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 .
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)(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 1, 2, 4, and 8-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan (US 20220413313 A1).
Claim 1: Yan teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a light source configured to output a light beam (Fig. 1A, B, laser 10);
and a lens assembly configured to collimate the light beam for transmission to a distal target (Fig. 1B, first lens 100 and [0025]),
the lens assembly formed of refractive material with a concave first cylindrical surface extending along a first axis in facing relation toward the light source (Fig. 1A, B, negative lens 100a)
and a convex, second cylindrical surface facing away from the light source and extending along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis (Fig. 1A, B, positive lens 100b and [0026]).
Claim 2: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first cylindrical surface has a first radius of curvature and the second cylindrical surface has a larger, second radius of curvature ([0029] - first surface curvature 4.221, [0031] - second curvature 3.34 - thus radius of first smaller than radius of second).
Claim 4: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lens assembly is characterized as a multi-piece lens assembly comprising a first lens portion on which the first cylindrical surface is formed and a second lens portion on which the second cylindrical surface is formed, the first lens portion fixedly joined to the second lens portion (Figs. 1A, B, reference surface S1 between lens 100a and 100b).
Claim 8: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light source is characterized as a multi-mode source which generates the light beam as an elongated beam having a first angle of divergence along a fast axis and a second angle of divergence along a slow axis, the first cylindrical surface aligned with the fast axis and the second cylindrical surface aligned with the slow axis ([0025] - with Figs. 1A, B - 100a aligned with fast axis, 100b with slow).
Claim 9: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lens assembly is a first lens assembly, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a second lens assembly in spaced apart relation from the first lens assembly comprising refractive material configured to receive a portion of the light beam exiting the first lens assembly (Fig. 1A, B, lens 200 and [0024]).
Claim 10: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first lens assembly is aligned between the light source and the second lens assembly such that a first intervening distance is provided between the light source and the first lens assembly and a larger, second intervening distance is provided between the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly (Figs. 1A, B, lens 100 between light 10 and lens 200 and reference surface S1 between lens 100a and 100b).
Claim 11: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the second lens assembly comprises a convex third cylindrical surface extending in facing away from the light source and extending along the first axis so as to be orthogonal to the second cylindrical surface ([0025] with Figs. 1A, B, lens 200 aligned with fast axis (same as 100a)).
Claim 12: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second lens assembly further comprises a nominally flat surface in facing relation toward the first lens assembly (Fig. 1A, B, surface 200b flat).
Claim 13: Yan teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the respective first, second and third cylindrical surfaces each have a different radius of curvature ([0029] - curvature of third surface 19.71 and [0031] - second shaping surface 3.34).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Behr (US 20210263306 A1).
Claim 3: Yan teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Yan does not teach, but Behr does teach, wherein the second cylindrical surface extends from a main body of the lens assembly with first overall height and width dimensions, and the first cylindrical surface extends from a projection portion that extends from the main body with smaller, second overall height and width dimensions (Fig. 5A, lens 254 larger than lens 256).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the differently sized lenses, as taught by Behr, in the apparatus as taught by Yan because the effects of lenses of different sizes are well known in the art (As Behr teaches in [0060], diameters can be changed to adjust focal spot).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Komiyama (US 20190310438 A1).
Claim 5: Yan teaches the apparatus of Claim 4. Yan does not teach, but Komiyama does teach wherein the first lens portion is fixedly joined to the second lens portion via an intervening layer of adhesive that bonds the first lens portion to the second lens portion ([0007] – adhesive between lenses).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the adhesive, as taught by Komiyama, in the apparatus as taught by Yan (specifically to join Yan’s lenses 100a and 100b) because various types of adhesive are well known in the art, and, as Komiyama teaches, adhesive removes air from the space between lenses and thus reduces ghost errors ([0005]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Stasiak (US 20190137664 A1).
Claim 6: Yan teaches the apparatus of Claim 4. Yan does not teach, but Stasiak does teach, wherein the first lens portion has a first refraction index and the second lens portion has a different, second refraction index ([0011] – “In one example, the first GRIN lens and the second GRIN lens may have a different distribution of dielectric nanoparticles from one another such that the first GRIN lens and the second GRIN lens have a different effective refractive index gradient compared to one another”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the lenses with different refractive indexes, as taught by Stasiak, in the apparatus as taught by Yan (specifically by making Yan’s lenses 100a and 100b have different refractive indexes), because the effects of different refractive indexes are well known in the art (through the lens equation), and thus any combination of refractive indexes would have predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Yu (US 20090190227 A1).
Claim 7: Yan teaches the apparatus of Claim 4. Yan does not teach, but Yu does teach, wherein the first lens portion has a first material composition and the second lens portion has a different, second material composition ([0007], [0033]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the lenses with different material compositions, as taught by Yu, in the apparatus as taught by Yan (specifically making Yan’s lenses 100a and 100b be made of different materials) because the affects of different lens materials are well known in the art, would have predictable results (i.e.: how light bends through a given material).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Shah (US 10845480 B1).
Claim 14: Yan teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Yan does not teach, but Shah does teach further comprising a beam steering mechanism configured to sweep the light beam across a field of view (fig. 3 scanner 301 and Col 17, lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the beam steering mechanism, as taught by Shah, in the apparatus as taught by Yan, because beam steering is well known in the art, and would allow for different parts of a scene to be imaged without the whole apparatus being moved.
Claim 15: Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches the apparatus of Claim 14. However, only Shah teaches a detector configured to receive reflected light from the swept light beam to decode range information associated with the target, the detector comprising a lens assembly having at least one concave or convex cylindrical surface (fig. 3 receiver 140 with lens 330 and Col 3, lines 17-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the detector, as taught by Shah, in the apparatus as taught by Yan, as modified in view of Shah. As Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches a laser system, one skilled in the art would recognize that such a system could be implemented in a rangefinder, such as taught by Shah, to create an apparatus to determine distance.
Claim 16: Yan teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising:
an emitter configured to emit pulses of electromagnetic radiation against a target (Fig. 1, B, laser 10);
[…]
a first lens assembly comprising a concave first cylindrical surface arranged in facing relation toward the light source to collimate the light beam along a fast axis (Fig. 1A, B, negative lens 100a)
and a convex, second cylindrical surface facing away from the light source and extending in a direction orthogonal to the first cylindrical surface to collimate the light beam along a slow axis (Fig. 1A, B, positive lens 100b and [0026]);
and a second lens assembly comprising a concave third cylindrical surface facing away from the light source and extending in a direction orthogonal to the second cylindrical surface to collimate the light beam along the fast axis (Fig. 1A, B, lens 200 and [0024]).
Yan does not teach, but Shah does teach a detector configured to receive reflected pulses of the electromagnetic radiation from the target to determine range information associated with the target, (fig. 3 receiver 140 and Col 3, lines 17-21)
wherein the emitter comprises: a multi-mode source configured to output the electromagnetic radiation in the form of a light beam (col 4, lines 29-38).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the detector, as taught by Shah, in the apparatus as taught by Yan. As Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches a laser system, one skilled in the art would recognize that such a system could be implemented in a rangefinder, such as taught by Shah, to create an apparatus to determine distance.
Further, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the multimode laser, as taught by Shah, in the apparatus as taught by Yan, because multimode lasers are well known in the art to yield predictable results.
Claim 17: Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the first optical lens assembly is formed of refractive material and the first and second cylindrical surfaces define opposing, outermost exterior boundary surfaces of the refractive material (Yan Figs 1A, 1B, surfaces 100a, 100b).
Claim 18: Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches the system of claim 16, wherein each of the first, second and third cylindrical surfaces each has a different radius of curvature (Yan [0029] - first surface curvature 4.221, third surface curvature 19.71, [0031] - second curvature 3.34).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Shah (US 10845480 B1), further in view of Behr (US 20210263306 A1).
Claim 19: Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches the wherein the first optical lens assembly is formed of multiple lens affixed together in contacting relation (Yan Figs. 1A, 1B, lenses 100a and 100b attached with reference surface S1 - [0026]).
Yan, as modified in view of Shah, does not teach, but Behr does teach the lens assembly has a larger main body on which the second cylindrical surface extends and a smaller projection portion which extends from the larger main body on which the first cylindrical surface extends. (fig. 5A 184 fig. 5A1 438 [0032]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the differently sized lenses, as taught by Behr, in the apparatus as taught by Yan, as modified in view of Shah, because the effects of lenses of different sizes are well known in the art (As Behr teaches in [0060], diameters can be changed to adjust focal spot).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20220413313 A1) in view of Shah (US 10845480 B1), further in view of Stigwall (US 20170123053 A1).
Claim 20: Yan, as modified in view of Shah, teaches the system of Claim 16. Yan, as modified in view of Shah, does not teach, but Stigwall does teach wherein the light beam has an elongated cross- sectional shape at an output position of the light source with respective length and width dimensions, wherein the length dimension is at least 10x the width dimension ([0107] – widening from 1 mm to 10 mm)
and wherein the length dimension extends along the slow axis and the width dimension extends along the width dimension ([0096] – fast axis is first dimension and [0107] – widening in second direction (slow axis)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the scan method, as taught by Stigwall, because this would allow a faster scan than if the beam wasn’t widened, as the widening allows for multiple points in space to be scanned at once.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645