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 . Examiner notes claims 1-4, 6-17 and 19-20 are amended and claims 5 and 18 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant has argued that adding the limitation “an interval between every two laser emitters close to the edge of the mounting board is greater than that arranged at the center of the mounting board”.
The new claim limitation comparison is unclear since an interval between two laser emitters is being compared to “that”. Perhaps using the term “those” instead of “that” would be clearer, however, it is recommended the interval close to the edge be compared specifically with an interval at the middle or in a central region if that is what is intended. Secondly, even if we assume the new claim limitation is intended to compare the interval between peripheral emitters and an interval between more centrally located emitters (as discussed in [0023] of the instant specification), what appears to be the intended claim limitation would still fail to overcome the teachings of Zhang, since FIG. 5 of Zhang shows larger intervals on the ends than in the center.
Applicant argued that Zhang fails to teach this limitation because FIG. 5 shows a highest density of transmitters at line A-A’, which is not at the geometric center of emission circuit board 3. Examiner disagrees. Even if the next emitter up from the emitter on line A-A’ is considered the center of emission circuit board 3, the interval between that emitter and the emitter immediately above or below it is smaller than intervals between emitters at the top or bottom of emission circuit board 3. Even if claim 1 were amended with the narrower limitation describing a gradual increase in interval from the center of the emission board to the periphery (as has been attempted in claims 8 and 19), FIG. 5 and its accompanying text would still teach this limitation since the emitter density gradually increases from the periphery (interval of D1) to the center (interval of D2/D3 being smaller than D1) even considering the true geometric center of emission board 3 is offset from line A-A’.
Examiner notes that FIG. 4 from the instant specification, the only illustration showing a varied transmitter interval and the figure referenced in [0023], also shows the highest density of emitters in a location offset from the true center of mounting plate 23.
Applicant also argued that claim 12 is also allowable on account of the transmitter density limitation. However, as discussed above this limitation does not distinguish the claims from the teachings associated with FIG. 5 of Zhang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Peoples' Republic of China on 09/24/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202111124333.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure remains objected to. While it appears a bona fide attempt has been made to address the previously identified deficiencies, identified issues listed below remain outstanding. A substitute specification is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) due to the large number of changes being made.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Below is a list of the previously identified unresolved issues:
The last sentence of [0028] still ends with the phrase “and application will more widely”. Deletion of this phrase will correct the grammatical issues with the final sentence and prevent any confusion regarding the intended meaning of the sentence.
[0031] has a phrase stating, “the level-five automation system refers to ‘ull automation’”. The word “ull” is not a word in the English language. It appears that the drafter intended the word “ull” to read “full”. In the attempted correction to [0031], “ull” was changed to “ful” instead of “full”. [0031] was also incorrectly labeled [0001] instead of [0031].
Appropriate correction is required.
The Examiner requests the Applicant thoroughly review the specification and make additional amendments to address any additional errors without adding new matter given the large number of errors identified in the specification as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, they have been amended to add a reference to “the rotating body”, which lacks antecedent basis. It appears both Claims 1 and 12 should instead refer to “the rotating member” to fix the issue of antecedent basis. Claims 1 and 12 have also been amended to add “a mounting plate” and “the mounting board”. “The mounting board” limitation also lacks antecedent basis and could be changed to “the mounting plate” to fix the antecedent basis issue.
Regarding Claims 13-14 and 16, they are rejected for depending from themselves making the claims indefinite, see MPEP 608.01(n). It appears that when these claims were renumbered, as requested in the preceding office action, the claim dependency was not updated. Applicant is also encouraged to review claims 15 and 16-17 as these claim dependencies were also not updated.
Regarding Claims 2-11, they are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1
Regarding Claims 13-20, they are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200033450 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of US20210396879 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a panoramic lidar, comprising:
a rotating member (laser ranging module 2-0, see FIG. 18), capable of being operatively rotated (rotated by scanning driver module 3-0 around axis 1-1, see FIG. 18); and
a laser sensor (laser emitting device 100 and receiving device 200), arranged on the rotating member ([0088] describing 100 and 200 as being included in ranging module 2-0) and rotated with the rotating member, the laser sensor (100 and 200) comprising one or more pairs of laser emitters and laser receivers (lasers 1 and photoelectric sensors 6, see FIG. 3A), each pair of the laser emitter and the laser receiver containing one laser emitter and one laser receiver arranged correspondingly to other (FIG. 3A shows lasers 1 and sensors 6 being arranged at corresponding heights and vertical spacing intervals), all laser emitters being arranged on the same side of the rotating member (FIG. 12 is a top down view of LIDAR shown in FIG. 3A and shows laser emitting device 100 on one side of the rotating member, see circular enclosure); each pair of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers are arranged adjacently (laser emitting device 100 and laser receiving device 200 are shown adjacent to one another in FIGS. 3A-3B and 12), and each laser receiver being configured to receive reflected signals that formed by the optical signals reflected by an target object (FIG. 3B shows light transmitted from laser emitting device 100 reflecting off target X and being received at laser receiving device 200), the reflected signals being configured to generate a panoramic point cloud related to an panoramic image of surrounding environment of the panoramic FMCW lidar ([0086], the LIDAR device described in FIG. 18 achieves a 360 degree scan and would therefore generate a panoramic point cloud),
wherein the rotating body defines a window (FIG. 19 shows optical window 1-2), and the laser sensor further comprises a mounting plate facing to the window (a mounting plate as shown in any one of FIGS. 3A-3B, 4, disposed within laser ranging module 2-0 as shown in FIG. 18 would face the wrap around window 1-2), and the one or more pair of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers are arranged on the mounting board, an interval between every two laser emitters close to the edge of the mounting board is greater than that arranged at the center of the mounting board (see FIG. 5 showing intervals D2 and D3 at the center of board 3 and an interval D1 at the edges of board 3, making the interval close to the edge greater than the interval at the center of the mounting board).
Zhang is silent as to the type of modulation used and therefore fails to teach “each laser transmitter being configured to transmit a frequency-modulated continuous wave optical signals” and “the panoramic point cloud containing speed information”.
However, Sun teaches a configuration in which “each laser transmitter being configured to transmit a frequency-modulated continuous wave optical signals”. Sun teaches these limitations in the following locations: (FIG. 5 showing multiple light engines where [0047] specifies that each light engine 501, 511, 521, etc. has its own laser light source 502 and [0026] describing use FMCW type modulation). Sun also teaches, “the panoramic point cloud containing speed information” since LIDAR systems using FMCW modulation are well known to extract speed information based on doppler shift from the beat signal detected at, e.g. balanced detector 512.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Zhang and Sun, which are both directed to multi-sensor / multi-transmitter LIDAR configurations. In particular, the person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the use of FMCW type modulation taught by Sun into Zhang to improve the configuration of Zhang allowing for the removal of noise and DC signals, as describe in [0033] of Sun. Furthermore, Sun teaches the use of separate optical collimating systems 226 and 228 from FIG. 2B similar to emission lens groups 60 and 70 of Zhang and the use of optical fibers 210 to route light back and forth between receiver and transmitter modules makes the teachings of Sun particularly compatible with the teachings of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 1, wherein the one or more pairs of laser emitters and laser receivers comprises a plurality of pair of laser transmitters (semiconductor lasers 1, see FIG. 3A of Zhang) and laser receivers (photoelectric sensors 6, see FIG. 3A of Zhang) arranged correspondingly (FIG. 3A shows corresponding vertical positioning of lasers 1 and sensors 6), and the panoramic FMCW lidar further comprises a processor the processor forms sub-point clouds corresponding to the reflected signals of each pair of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers, and combines the sub-point clouds into the panoramic point cloud ([0026] of Sun describes use of a processor to calculate distance and calculating distance based on reflected light received at each of the plurality of sensor would create multiple sub-point clouds from each sensor that would in turn combine to form a panoramic point cloud by virtue of rotation of the sensor as taught by Zhang).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 2, wherein the rotating member comprises: a base (scanning driver module 3-0, see Zhang FIG. 18), the panoramic FMCW lidar being fixed to an external device ([0093] of Zhang describes attaching the device to autonomous vehicles and robots) through the base (FIG. 18 as depicted makes clear laser ranging module 2-0 would necessarily have to be affixed to any external device through scanning driver module 3-0); and a rotating body (laser ranging body 2-0 of Zhang, see Zhang FIG. 18) rotatably arranged on the base, and the laser sensor (laser emitting device 100 and receiving device 200, [0088] describing 100 and 200 as being included in ranging module 2-0) being arranged on the rotating body.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 4, wherein the rotating body is cylindrical (FIG. 12 of Zhang shows a configuration in which the rotating body is cylindrical), and the rotating body rotates around an central axis (rotation axis 1-1 as shown in FIG. 18 of Zhang extends through the central axis of laser ranging module 2-0) of the rotating body.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 1, wherein the rotating member (360-degree scanning driver module 3-0 of Zhang) is configured to drive the laser sensor to rotate 360o ([0086] of Zhang states the LIDAR device achieves 360-degree scanning).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 6, wherein the one or more pairs of laser emitters and laser receivers comprises a plurality of pairs of laser transmitters and laser receivers arranged correspondingly (FIG. 3A shows lasers 1 and sensors 6 being arranged at corresponding heights and vertical spacing intervals), and the plurality of pairs of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers are arranged in a straight line or in an array (see FIG. 3A,3B,11 and 11A showing straight lines and arrays).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 7, wherein the plurality of pairs of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers are arranged along an central axis (rotation axis 1-1, [0087] of Zhang) of the rotating body (Zhang shows laser receivers and transmitters arranged parallel with the central axis of the rotating body), and the number of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers arranged on one end of the rotating member closed to the base is larger than that of the laser transmitters and laser receivers arranged on the other end away from the base (FIG. 5 of Zhang shows a variable distance between semiconductor lasers 1 on emission circuit board 3 such that more semiconductor lasers 1 would be near its base than its top), the interval between the laser emitters gradually increases from the center of the mounting plate to the edge of the mounting plate (FIG. 5 of Zhang shows from the center of circuit board 3 {analogous to a mounting plate} the interval between emitters gradually increases from distance D3 to D2 to D1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 4, wherein one or more pairs of laser emitters and laser receivers are facing the window for emitting the optical signals or receiving the reflected signals from the window (FIG. 10, [0050] shows / describes arrows indicating the light outgoing directions of the columns in the emission array indicating the plate faces the window) the distribution of the laser transmitters at the middle position of the mounting plate is denser than the distribution at the edge position of the mounting plate (FIG. 5 of Zhang shows from the center of circuit board 3 {analogous to a mounting plate} the interval between emitters gradually increases from distance D3 to D2 to D1, thereby representing a greater density at the middle position of the mounting plate that at the edge position).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 4, wherein the processor ([0026] of Sun describes use of a processor to generate distance data) is further configured to send the panoramic point cloud to the external device (autonomous vehicle or robot as described in [0093] of Zhang).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 2, wherein the panoramic FMCW lidar further comprises a driving device (scanning driver module 3-0, see Zhang FIG. 18), and the driving device is configured to drive the rotating member to rotate.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang and Sun is combined for the same rationale described in regards to Claim 1 and the combination teaches: a vehicle, comprises:
a main body (autonomous vehicle / robot as taught in [0093] of Zhang); and
a panoramic FMCW lidar ([0026] of Sun describes use FMCW type modulation) fixed on the main body, the panoramic FMCW lidar comprising:
a rotating member (laser ranging module 2-0, see FIG. 18 of Zhang), capable of being operatively rotated; and
a laser sensor (laser emitting device 100 and receiving device 200 from Zhang), arranged on the rotating member and rotated with the rotating member, the laser sensor comprising one or more pairs of laser emitters and laser receivers (lasers 1 and photoelectric sensors 6, see FIG. 3A of Zhang), each pair of the laser emitter and the laser receiver containing one laser emitter and one laser receiver arranged correspondingly to each other (FIG. 3A of Zhang shows lasers 1 and sensors 6 being arranged at corresponding heights and vertical spacing intervals), all laser emitters being arranged on the same side of the rotating member (FIG. 12 of Zhang is a top down view of LIDAR shown in FIG. 3A and shows laser emitting device 100 on one side of the rotating member, see circular enclosure) each pair of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers are arranged adjacently (laser emitting device 100 and laser receiving device 200 are shown adjacent to one another in FIGS. 3A-3B and 12 of Zhang), each laser transmitter being configured to transmit a frequency-modulated continuous wave optical signals ([0026] of Sun describes using FMCW type modulation), and each laser receiver being configured to receive reflected signals that formed by the optical signals reflected by an target object (FIG. 3B of Zhang shows light transmitted from laser emitting device 100 reflecting off target X and being received at laser receiving device 200), the reflected signals being configured to generate a panoramic point cloud related to an panoramic image of surrounding environment of the panoramic FMCW lidar ([0086], the LIDAR device described in FIG. 18 achieves a 360 degree scan and would therefore generate a panoramic point cloud), and the panoramic point cloud containing speed information (LIDAR systems using FMCW modulation are well known by a person having ordinary skill in the art to extract speed information based on doppler shift from the beat signal detected at, e.g. balanced detector 512 from FIG. 5 of Sun);
wherein the rotating body defines a window (FIG. 19 shows optical window 1-2), and the laser sensor further comprises a mounting plate facing to the window (a mounting plate as shown in any one of FIGS. 3A-3B, 4, disposed within laser ranging module 2-0 as shown in FIG. 18 would face the wrap around window 1-2), and the one or more pair of the laser transmitters and the laser receivers are arranged on the mounting board, an interval between every two laser emitters close to the edge of the mounting board is greater than that arranged at the center of the mounting board (see FIG. 5 showing intervals D2 and D3 at the center of board 3 and an interval D1 at the edges of board 3, making the interval close to the edge greater than the interval at the center of the mounting board).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15-20 they are rejected for the same reasons as for respective Claim 2 and 4-9.
8. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200033450 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of US20210396879 (hereinafter Sun) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 above and further in view of US20210389467 (hereinafter Eshel).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the panoramic FMCW lidar of claim 2, wherein the laser emitters of the one or more pairs of laser emitters and laser receivers contains a plurality of laser emitters that emit optical signals with different frequency from each other.
Eshel, which is also directed to LIDAR configurations using arrays of emitters and detectors (see, e.g., FIG. 2F showing a vertical arrangement of emitters 112A-F and sensor 116 drawn as a 2D array), teaches lasers emit optical signals with different frequencies from each other (see [0074] describing how the emitted optical signals may be emitted with different wavelengths/frequencies 400-700nm vs 750-1100nm).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the system of Zhang as modified by Sun with the teachings of Eshel to use lasers having different frequencies, “in order to optimize SNR and detection range” as described in [0074] of Eshel.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights