DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/1/2000, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. See below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba Yoshimoto, JP2016102738A (“Yoshimoto”) in view of Chern et al., US 20170054918 A1 (“Chern”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshimoto teaches an optical arrangement for a LIDAR system (Figs. 1, 3), the optical arrangement having:
a focusing arrangement which is configured in such a way that it focuses light onto a focal point of the focusing arrangement ([0025], [0060], lens 12 and 14 as focusing arrangement),
a beam deflection component arranged downstream of the focusing arrangement at a first distance from the focal point of the focusing arrangement ([0030], [0061], deflection means 18), wherein the beam deflection component is configured to direct the light at a deflection angle onto a field of view (Figs. 1 and 3; see also [0004]), and
a collimating lens arranged downstream of the beam deflection component at a second distance from the focal point of the focusing arrangement ([0061], [0062], lens 20),
wherein the second distance corresponds to a focal length of the collimating lens ([0067] lens 20 has a focal point PF), and
wherein the collimating lens is configured to parallelize the light from the focal point of the focusing arrangement and is configured in such a way that it maps the light coming into the collimating lens from the focal point of the focusing arrangement onto collimated light at an exit angle ([0069-0070], point PFC and PF meet to emit “parallelized deflected laser beam”).
However, Yoshimoto fails to teach wherein the optical arrangement further comprises a correcting lens which is configured in a way that it outputs the collimated light received from the collimating lens at a corrected exit angle, and the correcting lens includes a zoom lens.
On the other hand, Chern teaches three-lens group for adjusting light direction and dispersion as needed (Fig. 5, [0046]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Yoshimoto’s system, in view of Chern’s teaching, to include a light beam adjustment arrangement after lens 20 to flexibly control light beam direction, intensity, and dispersion, as needed for the field of view and sensing needs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known method to a known device to produce a predictable result.
Therefore, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement further comprises a correcting lens which is configured in a way that it outputs the collimated light received from the collimating lens at a corrected exit angle, and the correcting lens includes a zoom lens (Chern, Fig. 5, [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the deflection angle of the deflected light downstream of the beam deflection component defines a virtual position of the focal point of the focusing arrangement with respect to the collimating lens (Yoshimoto, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, the mirror image of the condensing point of lens 12 and 14 at various 18 positions as virtual positions).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the beam deflection component has at least two operating states,
wherein the beam deflection component is configured in such a way that it deflects the light at a first deflection angle with respect to the optical axis of the optical arrangement in a first operating state of the at least two operating states, and
wherein the beam deflection component is configured in such a way that it deflects the light at a second deflection angle with respect to the optical axis of the optical arrangement in a second operating state of the at least two operating states (Yoshimoto, Figs 1 and 3; [0008], [0030], deflection angles of MEMS 18 at different positions, each position is a different state).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exit angle of the collimated light downstream of the collimating lens is dependent on a ratio between the first distance and the second distance (Yoshimoto, Figs. 1, 3, this feature is inherent with the optical arrangement).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the deflection angle has a value in a range from approximately -60° to approximately +60° in relation to the optical axis of the optical arrangement (Yoshimoto, [0008], deflection angle is a matter of design choice for the trade-off between field of view and frame rate; see examples in tables 1-36 and the corresponding discussion), and/or
wherein an exit angle of the collimated light downstream of the collimating lens has a value in a range from approximately -20° to approximately +20° with respect to the optical axis of the optical arrangement (Yoshimoto, [0008], [0346], exit angle spread is a matter of design choice for the trade-off between field of view and frame rate; see examples in tables 1-36 and the corresponding discussion).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the collimating lens is a cylindrical lens, an acylindrical lens, or an aspheric lens (Yoshimoto, [0138]).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the focusing arrangement is configured in such a way that the focal point of the focusing arrangement lies between the focusing arrangement and the beam deflection component (Yoshimoto, Fig. 3), or
wherein the focusing arrangement is configured in such a way that the focal point of the focusing arrangement lies between the beam deflection component and the collimating lens.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the beam deflection component is or has a microelectromechanical system (Yoshimoto, [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshimoto, as modified in view of Chern, teaches the optical arrangement as claimed in claim 1, furthermore having:
a light source configured to emit light in the direction of the focusing arrangement (Figs. 1, 3, [0025], light source 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-2730-4603.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights