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 26 January 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 18, 20, and 21 were amended. Claim 3 was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-28 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the Remarks, filed 26 September 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 20, and 21 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 ground of rejection is made in view of Andersson, US 20190107622 A1 in view of Laycock, US 20170192242 A1 and Amitai et al., US 20200292818 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 is dependent on cancelled claim 3. Claims 5-14 are rejected due to dependency on claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 4, 9-13, 19-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson, US 20190107622 A1 (“Andersson”) in view of Laycock, US 20170192242 A1 (“Laycock”) and Amitai et al., US 20200292818 A1 (“Amitai”).
Regarding claim 1, Andersson discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning system, comprising: a light source providing a light beam (Fig. 2B, optical source 104, optical signals 108, Paragraph [0022]); […]; and an optical beam splitter configured to form a plurality of output light beams based on the collimated light beam (Fig. 2B, optical component 210, Paragraph [0028]), […]; wherein optical characteristics of the optical beam splitter are configured to facilitate forming the plurality of output light beams with substantially equal light intensity (Fig. 2B, optical component 210, beam splitter coating on one surface 214, mirror coating on the other surface 212, Paragraph [0028], Paragraph [0031]), and wherein the optical characteristics comprise one or more of transmission, reflection, and diffraction characteristics (Fig. 2B, optical component 210, beam splitter coating on one surface 214, mirror coating on the other surface 212, Paragraph [0026], Paragraph [0028]).
Andersson does not teach: a collimation lens optically coupled to the light source to form a collimated light beam based on the light beam and wherein the optical beam splitter is configured to have a geometry such that two neighboring output light beams of the plurality of output light beams have a non-zero inter beam angle.
However, Laycock teaches a beamsplitter with a portion where the front and rear planar surfaces extend in a non-parallel arrangement. The angular displacement of the front and rear planar surface of the second portion causes an angular deviation in the outgoing beam. (Fig. 1, second portion 120, front and rear planar surface 121, 122, output beams 20a and 20b, Paragraph [0037], Paragraph [0040]). Laycock also teaches the incident beam of radiation into the beamsplitter being a collimated laser beam, but is silent on a collimation lens (Fig. 1, incident beam 10, Paragraph [0035]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson by offsetting the front and rear surface by an angle to cause an angular deviation in the outgoing beams, which is disclosed by Laycock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved stability and fine control over the angular deviation of beams of radiation, as suggested by Laycock (Paragraph [0048]).
In addition, Amitai teaches a light source that is collimated by a lens and enters a light-transmitting substrate that outputs a plurality of beams. (Fig. 1B, source 4, lens 6, substrate 20, Paragraph [0048]-[0049]; See also Fig. 5, Paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Amitai’s collimation lens with the Andersson’s optical component to yield the predictable results of collimated light entering the optical component.
Regarding claim 2, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the optical beam splitter comprises an optical prism- based beam splitter (Andersson, optical component 210, body portion 211, surfaces 212, 214, Paragraph [0028]; Laycock, Fig. 1, second portion 120, front and rear planar surface 121, 122, output beams 20a and 20b, Paragraph [0037], Paragraph [0040]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson by offsetting the front and rear surface by an angle to cause an angular deviation in the outgoing beams, which is disclosed by Laycock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved stability and fine control over the angular deviation of beams of radiation, as suggested by Laycock (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the non-zero inter beam angle is formed by configuring a first facet and a second facet of the optical prism-based beam splitter as opposing facets with an angular offset from each other (Laycock, Fig. 1, second portion 120, front and rear planar surface 121, 122, output beams 20a and 20b, Paragraph [0037], Paragraph [0040]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson by offsetting the front and rear surface by an angle to cause an angular deviation in the outgoing beams, which is disclosed by Laycock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved stability and fine control over the angular deviation of beams of radiation, as suggested by Laycock (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 4, wherein a portion of the first facet or another facet is disposed with an anti-reflection coating for receiving the collimated light beam (Andersson, Fig. 4, transparent opening or port 216, Paragraph [0033]); wherein one or more another portions of the first facet are disposed with a high-reflection coating for subsequent reflections of one or more internal beams (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 212, “Coating M”, Paragraph [0033]), and wherein the second facet is disposed with one or more partial reflection coatings facilitating transmission in part, and reflection in part, of the one or more internal beams, the one or more internal beams being formed inside the optical prism-based beam splitter based on the collimated light beam (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, “Coating R1, R2, R3, R4”, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 9, wherein a plurality of portions of the second facet are disposed with a plurality of optical coatings, transmission and reflection characteristics of the plurality of optical coatings are configured to form the output light beams with substantially equal light intensity (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, Coating R1, R2, R3, R4, Paragraph [0026], [0031], [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 9, wherein a plurality of portions of the second facet comprises consecutive portions, each of the plurality of portions of the second facet being disposed with a respective optical coating configured to facilitate forming the output light beams with substantially equal light intensity (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, Coating R1, R2, R3, R4, Paragraph [0026], [0031], [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 4, wherein a plurality portions of the first facet comprises a first portion having a first optical coating and a second portion having a second optical coating, wherein the first optical coating facilitates forming, based on the collimated light beam, a first output light beam of the plurality of output light beams and a first internal beam, and wherein the second optical coating facilitates forming, based on the first internal beam, a second output light beam of the plurality of output light beams- (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, Coating R1, R2, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 4, wherein dimensions of a plurality of portions of the first facet are based on one or more of a beam size, an incident beam angle, an inter beam angle, and optical coating characteristics (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, Coating R1, R2, R3, R4, Paragraph [0026], [0030]-[0031], [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a collection lens disposed to receive and redirect return light generated based on the plurality of output light beams (Andersson, Fig. 1, lens 120, light 125, Paragraph [0023]); a plurality of receiver channels optically coupled to the collection lens, wherein each of the receiver channels is optically aligned based on a transmission angle of a corresponding output light beam (Andersson, Fig. 1, optical detector array 126, processor 128, Paragraph [0023]); and a plurality of detector assemblies optically coupled to the plurality of receiver channels, wherein each of the receiver channels directs redirected return light to a detector assembly of the plurality of detector assemblies (Andersson, Fig. 1, optical detector array 126, processor 128, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Andersson discloses a vehicle comprising a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning system (Fig. 7, automobile 500, LIDAR systems 200, Paragraph [0037]), the LiDAR system comprising: a light source providing a light beam (Fig. 2B, optical source 104, optical signals 108, Paragraph [0022]); […]; and an optical beam splitter configured to form a plurality of output light beams based on the collimated light beam (Fig. 2B, optical component 210, Paragraph [0028]), […]; wherein optical characteristics of the optical beam splitter are configured to facilitate forming the plurality of output light beams with substantially equal light intensity, and wherein the optical characteristics comprise one or more of transmission, reflection, and diffraction characteristics (Fig. 2B, optical component 210, beam splitter coating on one surface 214, mirror coating on the other surface 212, Paragraph [0026], Paragraph [0028]).
Andersson does not teach: a collimation lens optically coupled to the light source to form a collimated light beam based on the light beam and wherein the optical beam splitter is configured to have a geometry such that two neighboring output light beams of the plurality of output light beams have a non-zero inter beam angle.
However, Laycock teaches a beamsplitter with a portion where the front and rear planar surfaces extend in a non-parallel arrangement. The angular displacement of the front and rear planar surface of the second portion causes an angular deviation in the outgoing beam. (Fig. 1, second portion 120, front and rear planar surface 121, 122, output beams 20a and 20b, Paragraph [0037], Paragraph [0040]). Laycock also teaches the incident beam of radiation into the beamsplitter being a collimated laser beam, but is silent on a collimation lens (Fig. 1, incident beam 10, Paragraph [0035]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson by offsetting the front and rear surface by an angle to cause an angular deviation in the outgoing beams, which is disclosed by Laycock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved stability and fine control over the angular deviation of beams of radiation, as suggested by Laycock (Paragraph [0048]).
In addition, Amitai teaches a light source that is collimated by a lens and enters a light-transmitting substrate that outputs a plurality of beams. (Fig. 1B, source 4, lens 6, substrate 20, Paragraph [0048]-[0049]; See also Fig. 5, Paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Amitai’s collimation lens with the Andersson’s optical component to yield the predictable results of collimated light entering the optical component.
Claim 21 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the method of claim 21, wherein forming the plurality of transmission light beams based on the collimated light beam comprises: forming, based on the collimated light beam, a first transmission light beam of the plurality of transmission light beams and a first internal beam by a first portion of a plurality portions of a first facet of the optical beam splitter, the first portion having a first optical coating (Andersson, Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, optical component 210, surface 214, beam 1, coating R1, Paragraph [0026], [0033]), and forming, based on the first internal beam, a second transmission light beam of the plurality of transmission light beams and a second internal beam by a second portion of the plurality portions of the first facet, the second portion having a second optical coating (Andersson, Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, optical component 210, surface 214, beam 2, Paragraph [0026], [0033]: to have equal power of output beams can have continuously varying coating).
Regarding claim 23, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the first optical coating and the second optical coating are partial reflection coatings, the first optical coating and the second optical coating having one or more different optical characteristics (Andersson, Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, optical component 210, surface 214, Paragraph [0026], [0033]: to have equal power of output beams can have continuously varying coating).
Regarding claim 24, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising: forming, based on the second internal beam, a third transmission light beam of the plurality of transmission light beams and a third internal beam by a third portion of the plurality portions of the first facet, the third portion having a third optical coating (Andersson, Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, optical component 210, surface 214, beam 3, Paragraph [0026], [0033]: to have equal power of output beams can have continuously varying coating), and forming, based on the third internal beam, a fourth transmission light beam of the plurality of transmission light beams by a fourth portion of the plurality portions of the first facet, the fourth portion having a fourth optical coating (Andersson, Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, optical component 210, surface 214, beam 4, Paragraph [0026], [0033]: to have equal power of output beams can have continuously varying coating).
Regarding claim 26, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the third optical coating has one or more optical characteristics that is different from the first optical coating or the second optical coating (Andersson, Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, optical component 210, surface 214, Paragraph [0026], [0033]: to have equal power of output beams can have continuously varying coating).
Claims 5-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, in further view of Maimone, US 20200064633 A1 (“Maimone”).
Regarding claim 5, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 4, […],the first facet being disposed with one or more partial reflection coatings (Andersson, Fig. 2B, beam splitter coating on one surface 214, Paragraph [0028]).
Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, does not teach: wherein the first facet is configured to receive the collimated light beam at a beam incident angle.
However, Maimone teaches a configuration of a waveguide image replicator where the incoming beam impinges on the first surface with partially reflective coating (Fig. 2A, waveguide image replicator 200A, first beam 101, glass plate 240A, first surface 241, Paragraph [0042]).
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 the LIDAR system and beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, by arranging the components such that the incoming beam enters the surface with partial reflection coating, which is disclosed by Maimone. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one beam splitting optical component for another, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock and Maimone, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the second facet being disposed with a high reflection coating facilitating reflection of substantially all of one or more internal beams (Andersson, mirror coating on the other surface 212, Paragraph [0028]), the one or more internal beams being formed inside the optical prism-based beam splitter based on the collimated light beam (Andersson, N beams 208, Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock and Maimone, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein a plurality of portions of the first facet are disposed with a plurality of optical coatings, and wherein at least two of the plurality of optical coatings have different optical characteristics (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, Coating R1, R2, R3, R4, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock and Maimone, discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the plurality of portions of the first facet comprises consecutive portions, each of the plurality of portions of the first facet being disposed with a respective optical coating configured to facilitate forming the output light beams with substantially equal light intensity (Andersson, Fig. 4, surface 214, Coating R1, R2, R3, R4, Paragraph [0026], [0031], [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, discloses the system of claim 4.
Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, does not teach: wherein a third facet and a fourth facet of the optical prism-based beam splitter form a chamfered corner.
However, Maimone teaches a waveguide image replicator that has a slanted side surface (Fig. 2B, side surface 291, Paragraph [0043])
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 the beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Amitai and Laycock, by adding a slanted side, which is disclosed by Maimone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce reflection of the incoming beam, as suggested by Maimone (Paragraph [0043]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, in further view of Xiang et al., US 20180364334 A1 (“Xiang”).
Regarding claim 15, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the system of claim 1.
Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, does not teach: wherein the optical beam splitter comprises a diffractive optical element (DOE) based beam splitter.
However, Xiang teaches an optical splitting apparatus that may be a Dammann grating, which splits a laser bean into a plurality of laser beams of equal intensities (Fig. 9, optical splitting apparatus 123, Paragraph [0122]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, with Xiang’s Dammann grating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the performance of the LIDAR while reducing its cost, as suggested by Xiang (Paragraph [0122]-[0123]).
Regarding claim 16, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai and Xiang, discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the DOE-based beam splitter is a 1-dimensional beam splitter configured to form the plurality of output light beams with substantially equal light intensity based on the collimated light beam (Xiang, Fig. 9, optical splitting apparatus 123, Paragraph [0122]-[0123]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, with Xiang’s Dammann grating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the performance of the LIDAR while reducing its cost, as suggested by Xiang (Paragraph [0122]-[0123]).
Regarding claim 17, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai and Xiang, discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the DOE-based beam splitter comprises micro- or nano- structures disposed on an optical plate, the micro- or nano-structures facilitate splitting the collimated light beam and directing the output light beams with substantially equal light intensity at a plurality of different transmission angles (Xiang, Fig. 9, optical splitting apparatus 123 is a Dammann grating, laser beams 222, Paragraph [0122]-[0123], [0126]).
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 beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, with Xiang’s Dammann grating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the performance of the LIDAR while reducing its cost, as suggested by Xiang (Paragraph [0122]-[0123]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, in further view of Statz et al., US 8599381 B2 (“Statz”).
Regarding claim 18, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the system of claim 1.
Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, does not teach: wherein the two neighboring output light beams of the plurality of output light beams have the non-zero inter beam angle between about 0.5 degrees and 2.5 degrees.
However, Statz teaches a beamsplitter that introduces a deflection angle of 0.25 – 5 degrees between the outgoing light (Fig. 5A, beamsplitter 310, two angularly offset optical beams 315 and 325, Col. 7 lines 50-63).
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 the beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, by adding an angular offset between the outgoing beams, which is disclosed by Statz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to modify the effective thickness of a single optical element for each beam, as suggested by Statz (Abstract).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, in further view of Maimone.
Regarding claim 25, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the method of claim 24.
Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, does not teach: wherein the third optical coating is a partial reflection coating, and wherein the fourth optical coating is an anti-reflection coating.
However, Maimone teaches the last beam exiting the beam splitter at an AR coated exit location (Fig. 2A, second beam 102, exit location 212, Paragraph [0042])
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 the beam splitting optical component disclosed by Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, by adding an AR coated exit on the surface, which is disclosed by Maimone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to lessen optical losses, as suggested by Maimone (Paragraph [0042]).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, in further view of Kirillov, US 20210103034 A1 (“Kirillov”).
Regarding claim 27, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: steering, by a steering mechanism, the plurality of transmission light beams in one or more directions to a field-of-view (FOV) (Andersson, Fig. 2B, scanning mirrors 110, Paragraph [0026]).
Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai, does not teach: and directing, by the steering mechanism, return light formed based on one or more of the plurality of transmission light beams.
However, Kirillov teaches a coaxial LIDAR system where a MEMs mirror directs both the transmitted and reflected light signals (Fig. 2B, MEMs mirror 12, Paragraph [0036])
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 the Andersson and Laycock and Amitai’s LIDAR system by using the scanning mirror to direct both the transmitted and reflected light, which is disclosed by Kirillov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve dynamic range at short distances, as suggested by Kirillov (Paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 28, Andersson, as modified in view of Laycock and Amitai and Kirillov, discloses the method of claim 27, further comprising: receiving, by a collection lens, the return light (Andersson, Fig. 1, lens 120, light 125, Paragraph [0023]) directed by the steering mechanism (Kirillov, Fig. 2B, MEMs mirror 12, Paragraph [0036]); redirecting, by the collection lens, the return light to a plurality of receiver channels optically coupled to the collection lens , wherein each of the receiver channels is optically aligned based on a transmission angle of a corresponding transmission light beam (Andersson, Fig. 1, optical detector array 126, processor 128, Paragraph [0023]); and delivering, by the plurality of receiver channels, the redirected return light to one or more of a plurality of detector assemblies optically coupled to the plurality of receiver channels (Andersson, Fig. 1, optical detector array 126, processor 128, Paragraph [0023]).
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 the Andersson and Laycock and Amitai’s LIDAR system by using the scanning mirror to direct both the transmitted and reflected light, which is disclosed by Kirillov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve dynamic range at short distances, as suggested by Kirillov (Paragraph [0058]).
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 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