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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral “228” is in FIG 2B, but is not referenced in the body of the specification. The examiner notes that this is likely due to a typographical error in the specification on Page 20, Line 20, which reads, “the second deflection angle 218” when it should likely read “the second deflection angle 228”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4-10 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Note that claim 5, while not a multiple dependent claim itself, depends on claim 4, which is a multiple dependent claim which depends on another multiple dependent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bashkansky et al. (US 6034804 A), hereinafter Bashkansky.
Regarding claim 1, Bashkansky teaches:
An optical arrangement (200) for a LIDAR system, the optical arrangement (200) having (FIG. 5, optical scanner):
a focusing arrangement (202) which is configured in such a way that it focuses light onto a focal point (214) of the focusing arrangement (202) ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “In FIG. 5 a flat field lens 52 forms a focus before a scanner 55.”),
a beam deflection component (204) arranged downstream of the focusing arrangement (202) at a first distance (216) from the focal point (214) of the focusing arrangement (202) ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “In FIG. 5 a flat field lens 52 forms a focus before a scanner 55. Scanner 55 is similar to scanner 11 (FIG. 1) or scanner 25 (FIG. 2). The expanding light beam is rotated by scanner 55 as shown by the double arrows 56.” Note that there is some distance between focus 53 and scanner 55.),
wherein the beam deflection component (204) is configured to direct the light at a deflection angle onto a field of view (220) ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “In FIG. 5 a flat field lens 52 forms a focus before a scanner 55. Scanner 55 is similar to scanner 11 (FIG. 1) or scanner 25 (FIG. 2). The expanding light beam is rotated by scanner 55 as shown by the double arrows 56.”), and
a collimating lens (206) arranged downstream of the beam deflection component (204) at a second distance (218) from the focal point (214) of the focusing arrangement (202) ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “In FIG. 5… The focus 53 of light beam 51 that occurs before the scanner 56 is placed one focal length away from lens 58.” Note that this describes a collimating arrangement for lens 58.),
wherein the second distance (218) corresponds to a focal length of the collimating lens (206), and wherein the collimating lens (206) is configured to parallelize the light from the focal point (214) of the focusing arrangement (202) ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “In FIG. 5… The focus 53 of light beam 51 that occurs before the scanner 56 is placed one focal length away from lens 58.” Note that this describes a collimating arrangement for lens 58 which means that it inherently collimates, or ‘parallelizes’, light from focus 53.).
Regarding claim 2, Bashkansky teaches the optical arrangement of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the deflection angle of the deflected light downstream of the beam deflection component (204) defines a virtual position of the focal point (214) of the focusing arrangement (202) with respect to the collimating lens (206) ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “Because of the geometry used in this configuration, it is possible to draw a virtual line that represents how the focus spot 53 moves as seen by lens 58. That line is represented by the dotted line 57. In other words, dotted line 57 describes the motion of the focal spot 53 as seen by lens 58.”).
Regarding claim 3, Bashkansky teaches both the optical arrangement of claim 1 and of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches, with regards to both alternative forms of claim 3 (i.e. claim 3/2 and claim 3/1):
wherein the beam deflection component (204) has at least two operating states, wherein the beam deflection component (204) 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 (200) in a first operating state of the at least two operating states, and wherein the beam deflection component (204) 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 (200) in a second operating state of the at least two operating states ([Col. 5, Lines 42-62] “In FIG. 5… The expanding light beam is rotated by scanner 55 as shown by the double arrows 56.” Note that this describes a system in which scanner 55 may be tilted at multiple different angles, corresponding to the multiple different “operating states” of the claimed invention, which would each deflect the beam at a different angle with respect to the optical axis.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiba et al. (JP 2016102738 A) teaches a two-dimensional scanning laser beam projection device that can reduce a deflection angle of a laser beam that is two-dimensionally deflected by deflection means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645