanyuk to have a vertically elongated linear or rectangular cross section, wherein the vertical extension is greater than the horizontal extension, in order to provide a thin line illumination pattern suitable for one-dimensional scanning and thereby improve scanning resolution and reduce scanning complexity. Slobodyanyuk teaches that the elongated beam arrangement permits simpler one-dimensional scanning and can provide higher scanning resolution and accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
John Gary Sousa (US 7525562 B2), teaches Graphic-arts Laser Imaging with Reduced-length Laser Cavities and Improved Performance
Frosien et al. (US 20070200069 A1), teaches Double Stage Charged Particle Beam Energy Width Reduction System for Charged Particle Beam System
Joel D. Finegan (US 5231624 A), teaches System and Method Using A Reduce Profile Light Beam For High Density Recording On Optical Media
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 9:30-5:30.
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 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights