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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isobe (5598291).
Referring to claims 1 and 18, Isobe shows a motorized optical scanner device of a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning system used in a motor vehicle (see figure 1 and 11), comprising:
a glass-based optical reflector (see figure 1 Ref 5) including a plurality of reflective surfaces (see figure 1 Ref 5a) and a flange (see figure 1 note Ref 5b);
an adjustment ring (see figure 6a-6c);
a metal-based motor rotor body at least partially disposed in an inner opening of the glass-based optical reflector (note that figure 1 fails to show the entire structure of the scanner, however in figure 10 shows a conventional structure of the rotor and figure 11 shows the details of the scanning mechanism that rotates the scanning rotor See figure 11 Ref 58 also see figure 1 Ref 7 and 1), wherein:
the flange extends from an inner sidewall of the glass-based optical reflector toward the metal-based motor rotor body (see figure 1 Ref 5d note the inner side wall of the mirror Ref 5 and the flange extends towards the center of the rotating mechanism),
the flange includes a first mounting surface that is in contact with the adjustment ring see figure 1 note the contact with the adjustment ring 3a and 5b); and
a plurality of fastening mechanisms configured to apply adjustment forces to the adjustment ring to reduce wobble associated with rotation of the glass-based optical reflector (see figure 1 and 3 Ref 2 also see column 5 line 38-column 6 line 2).
Referring to claim 3, Isobe shows the plurality of reflective surfaces comprises a plurality of mirrors disposed at, or formed as an integral part of, outer sider surfaces of the glass-based optical reflector (see column 7 line 18-31).
Referring to claim 5, Isobe shows the flange is an integral part of the glass-based optical reflector (see figure 1 and 3 note the flange Ref 5b).
Referring to claim 6, Isobe shows the adjustment ring is configured to distribute the adjustment forces around the glass-based optical reflector (see figure 6a note the fastening holes distributed around the adjustment ring).
Referring to claim 7, Isobe shows wherein a quantity of the plurality of fastening mechanisms is the same as a quantity of the plurality of reflective surfaces of the glass-based optical reflector (see column 5 line 21-36).
Referring to claim 8, Isobe shows at least two of the plurality of fastening mechanisms are tightened such that the adjustment ring is supported by two of the plurality of fastening mechanisms and a portion of the glass-based optical reflector that is opposite to a mid-portion between the two fastening mechanisms (see figure 6a).
Referring to claim 11, Isobe shows the plurality of fastening mechanisms comprises a plurality of adjustment screws (see figure 1 Ref 2).
Referring to claim 12, Isobe shows the metal-based motor rotor body further comprises a plurality of threaded holes into which the plurality of fastening mechanisms is inserted (see column 5 line 37-45).
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) 2, 4, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe above in view of Hughes (20190154816).
Referring to claim 2, Isobe shows the glass-based optical reflector comprises a polygon-shaped surface, the polygon-shaped bottom comprises four or more edges (see figure 1 note the facets). However Isobe shows the bottom surface is chamfered and fails to specifically show the bottom surface is polygon-shaped.
Hughes shows a similar device that includes the bottom surface of a polygon mirror is polygon-shaped comprising four or more edges (see figure 54). It would have been obvious to include the bottom surface to include four or more edges because this allows for ease of manufacturing of the polygonal mirror.
Referring to claim 4, Isobe fails to specifically show a speed that the mirror rotates at however Hughes shows a similar device that includes movement of the metal-based motor rotor body causes the glass-based optical reflector to rotate at a speed in a range of about 2000-9000 revolutions per minute (rpm) (see paragraph 71). It would have been obvious to include the rotation speed as shown by Hughes because this is a common rotational speed for a scanner and adds no new or unexpected results.
Referring to claim 16 and 17, Isobe shows a motorized optical scanner device of a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning system used in a motor vehicle (see figure 1 and 11), comprising:
a glass-based optical reflector (see figure 1 Ref 5) including a plurality of reflective surfaces (see figure 1 Ref 5a) and a flange (see figure 1 note Ref 5b);
an adjustment ring (see figure 6a-6c);
a metal-based motor rotor body at least partially disposed in an inner opening of the glass-based optical reflector (note that figure 1 fails to show the entire structure of the scanner, however in figure 10 shows a conventional structure of the rotor and figure 11 shows the details of the scanning mechanism that rotates the scanning rotor See figure 11 Ref 58 also see figure 1 Ref 7 and 1), wherein:
the flange extends from an inner sidewall of the glass-based optical reflector toward the metal-based motor rotor body (see figure 1 Ref 5d note the inner side wall of the mirror Ref 5 and the flange extends towards the center of the rotating mechanism),
the flange includes a first mounting surface that is in contact with the adjustment ring see figure 1 note the contact with the adjustment ring 3a and 5b); and
a plurality of fastening mechanisms configured to apply adjustment forces to the adjustment ring to reduce wobble associated with rotation of the glass-based optical reflector (see figure 1 and 3 Ref 2 also see column 5 line 38-column 6 line 2).
However Isobe fails to show the LIDAR and motor vehicle. It would have been obvious to include the scanner in a LIDAR and motor vehicle because these are common applications for this type of motorized scanner and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe above in view of Kodani (20150378153).
Referring to claim 9, Isobe fails to specifically show but Kodani shows
a motor shaft disposed in one or more bearings, wherein the one or more bearings are disposed in the metal-based motor rotor body (see figure 4 note bearings 9a and 9b). It would have been obvious to include the bearings as shown by Kodani because this is extremely common with a rotary shaft on a polygonal scanner as shown by Kodani.
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Isobe and Kodani shows the glass-based optical reflector and the metal-based motor rotor body are substantially concentric with respect to an axis along a longitudinal direction of the motor shaft (see both figure 11 of Isobe and figure 4 of Kodani.
Referring to claim 14, Isobe fails to show but Kodani shows
an elastomer piece (see figure 5 Ref 14); and
a clamping mechanism compressing the elastomer piece (see figure 5 Ref 12). It would have been obvious to include the elastomer piece and the clamping mechanism as shown by Kodani because this allows for vibrations to be absorbed by the spring tension as shown by Kodani (see paragraph 49)
Claim(s) 13, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe.
Referring to claims 13, 23, and 24, Isobe fails to show the metal-based motor rotor body further comprises a plurality of through holes into which adhesive materials are injected to secure the plurality of fastening mechanisms. However, the use of an adhesive on the threaded portion of a fastener is extremely well known in vibrational and rotational environments, the examiner is taking official notice indicating that this is extremely well known and any number of references can be cited indicating the obviousness of the adhesive.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe in view of Ishizuka (6087749).
Referring to claim 15, Isobe shows a metal based motor rotor body however fails to show wherein the metal-based motor rotor body comprises at least one of aluminum, iron, copper, steel, or a metal alloy.
Ishizuka shows a similar device that includes the metal-based motor rotor body comprises at least one of aluminum, iron, copper, steel, or a metal alloy (see column 3 lines 40-41). It would have been obvious to include the aluminum rotor body as shown Ishizuka because this allows for strength while maintaining the threaded holes of the rotor while reducing weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645