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
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 23 February 2026.
Claims 1 and 18 were amended. Claim 3 was cancelled. New claim 22 was added. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-22 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the Remarks, filed 23 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hipp, US 5757501 A in view of Campbell et al., US 20190250254 A1.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one secondary mirror" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10-12, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hipp, US 5757501 A (“Hipp”) in view of Campbell et al., US 20190250254 A1 (“Campbell”).
Regarding claim 1, Hipp discloses a lidar system, comprising: a rotatable portion (Fig. 3, scanner 1, Col. 3 line 62 – Col. 4 line 7), wherein the rotatable portion comprises: one or more light sources (Fig. 1, laser generator 7, Col. 4 lines 23-34); and one or more detectors (Fig. 1, light receiver 11, Col. 4 lines 23-34), wherein the rotatable portion is configured to rotate about a rotational axis such that the one or more light sources are operable to emit light within an azimuthal range of angles (Fig. 3, scanner 1, monitored sector 23, Col. 3 line 62 – Col. 4 line 7), wherein the azimuthal range of angles comprises a first azimuthal scanning region, a second azimuthal scanning region, and a third azimuthal scanning region (Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, sector 29, and sector 31, Col. 4 lines 9 - 22), wherein the first azimuthal scanning region defines a primary field of view that is less than 360 degrees (Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, Col. 3 line 65 – Col. 4 line 1); a first secondary mirror configured to reflect light initially emitted by the one or more light sources within the second azimuthal scanning region into a secondary field of view (Fig. 3, mirror 27, sector 29, Col. 4, lines 8-13); and a second secondary mirror configured to reflect light initially emitted by the one or more light sources within the third azimuthal scanning region into the secondary field of view (Fig. 3, mirror 28, sector 31, Col. 4, lines 8-13), wherein the primary field of view and the secondary field of view at least partially overlap so as to provide a higher resolution portion of the primary field of view (Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, sector 29, and sector 31, Col. 4 lines 14-22), […].
Hipp does not teach: wherein the higher resolution portion comprises a first group of scan lines from the first azimuthal scanning region vertically interlaced with a second group of scan lines from the second azimuthal scanning region to provide a higher spatial resolution and/or a higher temporal resolution compared to other portions of the primary field of view.
However, Campbell teaches overlapping scan patterns, where the first and second scan patterns are vertically interlaced. The overlapped region has a higher density than the other portions of the scan pattern (Fig. 7, scan patterns 200A and 200B, overlap region 510, Paragraph [0073]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s overlapping sectors by interlacing the overlapping scan patterns vertically, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a suitable percentage of total number of pixels in the overlapped region, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the higher resolution portion of the primary field of view comprises a spatial resolution that is at least three times a spatial resolution of a standard resolution portion of the primary field of view (Campbell, Fig. 7, scan patterns 200A and 200B, overlap region 510, Paragraph [0074] ).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s overlapping sectors by interlacing the overlapping scan patterns vertically, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a suitable percentage of total number of pixels in the overlapped region, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the higher resolution portion of the primary field of view comprises between 5 and 45 degrees in azimuth (Campbell, Fig. 7, overlap region 510, Paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s overlapping sectors by interlacing the overlapping scan patterns vertically, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a suitable percentage of total number of pixels in the overlapped region, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the higher resolution portion of the primary field of view is disposed within a central portion of the primary field of view (Hipp, Fig. 3, overlap between monitored sector 23, sector 29, and sector 31, Col. 4 lines 9 - 22).
Regarding claim 10, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, further comprising a substrate, wherein the rotatable portion and the at least one secondary mirror are operably attached to the substrate by way of one or more registration structures (Hipp, Figs. 5-6, molded body 41, Col. 5 lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 11, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the at first and second secondary mirrors are flat mirrors (Hipp, Fig. 3, Two lateral mirrors 27 and 28, Col. 4 line 29-30).
Regarding claim 12, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 11, wherein the first and second secondary mirrors each comprise a respective reflective surface arranged substantially parallel to the rotational axis (Hipp, Fig. 3, mirror 27, mirror 28, Col. 4, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 18, Hipp discloses a lidar module, comprising: a housing configured to be attached to a vehicle (Fig. 7, vehicle 21, Fig. 6, molded body 41, Col. 5 lines 22 - 40); a rotatable portion disposed inside the housing (Fig. 3, scanner 1, Col. 3 line 62 – Col. 4 line 7), wherein the rotatable portion comprises: one or more light sources (Fig. 1, laser generator 7, Col. 4 lines 23-34); and one or more detectors (Fig. 1, light receiver 11, Col. 4 lines 23-34), wherein the rotatable portion is configured to rotate about a rotational axis such that the one or more light sources are operable to emit light within an azimuthal range of angles (Fig. 3, scanner 1, monitored sector 23, Col. 3 line 62 – Col. 4 line 7), wherein the azimuthal range of angles comprises a first azimuthal scanning region, a second azimuthal scanning region, and a third azimuthal scanning region (Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, sector 29, and sector 31, Col. 4 lines 9 - 22), wherein the first azimuthal scanning region defines a primary field of view that is less than 360 degrees (Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, Col. 3 line 65 – Col. 4 line 1); a first secondary mirror disposed inside the housing, wherein the first secondary mirror is configured to reflect light initially emitted by the one or more light sources within the second azimuthal scanning region into a secondary field of view (Fig. 3, mirror 27, sector 29, Col. 4, lines 8-13); and a second secondary mirror configured to reflect light initially emitted by the one or more light sources within the third azimuthal scanning region into the secondary field of view (Fig. 3, mirror 28, sector 31, Col. 4, lines 8-13), wherein the primary field of view and the secondary field of view at least partially overlap so as to provide a higher resolution portion of the primary field of view (Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, sector 29, and sector 31, Col. 4 lines 14-22), […].
Hipp does not teach: wherein the higher resolution portion comprises a first group of scan lines from the first azimuthal scanning region vertically interlaced with a second group of scan lines from the second azimuthal scanning region to provide a higher spatial resolution and/or a higher temporal resolution compared to other portions of the primary field of view.
However, Campbell teaches overlapping scan patterns, where the first and second scan patterns are vertically interlaced. The overlapped region has a higher density than the other portions of the scan pattern (Fig. 7, scan patterns 200A and 200B, overlap region 510, Paragraph [0073]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s overlapping sectors by interlacing the overlapping scan patterns vertically, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a suitable percentage of total number of pixels in the overlapped region, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 21, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar module of claim 18, wherein the first and second mirrors are flat mirrors (Hipp, Fig. 3, Two lateral mirrors 27 and 28, Col. 4 line 29-30).
Regarding claim 22, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, wherein the higher resolution portion comprises a third group of scan lines from the third azimuthal scanning region vertically interlaced with the first group of scan lines (Hipp, Fig. 3, monitored sector 23, sector 31, Col. 4 lines 9 – 22, Campbell, Fig. 7, scan patterns 200A and 200B, overlap region 510, Paragraph [0073]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s overlapping sectors by interlacing the overlapping scan patterns vertically, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a suitable percentage of total number of pixels in the overlapped region, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0074]).
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, in further view of O'Keeffe, US 20180095175 A1 (“O'Keeffe”).
Regarding claim 13, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, does not teach: further comprising: at least one actuator, wherein the at least one actuator is configured to adjust positions of the of the first and second secondary mirrors.
However, O'Keeffe teaches a mirror positioner that is mechanically attached to a remote mirror and can position the remote mirror. The mirror positioner can be a motor or actuator (Fig. 15, mirror positioner 840, remote mirror 620, Paragraph [0152]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s mirrors by attaching a mirror positioner, which is disclosed by O'Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of discovered mirrors, as suggested by O'Keeffe (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O’Keeffe, discloses the lidar system of claim 13.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, does not teach: further comprising: a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the controller is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising: causing the at least one actuator to adjust the positions of the first and second secondary mirrors so as to adjust a position of the secondary field of view with respect to the primary field of view.
However, O'Keeffe teaches a processing subassembly within a laser rangefinder that comprises a transmitter that communicates position signals to the mirror positioner (Fig. 15, processing subassembly 520, transmitter 1530, receiver 1535, mirror positioner 840, Paragraph [0148]-[0151]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s mirrors by attaching a mirror positioner that receives positions from the lidar system, which is disclosed by O'Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of discovered mirrors, as suggested by O'Keeffe (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, discloses the lidar system of claim 14.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, does not teach: further comprising: an angular rate sensor configured to provide information indicative of a motion, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving the information indicative of a motion, wherein causing the at least one actuator to adjust the positions of the first and second secondary mirrors is based on the received information so as to at least partially counteract the motion.
However, O’Keeffe teaches the processing subassembly receiving sensor data indicating the steering angle or orientation of a vehicle. The processing subassembly then develops a criterion to control the remote mirror position (Fig. 15, processing subassembly 520, steering sensor 1531, remote mirror 620, mirror positioner 840, Paragraph [0158]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s mirrors by attaching a mirror positioner that receives positions from the lidar system, which is disclosed by O'Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of discovered mirrors, as suggested by O'Keeffe (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, discloses the lidar system of claim 14.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, does not teach: wherein the operations further comprise: receiving information indicative of an object in an environment, wherein causing the at least one actuator to adjust the positions of the first and second secondary mirrors is based on the object in the environment so as to scan the object with a higher resolution portion of the primary field of view.
However, O'Keeffe teaches a processing subassembly sending position signals to the mirror positioner based on processing reflection data (Fig. 15, processing subassembly 520, transmitter 1530, receiver 1535, mirror positioner 840, Paragraph [0157]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s mirrors by attaching a mirror positioner that receives positions from the lidar system, which is disclosed by O'Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of discovered mirrors, as suggested by O'Keeffe (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, discloses the lidar system of claim 14.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and O'Keeffe, does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise: receiving information indicative of an orientation of the lidar system, wherein causing the at least one actuator to adjust the positions of the first and second secondary mirrors is based on the orientation of the lidar system.
However, O’Keeffe teaches the processing subassembly receiving sensor data indicating the steering angle or orientation of a vehicle. The processing subassembly then develops a criterion to control the remote mirror position (Fig. 15, processing subassembly 520, steering sensor 1531, remote mirror 620, mirror positioner 840, Paragraph [0158]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s mirrors by attaching a mirror positioner that receives positions from the lidar system, which is disclosed by O'Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of discovered mirrors, as suggested by O'Keeffe (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 20, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar module of claim 18.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, does not teach: further comprising: at least one actuator, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust a position of the at least one secondary mirror; and a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the controller is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising: causing the at least one actuator to adjust the position of the at least one secondary mirror so as to adjust a position of the secondary field of view with respect to the primary field of view.
However, O'Keeffe teaches a mirror positioner that is mechanically attached to a remote mirror and can position the remote mirror. The mirror positioner can be a motor or actuator (Fig. 15, mirror positioner 840, remote mirror 620, Paragraph [0152]). O'Keeffe also teaches a processing subassembly within a laser rangefinder that comprises a transmitter that communicates position signals to the mirror positioner (Fig. 15, processing subassembly 520, transmitter 1530, receiver 1535, mirror positioner 840, Paragraph [0148]-[0151]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s mirrors by attaching a mirror positioner that receives positions from the lidar system, which is disclosed by O'Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the effectiveness of discovered mirrors, as suggested by O'Keeffe (Paragraph [0019]).
Claims 5, 8-9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, in further view of Li et al., US 20190212416 A1 (“Li”)
Regarding claim 5, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim -1.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, does not teach: wherein the primary field of view comprises between 100 and 140 degrees in azimuth.
However, Li teaches a windshield mounted LIDAR system with a lateral field of view that can range from 100-180 degrees, or 110-170 degrees, or can be 120 degrees (Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the size of the primary FOV disclosed by Hipp, as modified by Campbell, by making the horizontal scanning range 120 degrees, which is disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the size of the primary FOV disclosed by Hipp, as modified by Campbell, with Li’s FOV size and the results would have predictably been a larger primary FOV.
Regarding claim 8, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar system of claim 1, further comprising a housing (Fig. 1, housing 160, Paragraph [0049]).
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, does not teach: wherein the housing is configured to be mounted to an interior portion of a vehicle.
However, Li teaches a windshield mounted lidar system that is mounted to the interior surface of the windshield (Fig. 1A-B, windshield mounted LiDAR system (WMLS) 150, Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s scanner by mounting it to the interior surface of a windshield, which is disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have “a front facing, forward scanning system that captures lateral and vertical resolution of the 3D space existing in front of the vehicle”, as suggested by Li (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell and Li, discloses the lidar system of claim 8, wherein the interior portion of a vehicle comprises an interior surface of a windshield of the vehicle (Li, Fig. 1A-B, windshield mounted LiDAR system (WMLS) 150, Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s scanner by mounting it to the interior surface of a windshield, which is disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have “a front facing, forward scanning system that captures lateral and vertical resolution of the 3D space existing in front of the vehicle”, as suggested by Li (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the lidar module of claim 18.
Hipp, as modified in view of Campbell, does not teach: wherein the housing is configured to be attached to a windshield of the vehicle.
However, Li teaches a windshield mounted lidar system that is mounted to the interior surface of the windshield (Fig. 1A-B, windshield mounted LiDAR system (WMLS) 150, Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hipp’s scanner by mounting it to the interior surface of a windshield, which is disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have “a front facing, forward scanning system that captures lateral and vertical resolution of the 3D space existing in front of the vehicle”, as suggested by Li (Paragraph [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645