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
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to Claims 4-6 to correct their dependencies and withdraws the objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the mother board of the instant application is not equivalent to the board disclosed in [0057] of Liu. Examiner notes that [0057] of Liu discloses that the “signal digitization board 311” can be stacked with an emitter board, and that [0081] of Liu discloses “the signal digitization board 311 (such as processors, memories, etc.)”. The examiner reasonable asserts that this constitutes a ‘processing plate’ or a ‘mother board’ that stacking them constitutes them being in a ‘form of two layered boards of a mother board and a sub-board”.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Liu does not disclose that the mother board is a rigid flex board, the examiner notes that [0052] of Liu discloses that any of the functional circuit boards 3a (which includes signal digitization board 311) can be flexible or rigid-flex boards.
Amended Claim 12 incorporates the material of Claims 16 and 18. Claim 16 was rejected as being disclosed by Liu (CN 209606612) in view of Steffey (US 2014/0078519 A1), and Claim 18 was rejected with Liu in view of Steffey and further in view of Zheng (US 2021/0075186 A1). Applicant does not argue against the rejections of Claims 16 or 18, merely that Liu in view of Steffey does not teach the material of Amended Claim 12. Examiner therefore rejects Amended Claim 12 with the combination of Liu in view of Steffey and further in view of Zheng.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Steffey (US 2014/0078519 A1) and further in view of Zheng (US 2021/0075186 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Liu discloses a LiDAR ([0004]), comprising:
a housing ([0023]), a processing plate ([0081]: “the signal digitization board 311 (such as processors, memories, etc.)”), an emitting plate ([0085]: “a laser emitting board”), a receiving plate ([0059]: “The analog signal board 322 may be connected to the detector 124”), a galvanometer ([0071]: “The scanning module 20 performs scanning by rotating the optical element 221.”; The examiner interprets this limitation in light of the specification, which describes the galvanometer as a component able to ‘deflect’ light, which is reasonably interpreted to encompass both reflection and refraction.), and an interface plate ([0066]: “The data interface board 323 includes a physical interface and related functional chips for transmitting data and/or electrical energy.”);
wherein the processing plate, the emitting plate, the receiving plate, the galvanometer, and the interface plate are arranged inside the housing ([0023]);
wherein the emitting plate is configured to emit an emergent laser ([0085]: “a laser emitting board”);
wherein the receiving plate is configured to receive a reflected laser formed by the emergent laser passing through a target object, and to convert the reflected laser into reflected signals ([0058]: “The analog signal board 322 is disposed on an outer surface 111 , and is configured to generate an analog electrical signal based on the reflected laser pulse.”);
wherein the galvanometer is configured to directionally deflect the emergent laser and the reflected laser ([0071]: “The scanning module 20 performs scanning by rotating the optical element 221.”; The examiner interprets this limitation in light of the specification, which describes the galvanometer as a component able to ‘deflect’ light, which is reasonably interpreted to encompass both reflection and refraction.);
wherein the processing plate is configured to control the emitting plate, the receiving plate, and the galvanometer, and to process the reflected signals ([0081]);
wherein the interface plate is configured to communicate with a peripheral device by using an external end of the interface plate ([0066]: “The digital signal generated by the signal digitization board 311 needs to be transmitted to the data interface board 323 and further transmitted to the external device.”), and to receive a voltage signal provided by the peripheral device ([0066]: “In addition, the data interface board 323 can also transmit electrical energy to the signal digitization board 311.”).
wherein a number of the emitting plate is at least one, and each emitting plate is in a form of two layered boards of a mother board and a sub-board ([0057] discloses stacking a controller board with an emitter board).
wherein the mother board of the emitting plate is a rigid-flex board ([0052]).
Liu does not teach and Zheng does teach wherein the sub-board is a ceramic board with heat coefficient exceeding a threshold ([0105]: “the carrier may include a metalized ceramic board.”; [0105]: “and the driver chip 409 and the laser diode die can be directly mounted on the carrier 410, thereby simplifying the manufacturing process and achieving good heat dissipation effect.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zheng to use a ceramic board with good heat dissipation characteristics to mount the laser of Liu. Zheng notes that the use of such a board may simplify the manufacturing process by dissipating heat well enough that there is no need to include a heat sink. Simplifying the manufacturing process is desirable in that it can yield faster production times and lower overall production costs.
Liu suggests the functionality of a galvanometer or galvo mirror as mentioned above, but does not explicitly teach it. Steffey teaches a galvanometer controlled mirror ([0104]: In some embodiments, the galvo-mirror arrangement may scan in two-dimensions over a narrow field of view, such as +/-20.degree.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Steffey to use a galvo-mirror into the LiDAR of Liu. Steffey notes that galvo-mirrors are advantageous in [0104] because they allow the beam to be directed into the field of view in a controlled manner. This can allow for changes in point density in the field of view, which can yield time savings and lower data storage requirements.
Liu does not explicitly teach a first end of the interface plate is connected to a first end of the processing plate; and a second end, a third end, and a fourth end of the processing plate are respectively connected to the emitting plate, the receiving plate, and the galvanometer;
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect these components in such a manner within the LiDAR of Liu. Assuming that the processing plate is rectangular, there is no operational advantage to connecting a particular component to a particular end. Indeed, there is no suggestion that a particular component be opposite from or next to another component, merely that each end of the processing plate is connected to another component. Shifting the positions of the attached components would not modify the operation of the overall device. The examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) which held rearrangement of parts not relevant to device operation to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Liu further discloses wherein a number of the receiving plate is at least one, and each receiving plate is in a form of two layered boards of a mother board and a sub-board ([0059]: “The analog signal board 322 may be connected to the detector 124.”; [0060]: “The signal digitization board 311 and the analog signal board 322 may be disposed on the same outer surface 111, and the two may be disposed side by side or stacked.).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Steffey and further in view of Zhang as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Diamond Systems Athena III User Manual (hereinafter ‘Athena’).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Liu in view of Steffey does not teach and Athena does teach wherein the processing plate comprises a digital signal module and an analog signal module (Page 42, Data Acquisition Block Diagram; Page 31, DGND used for digital circuitry only and AGND used for analog circuitry only);
wherein the digital signal module comprises a main controller (Page 82, Section 23.1 CPU; ; and
wherein a linear distance between the analog signal module and the main controller is greater than a distance threshold (Figure 1 at left shows the distance between the CPU and the analog ground, around which the analog circuit is located).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Athena to have the main controller in a digital region of the board and separated from the analog region by some distance. Embedded notes that in mixed circuit design, digital and analog circuits are separated to “prevent different signals from interfering with each other.” LiDAR devices often attempt to acquire extremely weak signals, and a worker skilled in the art would be motivated to incorporate any means of noise suppression into their LiDAR device (Embedded, Page 7).
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Liu teaches wherein the main controller is configured to call a computer program to sample the reflected signals ([0043]: “the ranging device 100 can be used to detect depth information of objects around the mobile platform 1000”)
Liu does not teach and Athena does teach wherein the digital signal module of the processing plate further comprises:
a storage device (Page 11, Mass Storage Devices), a watchdog circuit (Page 15, Watchdog timer), a clock circuit (Page 74, on-board clock), and a power supply circuit (Page 15, Power Supply);
wherein the main controller is connected to the storage device, the watchdog circuit, the clock circuit, the analog signal module, the emitting plate, and the first end of the interface plate (With the exception of the storage device, Athena teaches that all of these are integrated into a single board computer. The storage device is connected to the board via a SATA connector. See the rejection of Claim 12 above regarding the connection to the first end of the interface plate.);
wherein the storage device is configured to store a computer program (Page 41, describes operating system installation, which would be stored on an HDD or other non-transitory mass storage device);
wherein the watchdog circuit is configured to reset the main controller when the main controller fails (Page 15, “A programmable watchdog timer (WDT) is included to provide an automatic reset in case of system hang.”);
wherein the clock circuit is configured to generate clock signals (Page 74, “When the on-board clock generator is used, the clock frequency is either 10MHz or 100KHz, as determined by control Base+4 register bit CKFRQ1.”);
wherein signals are sampled via the analog signal module and the clock circuit (Page 71, Section 20.1 describes how the sampling occurs according to the clock input, which can be set to the internal oscillator/on-board clock);
wherein the power supply circuit is configured to receive a regulated voltage signal from the interface plate by using the power interface (Page 7, “Is powered from an externally regulated +5VDC supply”), convert a regulated voltage signal into multiple working voltage signals of different voltages values, and provide the multiple working voltage signals to each circuit in the processing plate (Page 15, “Every circuit connects to +5V or to supplies derived from +5V”; Page 19, LED summary discloses 3.3 V available on the board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate all the functionality of the Athena SBC into the LiDAR device of Liu. Integrating a diverse array of functionality onto a single board is an effective way to save space, and to reduce development and build costs since there are fewer components overall.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Liu further discloses wherein the analog module further comprises an echo detection circuit ([0059]: “The analog signal board 322 may be connected to the detector 124 .”) and a galvanometer control circuit ([0073]: “The third functional circuit board 33 includes a driving board 331 , and the driving board 331 is used to drive the driver 222 to rotate.”);
wherein the echo detection circuit is configured to perform conditioning on the reflected signals of the receiving plate and to send the reflected signals to the main controller after conditioning ([0058]: “The signal digitization board 311 is connected to the analog signal board 322 , and the signal digitization board 311 is used to convert analog electrical signals into digital electrical signals.”); and
wherein the main controller is also configured to control a deflection angle of the galvanometer via the galvanometer control circuit ([0081]: “The signal digitization board 311 can be used to realize functions such as controlling the ranging component 12 to emit laser pulses, controlling the speed and direction of the driver 222 (sending a control signal to the driving board 331 to control the speed and direction of the driver 222), and identifying the rotation speed and phase of the driver 222 (the rotation speed and phase of the driver 222 can be detected by the detection board 324).” The signal digitization board described here also contains a processor, identified with the main controller.).
wherein the main controller is respectively connected to a first end of the echo detection circuit, the monitoring and detection circuit, and a first end of the galvanometer control circuit; a second end of the echo detection circuit is connected to the receiving plate; a second end of the galvanometer control circuit is connected to the galvanometer;
Liu does not explicitly teach a first end of the interface plate is connected to a first end of the processing plate; and a second end, a third end, and a fourth end of the processing plate are respectively connected to the emitting plate, the receiving plate, and the galvanometer;
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect these components in such a manner within the LiDAR of Liu. Assuming that the processing plate is rectangular, there is no operational advantage to connecting a particular component to a particular end. Indeed, there is no suggestion that a particular component be opposite from or next to another component, merely that each end of the processing plate is connected to another component. Shifting the positions of the attached components would not modify the operation of the overall device. The examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) which held rearrangement of parts not relevant to device operation to be an obvious matter of design choice.
-Liu does not teach and Athena does teach a monitoring and detection circuit wherein the monitoring and detection circuit is configured to monitor whether the main controller fails (Page 15, “A programmable watchdog timer (WDT) is included to provide an automatic reset in case of system hang.”; The behavior described here is equivalent to that of a watchdog circuit);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the watchdog circuit of Athena into the LiDAR device of Liu. Watchdog circuits are well-known in the art as a means of automatically resetting autonomous or semi-autonomous systems, and a skilled worker would have found the inclusion of a watchdog circuit would have a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art, alone or taken together, fails to provide the specific structure defined by the limitations of Claim 1. Applicant incorporated material from Claims 3 and 6 into Claim 1. That material is further amended (“inner wall of housing” to “top surface of a housing”), and a further limitation is added “wherein the digital plate is arranged above the analog plate so that the digital plate is closer to the housing.”
Claim 24 of Al-Ali (US 20180146901 A1) discloses a pulse oximeter with a digital board being above an analog board (or vice-versa) but does not disclose it being closer to the housing and provides no motivation for such an arrangement. It would not be obvious to a skilled worker in the art why a digital board would be arranged above an analog board and closer to the housing.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-11 are allowed due to their dependence from allowable Claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights