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 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of the cited prior art teaches the frequency of the square wave laser is mapped via a pre-stored relationship.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As "pre-stored mapping relationship" is broad, under BRI this limitation simply requires some predetermined relationship between the control signal and laser output. Kaufman teaches synchronizing the frequency and phase of the control signal with the laser light pulses. [0049] of Kaufman further described this synchronization - "The level of the control signal 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 during each half of the period without laser pulse 1005 always complements the level of the control signal during every half of the period with laser pulse." This constitutes a "pre-stored mapping relationship" as it is a predetermined relationship between the two waves. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues none of the cited prior art teaches a magnitude of a level of the square wave signal is mapped to a laser intensity via another pre-stored mapping relationship.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As "pre-stored mapping relationship" is broad, under BRI this limitation simply requires some predetermined relationship between the control signal and laser output. [0023] of Kaufman teaches changing the intensity of the laser based on the control signal. This implies some kind of pre-determined relationship between the square wave signal and laser intensity. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-4, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109557554 A) in view of Kaufman (US 20190064324 A1).
Claim 1: Chen teaches a LiDAR, comprising:
a transceiving module, a galvanometer, a motor, and a control unit,
wherein the transceiving module is configured to emit an outgoing laser and receive an echo laser (pg 7);
wherein the galvanometer is configured to receive the outgoing laser emitted by the transceiving module, and to deflect the outgoing laser outward to scan in a first direction (pg 11-12);
wherein the galvanometer is further configured to receive the echo laser, and to deflect the received echo laser toward the transceiving module (pg 7);
wherein the motor is configured to drive the galvanometer to rotate, so that the outgoing laser can scan in a second direction after being deflected by the galvanometer (pg. 11-12);
and wherein the control unit is configured to send a control signal to control the transceiving module, the galvanometer, and the motor (pg 7),
wherein the control unit is configured to send a first control signal to the transceiving module; wherein the first control signal is used to control the transceiving module to emit the outgoing laser and receive the echo laser (pg 7 - drivers).
Chen does not teach, but Kaufman does teach wherein the first control signal is a square wave signal ([0049] – square wave control signal synchronized with laser pulse);
wherein a frequency of the square wave signal is related to an emission frequency of the outgoing laser ([0049]).
wherein a magnitude of a level of the square wave signal is related to laser intensity of the outgoing laser ([0049]);
and wherein a mapping relationship between the frequency of the square wave signal and the emission frequency of the outgoing laser and a mapping relationship between the magnitude of the level of the square wave signal and the laser intensity of the outgoing laser is configured to be pre- stored or pre-configured in the transceiving module ([0023] and [0049] – describing predetermined relationships – see response to arguments above).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the control waveform, as taught by Kaufman, with the LiDAR unit as taught by Chen because a square wave is simple, and thus simplifies the light emitting system by making changes to the control signal (and thus the laser) easier.
Claim 2: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to send a second control signal to the galvanometer, and to send a third control signal to the motor, wherein the second control signal is used to control the galvanometer to scan in the first direction, and wherein the third control signal is used to control the motor to drive the galvanometer to rotate in the second direction (pg 7 - drivers)
Claim 3: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR according to claim 2, wherein the control unit comprises: a transceiving control unit, a galvanometer control unit, and a motor control unit, wherein the transceiving control unit is configured to control an emission frequency and/or laser intensity of the outgoing laser emitted by the transceiving module (pg 7 - particular frequency),
wherein the galvanometer control unit is configured to control a scanning angle and a scanning frequency of the galvanometer in the first direction, and wherein the motor control unit is configured to control an angular velocity and angular acceleration of the motor in the second direction (pg 7 - first and second directions)
Claim 4: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR according to claim 3, wherein the motor control unit further comprises an encoder configured to obtain a rotation angle of the motor in the second direction (pg 8 - determining axis of rotation).
Claim 7: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR according to claim 1, further comprising a signal processing unit, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to generate a point cloud image based on the echo laser (pg. 12).
Claim 8: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR according to claim 7, wherein the signal processing unit determines a point cloud position based on a scanning angle of the galvanometer in the first direction and a rotation angle of the motor in the second direction, and generates a point cloud image based on the point cloud position (pg. 12).
Claim 11: Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109557554 A) in view of Kaufman (US 20190064324 A1), in view of Endberg (US 10324170 B1).
Claim 6: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR according to claim 2, wherein a vertical scanning mode indicated by the second control signal comprises sine wave scanning or triangular wave scanning (Fig. 7). Chen, as modified, does not teach, but Endberg does teach, wherein angular acceleration indicated by the third control signal is zero (Col 38, lines 54-60).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the constant scan speed, as taught by Endberg, in the LiDAR system as taught by Chen, as modified, because a constant scan speed simplifies the process of finding the position of the scan area (in the FOV) as the mathematics would be easier than if the mirror was changing speed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109557554 A) in view of Kaufman (US 20190064324 A1), in view of Ovsiannikov (US 20130258099 A1).
Claim 9: Chen, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. Chen, as modified, does not teach, but Ovsiannikov does teach wherein the control unit is further configured to send a fourth control signal to the transceiving module, and wherein the fourth control signal is used to control the transceiving module to receive the echo laser ([0009] – optical detection control signal).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the detection control signal, as taught by Ovsiannikov, in the LiDAR system as taught by Chen, as modified, because a detection signal is well known in the art, and would allow for emitter and detector to be synchronized (by synchronizing emitter and detection signals) and thus save power by only turning the detector ‘on’ when light is emitted.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 109557554 A) in view of Zhang (US 9851571 B1).
Claim 10: Chen teaches the LiDAR according to claim 1,
wherein the transceiving module comprises an emitter (Fig. 3, laser 1),
an emitting optical unit (pg. 9),
a beam splitting unit (Fig. 3, showing mirror 43 splitting outgoing light L1 and incoming light L2),
a receiver (Fig. 3, detector 2),
and a receiving optical unit (pg.10),
wherein the emitter is configured to emit the outgoing laser based on the control signal (pg. 7),
wherein the beam splitting unit is configured to transmit the collimated outgoing laser (Fig. 3, outgoing light L1 transmitted through slit 431),
to receive the echo laser deflected by the galvanometer (Fig. 3, incoming light L2 deflected by mirror 3 before being received by detector 2),
and to deflect the echo laser to the receiving optical unit (Fig. 3, incoming light L2 deflected by mirror 43),
wherein the receiving optical unit is configured to focus the echo laser deflected by the beam splitting unit on the receiver (Fig. 3, lens 44 and pg. 9, "the second lens 44 can make the divergence of reflected light L2 converged to the detector 2"),
and wherein the receiver is configured to receive the focused echo laser (pg. 9).
Chen does not teach, but Zhang does teach, wherein the emitting optical unit is configured to collimate the outgoing laser emitted by the emitter (Fig. 1, collimating lens 80 and laser 20 and Col. 6, lines 16-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the collimating lens, as taught by Zhang, in the LiDAR system as taught by Chen because collimating lenses are well known in the art, and allow for clearer images as they make the beams incident out of the laser system as a constant angle.
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 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights