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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 08/21/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are partially not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2 Prior art by D1 explicitly teaches different angular range coverage with different lidars although it does not explicitly say vertical one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that depending on the position of the lidars different regions can be blocked by the roof or other obstacles and therefore in order to scan different vertical ranges one can design the system of multiple lidars in such a way that they cover the desired region of the interest. If for example two lidars facing in front one can design the system in such way that part one lidar faces upward to scan for example road signs and bridges the second one scans in front to identify vehicles and humans. Overlapping or non overlapping regions is also simple design choice. For example US 20190179320 A1 shows on fig. 4b 430c designed in such way that one beam illuminates right behind the vehicle and the second beam illuminates above the vehicle and has non-overlapping vertical regions .
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(s) 1, 22 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20190353784 A1 in view of D2 US 20200142072 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 22 D1 teaches
1. A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system for detecting objects in blind-spot areas, comprising:
a housing;(fig. 2A)
a scanning-based LiDAR assembly disposed in the housing, the scanning-based LiDAR assembly being configured to scan a plurality of light beams to illuminate a first field-of-view (FOV); [0151]and
a non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly disposed in the housing, the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly being configured to transmit laser light to illuminate a second FOV without scanning, [0151]
the first FOV being different from, and overlapping with, the second FOV(fig. 2D each individual lidar 122, 124, 126 have different overlapping FOV)
D1 also teaches scanning different ranges using different lidar device [0086]
wherein a detection distance range of the first LiDAR assembly extends beyond a detection distance range of the second LiDAR assembly(122 has at least different range than the 126+[0086])
but does not explicitly teach
wherein a detection distance range of the scanning-based LiDAR assembly extends beyond a detection distance range of the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly
D2 teaches
That lidar with scanning-based LiDAR assembly has longer detection range in general than non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly [0004]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D2 in order to provide data with bigger resolution at close distances and using smaller size equipment while using scanning lidar in order to probe larger distances [0009] and therefore provide different coverages as required in D1 [0086].
21. The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a height of the LiDAR system is equal to or less than about 35-40 mm or is configured such that the LiDAR system is installable in a vehicle's side-view mirror or a support structure thereof.(D1 [0059])
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
2. The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a vertical range scanned by the scanning-based LiDAR assembly overlaps with a vertical range illuminated by the non-scanning LiDAR assembly
It is important to note that D1 explicitly teaches different angular coverages [0069]
It is just obvious common sense modification which is associated with choosing FOV coverage in order to provide continuous coverage of field of view in multiple direction.
3. The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a vertical range scanned by the scanning-based LiDAR assembly does not overlap with a vertical range illuminated by the non-scanning LiDAR assembly.
It is just obvious modification which is associated with chosing FOV coverage in order to provide with one lidar coverage in front of vehicle and second one side or back of the vehicle(common sense) . (for example see US 20190179320 A1 fig. 4b as evidence)
4. The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detection distance range of the scanning based LiDAR assembly is up to 200 meters.
Relevant paragraph [0086] of D1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
5. The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detection distance range of the non-scanning- based LiDAR assembly is up to 30 meters. Relevant paragraph [0086] of D1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify apparatus by D1, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6, 23 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20180284246 A1 .
D1 teaches
wherein the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a flash LiDAR device configured to simultaneously illuminate the second FOV in a single light pulse.[0151]
but does not teach while D3 teaches
6, 23 The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a multi-facet polygon that is rotatable to scan the plurality of light beams to illuminate the first FOV, [0073]
12, 25 The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a first laser source configured to provide the plurality of light beams at a first wavelength; wherein the non-scanning-based LiDAR assembly comprises a second laser source configured to provide the laser light at a second wavelength, the second wavelength being different from the first wavelength.[0096]
The additional features of claim 17 are also already known from document D3
(see paragraphs [0046] to [0049] in conjunction with figure 1: "A coating that is
HR for wavelengths away from a light-source operating wavelength may prevent
most incoming light at unwanted wavelengths from being transmitted through
the window 117.").
The additional features of claim 18 are also already known from document D3
(see paragraph [0090]: "... the flash lidar system may capture a point cloud with
a single emitted pulse of light that illuminates a field of regard.").
The additional features of claims 19, 20, 27, and 28 are also already known
from document D3(see paragraph [0064]: "..., the receiver 140 includes ... more
avalanche photodiodes ... more single-photon avalanche diodes ..., the receiver
140 includes ... more PN photodiodes...", and paragraph [0113]: "The vehicle
controller 372 then combines or stitches together the points clouds from the respective sensor heads 360 to construct a combined point cloud covering a 360-
degree horizontal view.").
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to provide scanner to scan the field of view as required by D1.
Claim(s) 7,8, 24 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 further in view of Official Notice or US 5864391
Although D1 does not explicitly teach while Official Notice and US 5864391 teach
7, 24 The LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the scanning-based LiDAR assembly further comprises a fixed mirror configured to direct the plurality of light beams to the multi-facet polygon.
This is well known type of scanners and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by Official Notice or US 5864391 in order to provide scanner to scan the beam. (see also US 5864391 A(fig. 2))
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
8. The LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the multi-facet polygon is a variable angle multi- facet polygon (VAMFP), the VAMFP comprising a plurality of facets each having a facet angle, the facet angle of each facet corresponding to a vertical range of scanning, wherein the vertical range of at least one facet is different from the vertical ranges of other facets.
(Official Notice also presented in PCT report for the case PCT/US2022/048292)This is well known type of scanners and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by Official Notice or US 5864391 A in order to provide scanner to scan the beam. (see also US 5864391 A)
9. The LiDAR system of claim 8, wherein the VAMFP comprises four facets having facet angles of about 2.5 to 5 degrees apart, wherein the facet angles of the plurality of facets are configured such that a total vertical range of scanning of all the four facets is about 20 to 40 degrees.
(simple preferential choice associated with coverage selection in order to provide desired FOV
Applicant refers to that ranges in [0132] but does not teach why such arrangement will be novel or bring to unexpected result)
10. The LiDAR system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of vertical ranges of all the facets are non-overlapping vertical ranges. (simple coverage selection in order to provide desired FOV)
11. The LiDAR system of claim 8, wherein at least two vertical ranges of the plurality of facets are overlapping vertical ranges. (simple coverage selection in order to provide desired FOV)
Claim(s) 13, 26, 14-16 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20180284246 A1 further in view of D4 20180275251 .
Regarding claims bellow D1 does not teach but D4 teaches
13, 26 The LiDAR system of claim 12, wherein the scanning-based LiDAR assembly further comprises:
a collimation lens optically[0043] coupled to a first laser source, the collimation lens being configured to collimate the plurality of light beams provided by the first laser source;
a receiving lens[0042] configured to collect return light generated based on the illumination of the first FOV; and
a combining mirror disposed between the collimation lens and the receiving lens. (see paragraph [0049] in conjunction with figures 2 and 4: "..., the scanning LiDAR having an optical structure which shares a transmitting and receiving lens may include a beam source 210, a beam detector 220, a hole mirror 230, and a transmitting and receiving lens 240, ...").
14. The LiDAR system of claim 13, wherein the combining mirror comprises:
a first portion configured to allow passing of the plurality of light beams from the first laser source; and
a second portion configured to redirect the collected return light to a light detector. (see paragraph [0049] in conjunction with figures 2 and 4: "..., the scanning LiDAR having an optical structure which shares a transmitting and receiving lens may include a beam source 210, a beam detector 220, a hole mirror 230, and a transmitting and receiving lens 240, ...").
15. The LiDAR system of claim 14, wherein the first portion is a center portion of the combining mirror and the second portion is a portion of the combining mirror that is other than the center portion. (see paragraph [0049] in conjunction with figures 2 and 4: "..., the scanning LiDAR having an optical structure which shares a transmitting and receiving lens may include a beam source 210, a beam detector 220, a hole mirror 230, and a transmitting and receiving lens 240, ...").
16. The LiDAR system of claim 13, wherein the combining mirror(350) comprises:
a first portion configured to allow passing of the collected return light to a light detector;(321)
and a second portion configured to redirect the plurality of light beams from the first laser(312) source.(simple light redirection design fig. 3)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D4 in order to provide optical system which is capable of scanning with multiple frequencies .
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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights