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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the IDS is not excessive.
Examiner disagrees. Many of the references are simply in the field of LiDAR as a whole (Such as the circuitry related to LiDAR), and not related to the specific invention at hand (i.e.: assembly of a LiDAR system on a vehicle). Thus, although Hughes was cited in the IDS, and applied in the non-final office action, this is simply one among many and does not prove relevance of all cited references. Further, applicant merely states all references are relevant without providing reasoning. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hughes does not teach "a portion or a side surface of one optical core assembly protrudes outside the vehicle roof." Instead Hughes teaches only a window protrudes from the vehicle roof ([0172]).
Examiner disagrees. [0173] of Hughes teaches that an upper portion of the housing protrudes above the surface, which fits the limitation above. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fig. 30 of Hughes is a perspective view and thus cannot clearly show if the sensors protrude from the roof.
Examiner disagrees. [0173] of Hughes teaches that the housing protrudes above the roof. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hughes does not teach the protrusion is in a vertical direction corresponding to a lateral arrangement of optical elements, and instead teaches the window(s) protrude in a horizontal direction (Hughes Fig. 5).
Examiner disagrees. [0173] of Hughes teaches that the housing is protruding above a vehicle roof - i.e.: in a vertical direction. Further, [0124] of Hughes, along with Figs. 18 and 8, show that the mirrors 242-1 and 242-2 are aligned horizontally with the polygon mirror 204, causing the entirety of the polygon mirror to protrude along with the window. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hughes does not teach a specific protrusion amount.
Examiner disagrees. [0124] of Hughes, along with Figs. 18 and 8, show that the mirrors 242-1 and 242-2 are aligned horizontally with the polygon mirror 204, causing the entirety of the polygon mirror to protrude along with the window. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hughes does not teach an optical core assembly protruding from a vehicle front end.
Examiner disagrees. Hughes shows, in Fig. 32, sensors 602A and 602G on the front end of the vehicle. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Excessive Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
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 1-6, 11-15, 17-20, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hughes (US 20190310351 A1).
Claim 1: Hughes teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning system for at least partial integration with a vehicle roof, comprising:
one or more optical core assemblies at least partially integrated with the vehicle roof (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D),
wherein at least one of the optical core assemblies is positioned proximate to one or more pillars of the vehicle roof ([0176] and Fig. 30 – showing sensors 500A-D proximate to known pillars),
wherein at least one optical core assembly of the one or more optical core assemblies comprises an oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, scan mirrors 60-1, 60-2),
an optical polygon element (Fig. 5, polygon mirror 56),
and transmitting and collection optics (Fig. 5, light source 12 and receivers 16-1 and 16-2),
wherein at least a portion or a side surface of the at least one optical core assembly protrudes outside of a planar surface of the vehicle roof to facilitate scanning of light (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D protruding from roof),
and wherein the portion of the at least one optical core assembly that protrudes outside of the planar surface of the vehicle roof protrudes in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a lateral arrangement of the optical polygon element the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics ([0123] - describing low profile housing, [0172] - implementation of low profile housing, along with Fig. 23, showing polygon element 202 in housing - implies limiting factor is polygon element).
Claim 2: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more pillars of the vehicle roof comprise first and second complementary pillars, the at least one of the optical core assemblies comprising: a first optical core assembly positioned proximate to the first complementary pillar of the vehicle roof, and a second optical core assembly positioned proximate to the second complementary pillar of the vehicle roof ([0176] and Fig. 30, showing LiDAR units 500A-D positioned in placements over known pillars – edge of roof).
Claim 3: Hughes teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first optical core assembly is configured to steer light both vertically and horizontally to scan a first partial field-of-view of the LiDAR scanning system, and wherein the second optical core assembly is configured to steer light both vertically and horizontally to scan a second partial field-of-view of the LiDAR scanning system ([0176] - each sensor unit scanning different FOV, along with [0074]-[0075]).
Claim 4: Hughes teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the first partial field-of-view and the second partial field- of-view overlap in the vehicle forward moving direction ([0176] - units 500A and 500D having angular overlap in front of vehicle).
Claim 5: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical core assembly is configured to scan at least one of an asymmetric horizontal partial field-of-view or an asymmetric vertical partial field-of-view ([0176] - partial FOV).
Claim 6: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the planar surface of the vehicle roof comprises a horizontal profile (Fig. 30, horizontal roof).
Claim 11: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the amount of protrusion in the vertical direction is selected based on a vehicle aerodynamic requirement ([0173]).
Claim 12: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the lateral arrangement of the optical polygon element, the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics comprises: an arrangement in which the transmitting and collection optics are positioned between the optical polygon element and the oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, detectors 16-1 and 16-2 and end of optical fibers 106-1 and 106-2 between mirrors 60-1, 60-2 and polygon mirror 56).
Claim 13: Hughes teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the transmitting and collection optics comprise a transmitter fiber array configured to deliver light to the oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, fibers 106-1 and 106-2).
Claim 14: Hughes teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the transmitting and collection optics further comprise a collection lens having an opening (Fig. 5, lenses 104-1 and 104-2 wherein the transmitter fiber array is at least partially disposed in the opening to deliver light to the oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, output of cables 106-1 and 106-1 positioned beside lenses 104-1 and 104-2).
Claim 15: Hughes teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the opening is positioned proximate to an edge of the collection lens and has a dimension configured based on an optical receiving aperture requirement. (Fig. 5, lenses 104-1 and 104-2 – would be known to one skilled in the art that lens dimension corresponds to aperture).
Claim 17: Hughes teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the oscillating reflective element is configured to redirect light provided by the transmitter fiber array to the optical polygon element (Fig. 5, light from fiber arrays 106-1 and 106-2 directed to elements 60-1 and 60-2 and then polygon mirror 56).
Claim 18: Hughes teaches the system of claim 12, wherein a combination of the optical polygon element and the oscillating reflective element, when moving with respect to each other, steers light both horizontally and vertically to illuminate one or more objects in a partial field-of-view of the LiDAR system; and obtains return light generated based on the illumination of the one or more objects ([0101]).
Claim 19: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein vertical positions of the optical polygon element, the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics are aligned to minimize the amount of protrusion in the vertical direction [0123] - describing low profile housing).
Claim 20: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical polygon element comprises a plurality of facets, the plurality of facets having an orientation substantially parallel to a rotation axle of the optical polygon element (Fig. 5, mirror 56 having multiple faces parallel to rotation axis (in/out of page)).
Claim 22: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical core assembly is configured to scan about a 1200 horizontal partial field-of-view and about a 300 vertical partial field-of-view ([0074]).
Claim 23: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical core assembly further comprises a window forming a portion of an exterior surface of the at least one optical core assembly, wherein the window is tilted at an angle configured based on at least one of an orientation of the optical polygon element or an orientation of the transmitting and collection optics (Fig. 5, tilted windows 142-1 and 142-2).
Claim 24: Hughes teaches the system of claim 23, wherein the window comprises an antireflection coating ([0087]-[0088]).
Claim 25: Hughes teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning system for at least partial integration with a vehicle front end, comprising:
one or more optical core assemblies at least partially integrated with the vehicle front end (Fig. 32),
wherein at least one of the optical core assemblies is positioned proximate to one or more corners of a vehicle front bumper (Fig. 32, sensor heads 602A,G and [0188]);
wherein at least one optical core assembly of the one or more optical core assemblies comprises an oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, scan mirrors 60-1, 60-2),
an optical polygon element (Fig. 5, polygon mirror 56),
and transmitting and collection optics (Fig. 5, light source 12 and receivers 16-1 and 16-2),
wherein at least a portion or a side surface of the at least one optical core assembly protrudes outside of a planar surface of the vehicle roof to facilitate scanning of light (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D protruding from roof),
wherein at least a portion or a side surface of the at least one optical core assembly protrudes outside of a planar surface of the vehicle front end to facilitate scanning of light ([0172] - implementation of low profile housing),
and wherein the portion of the at least one optical core assembly that protrudes outside of the planar surface of the vehicle front end protrudes in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a lateral arrangement of the optical polygon element, the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics ([0123] - describing low profile housing, [0172] - implementation of low profile housing, along with Fig. 23, showing polygon element 202 in housing - implies limiting factor is polygon element).
Claim 26: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the amount of protrusion corresponding to the lateral arrangement is reduced from an amount of protrusion corresponding to a non-lateral arrangement ([0123] - describing low profile housing, [0172] - implementation of low profile housing, along with Fig. 23, showing polygon element 202 in housing - shows vertical polygon height (opposite of lateral arrangement) deciding factor of height).
Claim 27: Hughes teaches a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle roof;
one or more pillars ([0176] and Fig. 30 – showing sensors 500A-D proximate to known pillars);
and a light detection and ranging scanning system for at least partial integration with the vehicle roof (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D),
the LiDAR scanning system comprising: one or more optical core assemblies at least partially integrated with the vehicle roof (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D),
wherein at least one of the optical core assemblies is positioned proximate to the one or more pillars of the vehicle roof ([0176] and Fig. 30 – showing sensors 500A-D proximate to known pillars);
wherein at least one optical core assembly of the one or more optical core assemblies comprises oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, scan mirrors 60-1, 60-2),
an optical polygon element (Fig. 5, polygon mirror 56),
and transmitting and collection optics (Fig. 5, light source 12 and receivers 16-1 and 16-2),
wherein at least a portion or a side surface of the at least one optical core assembly protrudes outside of a planar surface of the vehicle roof to facilitate scanning of light (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D protruding from roof),
and wherein the portion of the at least one optical core assembly that protrudes outside of the planar surface of the vehicle roof protrudes in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a lateral arrangement of the optical polygon element, the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics ([0123] - describing low profile housing, [0172] - implementation of low profile housing, along with Fig. 23, showing polygon element 202 in housing - implies limiting factor is polygon element)
Claim 28: Hughes teaches a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle roof;
one or more pillars ([0176] and Fig. 30 – showing sensors 500A-D proximate to known pillars);
and a light detection and ranging scanning system for at least partial integration with the vehicle front end (Fig. 32, sensors 602A, G),
the LiDAR scanning system comprising: one or more optical core assemblies at least partially integrated with the vehicle front end (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D),
wherein at least one of the optical core assemblies is positioned proximate to the one or more pillars of the vehicle front end ([0176] and Fig. 30 – showing sensors 500A-D proximate to known pillars);
wherein at least one optical core assembly of the one or more optical core assemblies comprises oscillating reflective element (Fig. 5, scan mirrors 60-1, 60-2),
an optical polygon element (Fig. 5, polygon mirror 56),
and transmitting and collection optics (Fig. 5, light source 12 and receivers 16-1 and 16-2),
wherein at least a portion or a side surface of the at least one optical core assembly protrudes outside of a planar surface of the vehicle front end to facilitate scanning of light (Fig. 30, LiDAR sensors 500A-D protruding from roof),
and wherein the portion of the at least one optical core assembly that protrudes outside of the planar surface of the vehicle front end protrudes in a vertical direction by an amount corresponding to a lateral arrangement of the optical polygon element, the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics ([0123] - describing low profile housing, [0172] - implementation of low profile housing, along with Fig. 23, showing polygon element 202 in housing - implies limiting factor is polygon element)
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20190310351 A1) in view of Droz (US 20160291134 A1).
Claim 8: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1. Hughes does not teach, but Droz does teach wherein the at least one optical core assembly is at least partially integrated at a maximum elevation position of the vehicle roof (Fig. 1, LiDAR 102 on top of vehicle 100).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the positioning of a LiDAR sensor, as taught by Droz, in the system as taught by Hughes, because placement at the top of a vehicle roof would allow a 360 degree unobstructed view of the surroundings.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20190310351 A1) in view of Black Horse off Road.
Claim 9: Hughes teaches the system claim 1, but not wherein the vehicle roof comprises a roll bar or halo.
Black Horse off Road sells the “Armour Roll bar” (starting in 2005).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the roll bar, as taught by Black Horse off Road, in the system as taught by Hughes, because this would not change the operation of the system and is simply a design choice.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20190310351 A1) in view of Breed (US 20080040004 A1).
Claim 10: Hughes teaches the system of claim 1. Hughes does not teach, but Breed does teach wherein the one or more pillars comprise at least one of an A- pillar, a B-pillar, a C-pillar, or a D-pillar of the vehicle roof ([0295] and [0497]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the positioning of a LiDAR sensor, as taught by Breed, in the system as taught by Hughes, because the position of the sensors is an element which would yield predictable results (changing the FOV of each sensor).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20190310351 A1) in view of Li (US 20190257924 A1).
Claim 16: Hughes teaches the wherein the transmitting and collection optics further comprise a receiving fiber array optically coupled to the collection lens (Li [0022]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the receiver fiber array, as taught by Li, in the system as taught by Hughes, because, as Li teaches, this reduces walk-off error ([0022]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 20190310351 A1) in view of Starret and Thorlabs
Claim 21: Hughes teaches the system of Claim 1, but not wherein the optical polygon element, the oscillating reflective element, and the transmitting and collection optics are each configured to have a height of about 30mm or less.
Starret sells an optical polygon mirror which has a height of 22.3 mm (See Starett attached PDF, page 404), which was sold before 2018 (Based on document properties for online PDF).
ThorLabs sells a Ar-Ion Laser mirror with a diameter of 19 nm, sold in 2016 (See both attached PDFs – examiner note: ThorLabs sells many other similar mirrors, this one was simply chosen as an example to show a mirror under 30nm is commercially available).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the mirrors, as taught by Starret and ThorLabs, in the system as taught by Hughes because different sizes of mirrors and reflectors and their corresponding results on the system are well known in the art, and both mirrors above are commercially available to the average user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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