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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 June 2026 by the applicant has been considered and is included in the file.
Response to Amendment
Claims 11-27 and 30 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 11 and dependent claims 22 and 23 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 10 June 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Claims 28-29 have been canceled, and therefore the prior objections is/are moot.
Prior objections of the specification have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments pertaining to Nauen not teaching spatial resolution of a detector, and only describing image resolution (Remarks, pg. 9), the examiner respectfully disagrees as Nauen discloses explicitly that the physical solid angle range of a detector pixel will affect the resolution and field of view (FOV) of the system (such as in [0021], [0024], [0026], and [0038] as noted in the updated rejection for claim 11), and that the system may further improve the resolution of images by following a process of collecting multiple images at differing emitter and/or detector locations. Nauen further mentions ([0024]), but not explicitly, that the physicality of the emitter will have a similar effect on resolution and the total FOV of a scan. This agrees with the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of “spatial resolution” as introduced in the current application’s specification on page 2, which states that “part of the spatial resolution of a LIDAR measurement (e.g., spatial resolution in a first direction) is provided by the spatial arrangement of a plurality of sub-light sources (e.g., individual laser diodes) of the LIDAR system, and a another part of the spatial resolution of the LIDAR measurement (e.g., spatial resolution in a second direction) is provided by the spatial arrangement of a plurality of detector pixels”.
A similar application of the BRI is also utilized regarding applicant’s arguments over the introduction of Eichenholtz to more explicitly discuss the relationship between the emitter’s spatial arrangement and the resolution in a second direction (Remarks, pgs. 10-12). Eichenholtz discusses how the orientation and physical nature of an emitter arrangement (as is seen as an emitter FOV,
F
O
V
L
) would affect the resolution of the system, such as how the total field of regard (FOR) in a vertical direction will be based on the number of emitted beams and the
F
O
V
L
size which is effectively the spatial resolution in that direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that more emitters with smaller
F
O
V
L
sizes will give a different, and higher, resolution in the vertical direction than less emitters with larger
F
O
V
L
sizes.
The examiner also notes that the concerns over the use of the word “opposite” with respect to the direction of scanning are valid in terms of clarity, but this does not negate the ability of Eichenholtz to teach the limitations of claim 28 which have been incorporated into claim 11 in the current amendments. The cited images and paragraphs of Eichenholtz are clear in that the system is scanned in a direction orthogonal to the orientation of the line of emitters shown in the cited Fig. 6, where the vertically aligned line of emitted light is scanned in a horizontal direction. As such, the verbiage for the updated rejection as found below has been modified to reference “orthogonal” and not “opposite”.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, line 23 reads “…and a another part of…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 11-13, 16, 21-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1) in view of Eichenholtz et al. (hereinafter Eichenholtz, US 20180284280 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nauen teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0001]) comprising:
a light source including a plurality of sub-light sources arranged in a first direction, wherein the plurality of sub-light sources is configured to emit light towards a field of view (FOV) ([0025], [0033]; Fig. 1 emitter (22) may be a one or two- dimensional emitter matrix with separate emitters (24));
a detector including a plurality of detector pixels arranged in a second direction, wherein the plurality of detector pixels is configured to detect light reflected from objects in the FOV ([0016], [0035]; Fig. 1 detector (18) may be a one or two- dimensional detector matrix with pixels (20));
a coarse angle control element configured to deflect the emitted light from the light source towards the FOV and to deflect the light reflected from the objects in the FOV to the detector ([0020], [0025]; Figs. 3, 5, where both the transmitting unit and the detection unit include secondary optics (28, 32), which may represent a lens or optical system consisting of several elements, and which defines the overall FOV of the system by mapping an emitter to a portion of the FOV, and a portion of the FOV to a detector pixel),
and a controller configured to control the plurality of sub-light sources to emit light towards the FOV ([0036]; Fig. 1 control unit (16) is intended to control both transmission and reception),
wherein the first direction and the second direction form an angle with respect to each other, and the angle is not 0° or 180° such that the light source and the detector form a crossed arrangement to provide a first spatial resolution in the first direction and a second spatial resolution in the second direction (Fig. 1, where emitter array (22) is arranged perpendicular to detector array (18)),
wherein the second spatial resolution depends on tan angular extension of one of a plurality of second tiles along the second direction and a cardinality of the plurality detector pixels ([0021], [0024], [0026], [0038]; Fig 2, where the detector pixels (20) each have a corresponding solid angle range (Ω) which provides a total angular span in the same direction the detector array aligns and therefore determines spatial resolution),
wherein the angle is 90° and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1, where emitter array (22) is arranged perpendicular to detector array (18)).
Nauen does not explicitly discuss how the emitter orientation cardinality determines a spatial resolution beyond noting that a similar discussion of the detector applies to the emitter ([0024]).
Eichenholtz teaches a system wherein the first spatial resolution depends on an angular extension of one of a plurality of first tiles along the first direction and a cardinality of the plurality of sub-light sources ([0107] - [0109], [0147]; Fig. 6, where the total field of regard (FOR) is broken into horizontal scan lines, where each scan line is linked to an emitter and emitter field of view (
F
O
V
L
), the
F
O
V
L
are simultaneously scanned orthogonally to the direction of emitter distribution, and the total size and resolution of the FOR is dependent on the number of emitters and extension of each
F
O
V
L
).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to note that the emitter orientation/cardinality will affect the resolution in the first direction with a reasonable expectation of success. LIDAR systems which utilize multiple emitters directed to slightly different sections of a FOV and scanned as described by Eichenholtz would be integrated into the system of Nauen with predictable results, as Nauen already teaches a system with a 1-D array of emitters where FOVs can be scanned to new locations (as seen in Fig. 2), and the number of emitters being scanned would affect the spatial resolution similarly to the discussion of the detector as noted in Nauen ([0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, wherein
the controller configured to control the plurality of sub-light sources to emit light towards the FOV comprises the controller configured to sequentially activate the plurality of sub-light sources to emit respective light signals in respective emission time periods ([0026], emitter units can be controlled individually which optionally by means of suitable optics, illuminate a certain solid angle range sequentially in a first dimension or direction.).
Regarding claim 16, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, the system further comprises
an optical array transmitter arranged between the light source and the coarse angle control element ([0033], [0047]; Fig. 6 where emitter optics (34) sit between emitter (22) and secondary optics (32)).
Regarding claim 21, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, the system further comprising
an optical array receiver arranged between the detector and the coarse angle control element to focus the light reflected from the objects in the FOV onto the detector ([0033], [0043]; Fig. 4 where detector optics (30) sit between detector (18) and secondary optics (28)).
Regarding claim 22, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, but does not explicitly discuss how the emitter orientation cardinality determines a spatial resolution.
Eichenholtz teaches a system where the FOV is defined by the plurality of first tiles, and a cardinality of the plurality of first tiles corresponds to the cardinality of the plurality of sub-light sources, the first spatial resolution being defined by dividing the angular extension of one of the plurality of first tiles along the first direction by the cardinality of the plurality of sub-light sources ([0107] - [0109], [0147]; Fig. 6, where the total field of regard (FOR) is broken into horizontal scan lines, where each scan line is linked to an emitter and emitter field of view (
F
O
V
L
), the
F
O
V
L
are simultaneously scanned orthogonally to the direction of emitter distribution, and the total size and resolution of the FOR is dependent on the number of emitters and extension of each
F
O
V
L
).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to note that the emitter orientation/cardinality will affect the resolution in the first direction with a reasonable expectation of success. LIDAR systems which utilize multiple emitters directed to slightly different sections of a FOV and scanned as described by Eichenholtz would be integrated into the system of Nauen with predictable results, as Nauen already teaches a system with a 1-D array of emitters where FOVs can be scanned to new locations (as seen in Fig. 2), and the number of emitters being scanned would affect the spatial resolution in that direction. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the resolution of the FOR would be dependent on the sizes of the independent FOVs, the number of simultaneous FOVs existing in a given direction, and the amount of overlap between scans at subsequent time points.
Regarding claim 23, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 22, wherein
the FOV is further defined by the plurality of second tiles, and a cardinality of the plurality of second tiles corresponds to the cardinality of the plurality of detector pixels ([0026], [0038]; Fig 2, where a solid angle range (Ω) for each detector pixel splits the entire FOV in a direction associated with the detector), the second spatial resolution being defined by dividing the angular extension of one of the plurality of second tiles along the second direction by the cardinality of the plurality of detector pixels ([0026], [0038]; Fig 2, where the detector pixels (20) each have a corresponding solid angle range (Ω) which provides a total angular span in the same direction the detector array aligns and therefore determines spatial resolution).
Regarding claim 24, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 22 but is silent on the sizes of the FOV segments.
Eichenholtz teaches one of the plurality of first tiles at an edge of the FOV has a larger size than that in a center of the FOV ([0181], Figs. 23, 24 where edge FOVs may be larger than central FOVs due to scan pattern).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to have FOV pixels/segments which are larger near the periphery of the FOR than those in the center with a reasonable expectation of success. As Eichenholtz notes, non-uniform scan line separation and non-uniform mapping of pixels toe detector sites in the arrays allow the system to increase the field of regard, or use less detectors, by varying the information density ([0179] – [0180]).
Regarding claim 25, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 23, but is silent on the sizes of the FOV segments.
Eichenholtz teaches a size of each of the plurality of first tiles is identical to a size of each of the plurality of second tiles ([0076], [0107], [0116], Fig. 7 where the FOV of the receiver may be the same size as the FOV of the emitter and pixels evenly distributed within the FOR, and therefore the horizontal and vertical sizes of IFOVs/segments will be identical).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to have uniformly sized FOV segments in two dimensions with a reasonable expectation of success. When receiver and emitter FOVs are variable, as in the system of Eichenholtz, it allows for a system to compensate for differing beam divergence at different object distances (Eichenholtz, [0117] – [0118]), as well as modify scan patterns based on intended object detection.
Regarding claim 27, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 23, wherein
a dimension of the detector corresponds to a size of each of the plurality of second tiles of the FOV ([0026], [0037]; Fig 2, where a solid angle range (Ω) is associated with the detector pixels and pixel width (B) affects the solid angles and resolution).
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1) in view of Eichenholtz et al. (hereinafter Eichenholtz, US 20180284280 A1) and further in view of Ma (US 20230035528 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 13 but is silent on the specifics of a firing scheme of two sub-light sources with a waiting time between.
Ma teaches the controller is configured to further control two of said plurality of sub-light sources to be activated in an interval of a waiting time ([0162] - [0166]; where a first light emission unit and a second light emission unit may be sequentially be controlled to emit).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to emit light from different sub-light sources at differing times separated by a waiting time with a reasonable expectation of success. Nauen notes that in raster LIDAR emission can be temporally sequential in nature ([0003]) and implementing the wait time of Ma would have a predictable result of creating an emission scheme with time between emission of two different sources within the system of Nauen.
Regarding claim 15, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 14 but is silent on the specifics of the waiting time between.
Ma teaches the waiting time is greater than or substantially equal to a maximum transit time when light emitted by one of the two of said plurality of sub-light sources is detected by one of the plurality of detector pixels before the other one of the two of said plurality of sub-light sources is activated to emit light ([0164]; where a first light emission unit and a second light emission unit may be sequentially be controlled to emit, and the second light emission unit is turned on after an echo signal is detected).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to emit light from different sub-light sources at differing times separated by a waiting time which is specific to the time-of-flight of the first signal with a reasonable expectation of success. Nauen notes that in raster LIDAR emission can be temporally sequential in nature ([0003]) and implementing the wait time of Ma would have a predictable result of creating an emission scheme within the system of Nauen where echo signals do not overlap with the emission of subsequent signals.
Regarding claim 17, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 16, but is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the optical array transmitter comprises a slow-axis collimator lens configured to collimate the light emitted by the light source in a direction of a slow axis of the light source ([0195] - [0196]; Fig. 20a, where second optical shaping module (242) may include a slow-axis-collimator lens).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as a slow-axis collimator lens, with a reasonable expectation of success. Collimation optics are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems, and incorporation of the collimator lens of Ma into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of collimating beams emitted into the environment.
Regarding claim 18, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 16, but is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the optical array transmitter comprises a slow-axis collimator lens configured to collimate the light emitted by the light source in a direction of a fast axis of the light source ([0195] - [0196]; Fig. 20a, where second optical shaping module (242) may include a fast-axis-collimator lens).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as a fast-axis collimator lens, with a reasonable expectation of success. Collimation optics are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems, and incorporation of the collimator lens of Ma into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of collimating beams emitted into the environment.
Regarding claim 19, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 16, but is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the optical array transmitter comprises a multi-lens array configured to separate the light emitted by the plurality of sub- light sources ([0195] - [0196]; Fig. 20a, where second optical shaping module (242) may include a microlens array).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as multi-lens array, with a reasonable expectation of success. Optics such as lenses are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems and incorporation of a multi-lens array, such as the microlens array of Ma, into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of shaping the individual beams emitted from a source array as they are emitted into the environment.
Regarding claim 20, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 19, but is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the multi-lens array includes a zone structure along the first direction ([0162], [0172] - [0175]; Fig. 7, where each emitter may be fitted with its own lens (212a), which demonstrates how a microlens array would situate with each lens positioned to transmit a specific emitter's light) .
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as multi-lens array where each emitter is fitted with its own lens, with a reasonable expectation of success. Optics such as lenses are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems and incorporation of a multi-lens array, where each emitter is associated with a different lens, into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of shaping the individual beams emitted from a source array as they are emitted into the environment without interference between beams.
Regarding claim 30, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 21, but is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the receiver.
Ma teaches the optical array receiver further comprises a lens that has an equal focal length in the first direction and second direction ([0156]; Fig. 2, receiving optical module (222) can be a spherical lens, a spherical lens group, a cylindrical lens group, or the like, where a spherical lens will have equal focal length in both a horizontal and vertical direction.).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as lenses which are uniform in two directions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Optics such as lenses are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems and incorporation of a spherical lens which does not have differing focal lengths in two perpendicular directions would have a predictable result of shaping the individual echo signals identically in multiple directions before they are incident upon a detector.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1) in view of Eichenholtz et al. (hereinafter Eichenholtz, US 20180284280 A1) and further in view of Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin, US 20190235057 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, but is silent on the format of the coarse angle control element.
Lin teaches a coarse angle control element includes a liquid crystal layer and a polarization grating ([0006], where it is known to combine a compact liquid crystal waveguide and a polarization grating to direct a beam in a ToF system).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Lin to utilize a coarse angle control element which includes both a liquid crystal layer and a polarization grating with a reasonable expectation of success. As noted by Lin, both liquid crystal layers and polarization gratings can be combined into a compact electrooptical beam director, and beam direction adjustments allow for increased scan angular ranges to increase field of views of laser scanners ([0042]). Therefore, integration of a beam director as taught by Lin into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of controlling and increasing a scan range of a laser scanner’s FOV.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singer et al. (US 20190094345 A1) teaches a laser scanner device which utilizes a vertical fanned beam which is scanned horizontally, and the number and size of beams are factors in the scan resolution and field of view.
Mimeault (US 20120287417 A1) teaches a system which is a multiple-field-of-view rangefinder which is scannerless, and discusses how detector dimensionality and optics affects angular resolution.
Bills et al. (US 20180062345A1) teaches an optical apparatus with an array of lasers, where spatial pitch and beam spread affect the angular resolution of the system.
Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1) teaches a LIDAR system which scans over a field of view, and identifies at least one region of interest where light allocation or other factors are modified for subsequent scans.
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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights