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 . Claims 2, 4 and 11-20 were canceled by the Applicant on 5/11/2026. Claims 8 and 10 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 9 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Below is a summary of the Applicant’s arguments with a response to each of the asserted arguments.
Examiner notes Applicant’s response has incorporated claims 2 and 4 into claim 1 and now argues that claim 1 as amended overcomes the current grounds of rejection. In particular, the following arguments were made on the record.
(a) Applicant argues Jeong no longer anticipates claim 1 as amended. Examiner agrees but now asserts Jeong in view of Suzuki, as previously asserted against now canceled claim 2, to render claim 1 obvious.
(b) Applicant argues Suzuki does not disclose or suggest: (1) the claimed positional relationship in which each laser emission lens is located on a side of the first optical axis of the corresponding laser emission lens that is close to the laser receiving module or (2) that the emission modules are disposed on opposite sides of a laser receiving module.
While Suzuki may not teach each of the above limitations on its own, it does so in combination with Jeong as described in the previous office action (see previous rejections of claims 2 and 4). Applicant is reminded that a proper rejection must address the combination of references. In particular, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner notes, the combination of references relies on Jeong for a majority of the structural limitations and Suzuki’s modifications are limited primarily to repositioning the sensors toward the other emitter, which when applied to the configuration of Jeong results in the sensors of each emitter being shifted closer to the receiver positioned between the two emitters.
Jeong on its own teaches two emitters (light emitting units 110/120) arranged on opposing sides of an image sensor (image sensor 220).
(c) Applicant argues that Suzuki does not teach overlapping coverage of emitters. However, their argument failed to explain why they believe cited paragraph [0188] of Suzuki, where it states “optical paths of plural laser light beams from first and second deflection faces may overlap”, does not teach/suggest overlapping coverage of emitters.
(d) Applicant argues that Suzuki does not teach the claimed relationship between the first optical axes and the second optical axes. Again, Applicant’s argument fails to address why the cited dashed line representing the optical axis of the receiver that is depicted as being parallel to lines L1 and L2 in FIG. 2 of Jeong does not teach the claimed relationship.
(e) Applicant argues that Jeong fails to teach a combination of emission fields of view matching a receiving field of view. It’s unclear why the Applicant feels that Jeong’s division of the imaging sensor into two regions means that the emitted light of the two lasers doesn’t match the field of view of the receiver or why [0157] of Jeong suggesting triangulation distance measurement along with descriptions of other TOF and Continuous wave distance measurement technologies would somehow make Jeong incompatible with the claimed embodiments.
Examiner notes, the instant specification isn’t ever specific as what it means for the laser scan pattern to match the receiver field of view as described in [0048] or roughly match it in [0039]. For example, when lasers are emitted not all the energy is reflected back into the receiver considering how objects of varying surface geometry cause light to bounce in many different directions making an exact match between the reflected light and receiver field of view likely only possible in a highly controlled testing range.
In general, a LIDAR receiver's field of view is dictated by the coverage of the lasers. Examiner also notes that the claim term “match” is broad in nature and that Applicant may need to use a more specific claim limitation to distinguish the instant application from the teachings of Jeong and Suzuki.
Given there has not been an examiner interview in this round of prosecution, Examiner encourages Applicant to reach out by phone in the hopes of clearing up any distinctions between the cited art and claimed subject matter that Examiner and Applicant have not clearly expressed on the record.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190293765 (hereinafter Jeong) in view of US20130229645 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong teaches a LiDAR, comprising:
two laser emission modules (light emitting units 110/120, see FIG. 2); and
one laser receiving module (image sensor 220), wherein the two laser emission modules are located separately on opposite sides of the laser receiving module (FIG. 2 shows light emitting units 110 and 120 on opposite sides of image sensor 220), and a combination of emission fields of view of the two laser emission modules matches a receiving field of view of the laser receiving module (laser emitters 110 and 120 define a field of view for image sensor 220 as LiDAR devices rely upon reflected laser light for establishing a receiving field of view).
wherein each of the two laser emission modules comprises:
a laser emission lens (112/122), wherein the laser emission lens has a first optical axis (L1/L2, see FIG. 2); and
a laser emission sensor (111/121), wherein the laser emission sensor is located on a light- incident side of the laser emission lens (112) and configured to emit a laser beam to the laser emission lens.
wherein the laser receiving module comprises a second optical axis, and the first optical axes of the laser emission lenses of the two laser emission modules are both parallel to the second optical axis (FIG. 2 shows a dashed line representing a second optical of the condensing lens 210 of the light receiving unit 200 being parallel to L1 and L2 representing the optical axes of the emission lenses).
FIGS. 2 of Jeong shows portions of emitters 111/121 on the side of optical axes L1/L2 closer to the receiver, but does not specifically state “the laser emission sensor being located on a side of the first optical axis that is close to the laser receiving module, and there is an overlapped region between emission fields of view of the two laser emission modules”.
However, FIG. 2 of Suzuki teaches “the laser emission sensor being located on a side of the first optical axis that is close to the laser receiving module (see FIG. 2 of Suzuki showing emitters 12a/12b offset from optical axes of lenses 14a/14b and toward a central region between emitters 12a/12b), and there is an overlapped region between emission fields of view of the two laser emission modules ([0188] of Suzuki describes a configuration in which emitter fields of view overlap)”.
Both Jeong and Suzuki describe LIDAR systems utilizing one or more receivers and multiple transmitters. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to improve the configuration taught by Jeong by implementing the offset emission sensor configuration of Suzuki in laser diodes 111/121 of Jeong. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as shifting the position of the emission sensor allows for changes in accordance with the formula shared in [0046] of Suzuki and as depicted the changes result in an expansion of the area covered by emitters 12a/12b. This would also assist with defining a desired amount of overlap between emitters 111/121 of Jeong.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Jeong and Suzuki teaches the LiDAR according to claim 1, wherein each of the two laser emission modules comprises a laser emission sensor (111/121 of Jeong), and laser emission sensors of the two laser emission modules emit light in sequence according to preset timing (see FIGS. 5-7 of Jeong illustrating sequence timing of emission sensors).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Suzuki in view of DE10244638 (hereinafter Hipp).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Jeong and Suzuki teaches the LiDAR according to claim 1, but fails to teach the rest of the claim as the LIDAR system is shown without any housing / packaging.
However, Hipp teaches where the LIDAR further comprises:
a housing (39, see FIG. 1), wherein an accommodating cavity is formed in the housing (housing 39 is shown in FIG. 1 forming an accommodating cavity); and
a bracket (support structure 31 is described as an aluminum die-cast part in [0038], see FIGS. 2-3) located in the accommodating cavity, wherein the bracket comprises a first mounting aperture (lens 35 shown within first mounting aperture) and second mounting apertures separately located on both sides of the first mounting aperture (lenses 33 shown within the second mounting apertures on opposing sides of the first mounting aperture, see FIGS. 2-3), the laser receiving module (lens 35 is considered as part of the receiving module) is mounted in the first mounting aperture, and each laser emission module is respectively mounted in one of the second mounting apertures (lenses 33 are considered as part of the emission modules).
Jeong and Hipp both describe laser scanning assemblies using multiple transmitters with a single receiver. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to protect the sensor assemblies described by Jeong within a housing and Hipp at [0034] describes the importance of a housing for protecting a device from external influences. Hipp also describes a housing with a bracket for securing a receiver and multiple transmitters. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the design of Jeong by securing the receiver and transmitters on a bracket within a housing as taught by Hipp, which allows all the sensors of the LIDAR to be secured in a single central support component within the housing as described in [0041] of Hipp.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Suzuki in view of Hipp as applied to claim 5 and further in view of DE 10244638 (hereinafter Hou).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Jeong and Hipp teach the LiDAR according to claim 5, wherein the two laser emission modules and the laser receiving module are all located in the accommodating cavity, a first plate body (cover section 32, see FIG. 1), wherein the first plate body has a first plate surface facing the accommodating cavity and a second plate surface opposite the first plate surface. The combination of Jeong and Hipp fails to teach the rest of the claim.
However, Hou teaches a configuration where the first plate body (1121, 1122 and 1123 as shown in FIG 2) is provided with a first light-passing aperture (aperture depicted extending through wall 1123) penetrating the first plate surface and the second plate surface, and two second light-passing apertures (apertures depicted extending through walls 1121,1122) respectively located on two sides of the first light-passing aperture, the laser receiving module is disposed corresponding to the first light-passing aperture, each laser emission module is disposed corresponding to one of the second light-passing apertures, and the second plate surface is provided with a light-passing protective plate covering the first light-passing aperture and the two second light-passing apertures (the instant specification as published at [0066] describes a light-passing protective plate 150 as including multiple subplates 151 & 152, Hou describes the use of multiple light-transmissive panels to cover the three openings in 1121, 1122).
Both Hou and the combination of Jeong, Suzuki and Hipp are directed to lidar devices within a housing having multiple transmitters and a receiver. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the cover section 32 taught by Hipp to overlay support structure 31 of Hipp and include a series of openings covered by light-transmissive protective plates taught by Hou to protect the lens elements of the transmitters and receiver as taught by the combination of Jeong and Hipp. Hipp at [0034] describes the importance of a housing that protecting a device from external influences.
Examiner notes that while Hou does not specifically teach arranging the central opening over a receiver, the combination of Jeong and Hipp teaches a central location for the receiver flanked by two transmitters and this arrangement when combined with the opening arrangement taught by Hou would result in the receiver being located behind the first light-passing aperture and the transmitters being behind the second light-passing apertures.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Jeong, Suzuki, Hipp and Hou teaches the LiDAR according to claim 6, wherein a mounting groove is provided in the second plate surface, the mounting groove is connected to the first light-passing aperture and the two second light-passing apertures, and the light-passing protective plate is located in the mounting groove (no substantive rejection applied here due to the presence of the “or” clause); or
the second plate surface is provided with a first mounting groove and second mounting grooves respectively located on two sides of the first mounting groove (FIGS. 2 and 3 both show mounting grooves formed in apertures formed in walls 1121-1123), the first mounting groove is connected to the first light-passing aperture, each of the second mounting grooves is respectively connected to one of the two second light-passing apertures, the light-passing protective plate comprises a first light-passing protective subplate (1126) and two second light-passing protective subplates (1125), the first light-passing protective subplate is located in the first mounting groove, and each second light- passing protective subplate is respectively located in one of the second mounting grooves (FIG. 1 shows plates 1125 and 1126 installed in the apertures defined by walls 1121-1123).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Suzuki in view of US20210208252 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jeong and Suzuki teaches the LiDAR according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a light shielding member is sleeved at a periphery of at least one of emission ends of the two laser emission modules and a receiving end of the laser receiving module.
However, Chen teaches wherein a light shielding member is sleeved at a periphery of at least one of emission ends of the two laser emission modules and a receiving end of the laser receiving module. Chen teaches incorporation a light shielding layer 274 at a periphery of at least one of emission ends of the two laser emission modules and a receiving end of the laser receiving module (see FIG. 5 of Shen showing light shielding layer 274).
Chen and the combination of Jeong and Suzuki are both in the field of laser distance measuring devices, so a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to arrange the combination of emitters and a receiver as taught by Jeong in the housing taught by Chen with light shielding layers 274. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to make this change in order to reduce crosstalk (see [0029] of Chen, discussing preventing the passage of stray light from a transmitter to a receiver).
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 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