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.
Response to Applicant’s remarks
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 11/03/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 2-3, filed 04/17/2026, 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 and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the independent claims require the diaphragm with at least one aperture to delimit a cross-section of the transmitted beam bundle, and that Gimpel’s field aperture 34 is used only on the received-light path to limit the field of view and improve signal-to-noise ratio. Applicant further argues that Gimpel does not delimit the cross-section of a transmitted beam bundle and allegedly describes only a single transmitted light beam rather than a beam bundle defined by a diaphragm.
This argument is not persuasive. The rejection relies on Gimpel’s field aperture 34, as shown in Fig. 11, which is positioned in the optical path of the transmission/reception module. Gimpel teaches that there is a conflict between two interests: to thread as much transmitted light 18 as possible through the field aperture 34 and to use a small diaphragm for reducing the reception field of view (Para 89-90). Thus, Gimpel’s field aperture 34 is not limited to the received-light path; transmitted light 18 also passes through field aperture 34.
Gimpel further confirms this in Fig. 12 para 91. Gimpel states that the image of the light transmitter may be placed near or in the plane of field aperture 34 so that practically all transmitted light 18 also passes through an extremely narrow field aperture 34, and that the transmitted light can be focused at the location of field aperture 34. This directly contradicts Applicant’s assertion that field aperture 34 is only for the received-light path.
Applicant’s reliance on the stated purpose of field aperture 34 for reducing reception field of view and improving signal-to-noise ratio does not overcome the rejection. A prior-art structure may satisfy the claim limitation even if the reference also describes an additional or different benefit. Here, Gimpel’s field aperture 34 both reduces the reception field of view and is located such that transmitted light 18 passes through the field aperture. Because an aperture defines the portion of light that may pass through it, Gimpel’s field aperture 34 delimits the cross-section of the transmitted light passing through the aperture.
Applicant’s argument that Gimpel discloses only a single transmitted light beam is also not persuasive. Gimpel describes transmitted light beam 18 and also expressly refers to the transmitted light bundle 18 and the beam bundle of the transmitted light 18. For example, Gimpel states that the lens effect can be set differently for the transmitted light bundle 18 and the received light bundle 24, and further states that it would be optically ideal if aperture 28 corresponded exactly to the diameter of the beam bundle of the transmitted light 18 (Para 70, 73; Fig. 11 shows also at least 3 transmitted lights).
Applicant also appears to rely on features from Applicant’s specification, such as blocking edge sections of generated beams, allowing a central main portion of radiant power to pass, improving beam quality, or enabling a compact optical unit. However, those additional details are not recited in the rejected independent claims as limitations requiring the diaphragm to operate only in that particular manner. The claims require a diaphragm with at least one aperture configured to delimit a cross-section of the beam bundle in a horizontal and/or vertical direction.
Gimpel’s field aperture 34, through which transmitted light 18 passes, satisfies that limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not identify a patentable distinction over Gimpel. The rejection of independent claims 11 and 20 is maintained. Applicant has not presented separate arguments for dependent claims 12–19 apart from the arguments directed to the independent claim feature. Therefore, the rejections of dependent claims 12–19 are likewise maintained for the reasons previously set forth in the Office Action.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gimpel et al. (US 20190120962 A1 “Gimpel”).
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).
Regarding claim 12, Gimpel 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 (Para 19 and 68; the light transmitter 14 is arranged at the focal point of the lens).
Regarding claim 14, Gimpel 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 (Gimpel teaches that the field aperture 34 of Fig. 11 is geometrically dimensioned in transverse directions to define the beam cross-section, including apertures that are elongated or extended in at least one lateral direction to shape the transmitted beam (Fig. 11, para 89-90). Thus, the diaphragm aperture has an extension in the horizontal and/or vertical direction, as claimed.).
Regarding claim 18, Gimpel 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 (Fig. 11, aperture 34 has a linear cross section).
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).
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 13, 15-16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gimpel.
Regarding claim 13, Gimpel 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) (Para 68, the lens has a focal length of f=30 mm).
Gimpel fails to explicitly teach the at least one lens of transmission optical unit has a focal length of at least 40 mm. The focal length together with the emission angle determine the diameter of the collimated beam. A person skilled in the art would choose the focal length at a given emission angle according to the required beam diameter.
Also, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [wherein the at least one lens of transmission optical unit has a focal length of at least 40 mm] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [wherein the at least one lens of transmission optical unit has a focal length of at least 40 mm] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [wherein the at least one lens of transmission optical unit has a focal length of at least 40 mm] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Gimpel 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 using a diaphragm in the form of a field aperture (34) to laterally delimit the transmitted beam cross-section, thereby blocking peripheral portions of the beam bundle (para 89-90; Fig. 11).
While Gimpel does not expressly quantify the exact percentage of radiant energy blocked, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that configuring the diaphragm to block at least 10% of the beam energy is a routine and predictable design choice, as even modest reductions in beam width or numerical aperture inherently remove a significant portion of radiant energy, and the claimed threshold represents a result-effective variable selected to achieve desired.
Regarding claim 16, Gimpel 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.
Gimpel teaches providing regional lateral beam limiting using the field aperture (34) to delimit the transmitted beam cross-section and suppress peripheral beam portions, thereby reducing irradiance outside the intended transmission region and suppressing extraneous light (para 89-90; Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such lateral beam limiting inherently increases compliance with eye-safety limits, as reducing beam cross-section and peripheral irradiance directly reduces accessible emission levels, a well-known and predictable relationship in LIDAR and laser safety design.
Regarding claim 17, Gimpel 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.
Gimpel teaches shaping the transmitted beam cross-section using a diaphragm, including a linear field aperture (34) as illustrated in FIG. 11, which produces a transmitted beam having a linear cross section (para 89-90; FIG. 11).
Although Gimpel does not expressly specify the relative vertical and horizontal extensions of the resulting beam, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the linear aperture such that the beam has a greater extension in the vertical direction than in the horizontal direction, as the orientation and aspect ratio of a linear aperture are routine optical design choices used to tailor beam geometry to scanning patterns, field-of-view requirements, and irradiance distribution, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Gimpel fails to explicitly teach 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.
Gimpel teaches that the disclosed transmission/reception module, including the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 11, is intended for use in laser scanners and LIDAR devices in which a transmitted beam is scanned across a monitored area (para 2-3). Gimpel further explains that, in such laser scanners, the scanning movement is achieved by a rotating mirror to expand the measured zone (Para 3) and a common deflection mirror that relates both to the transmission path and to the reception path generally remaining conceivable, for example to optimize the construction space or the installation (Para 63).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a rotatable or pivotable mirror downstream from the Fig. 11 transmission unit when implementing the module in a scanning LIDAR system, as such mirrors are a well-known and conventional mechanism for beam scanning and are expressly identified by Gimpel as the standard approach for laser scanners.
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
Prosecution Insights