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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17, 20-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what Applicant mean by term “scanning direction”, is it instantaneous direction of the beam or it is associated with beam pattern(direction in where beam moves at next moment of time.) Or scanning direction is rotation direction of the rotor as beam is moving in that pattern. It looks like Applicant means orientation of the sensor device as scanning direction but it is not clearly described. Examiner interpreted as scanning direction beam pattern movement.
Limitation “herein each of the sensor ranges extends along a scanning direction, and the scanning directions being parallel to one another” is unclear.
Simple example is bellow
Two beams with cones , as one can see side of triangles are not parallel but one can say scanning directions are parallel as FOV’s are continuation each other. It is unclear what Applicant means by limitation.
Claims 18-23 and dependents rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Limitation “wherein all of the sensor devices are situated in the same axial region of the rotor” is unclear.
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) 15 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20180329061 A1.(as evidenced by Hall US 7969558 B2)
Regarding claim 15 D1 teaches
15. (New) A lidar assembly, comprising:
a rotor(600) situated so as to rotate about an axis of rotation(fig. 6A), the rotor having at least two sensor devices(608 and 609 are arrays as presented in fig. 10) which are physically separate from one another(fig. 8), each of the sensor devices having at least one laser and detector pair[0096](emitter sensor pairs fig. 8), and
each of the sensor devices being configured to acquire a separate sensor range of a gapless field of view area of the lidar assembly situated parallel to the axis of rotation(implicit fig. 8 three vertical sensors while rotating as shown in fig. 6a will obtain vertical FOV which is gapless(fig. 10) and parallel to rotation axis), (fig. 10)and
but does not explicitly teach the sensor devices being disposed at different angular circumferential positions along an outer circumference the rotor.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach placing the disposed at different angular circumferential positions along an outer circumference the rotor D1 Explicitly teaches rotor 600 and hence placing the sensors along an outer circumference the rotor is just simple matter of rearrangement of the parts as evidenced by Hall US 7969558 B2 it is well known in the art(fig. 5, 6).
16. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 15, wherein the sensor devices are situated at an offset in an axial direction.(implicit fig. 6 with fig. 8 and 10)
17. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 16, wherein each of the sensor ranges extends along a scanning direction, and the scanning directions being parallel to one another.(fig. 10 with fig. 6)
18. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 15, wherein all of the sensor devices are situated in the same axial region of the rotor.(fig. 8 with fig. 6)
19. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 18, wherein center points of all sensor devices are situated in a common plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.(fig. 8 and fig. 6)
26. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 15, wherein each sensor device has a multitude of laser and detector pairs, which are situated next to one another in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation.(fig. 8 and 10 with fig. 6)
27. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 26, wherein each laser and detector pair is configured to acquire a separate detector region of the sensor range.(fig. 8)
Claim(s) 24, 25, 28, 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Although D1 does not explicitly say
24. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 15, wherein the sensor devices are fastened on the rotor using a screw connection and/or with the aid of a snap-in connection.
It is two very well known methods of attaching different components and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 to use scre connection onrder to securely position the device on the rotation platform.
Although D1 does not explicitly say
25. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 15, wherein the sensor devices are evenly distributed about a circumference of the rotor.
This is just a matter of placement of the devices which is well know in the art (see for example US 7969558 B2)
And therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to scan simultaneously 360 degree with high point cloud refresh rate.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
28. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 15, further comprising:
a stator having an optics system.
Placing the system into the dome with window to protect electronics from the dust , moisture and dirt is well known in the art (evidenced by US 20190361092 A1 [0085]) and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to protect device from damaging elements.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
29. (New) The lidar assembly as recited in claim 28, wherein the optics system has a separate optics unit for each of the sensor devices.
Using separate lenses for each sensor and laser is also well known in the art (see for example US 7969558 B2) and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to provide focusing (on sensor) or spreading the beam on FOV.
Conclusion
Dependent claims which are not addressed in the rejection have clarity issues and depending on the Applicant clarification may require the additional search and consideration.
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