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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 3 March 2026.
No claims were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Campbell does not teach or suggest any adjustable field of view (FOV)” (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 7-9): Examiner notes that “to adjust the FOV in a first direction” is a statement of intended use and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the extent to which Campbell’s 262 in Fig. 3B rotates would clearly be capable of adjusting the FOV in a first (y or vertical) direction, ([0103-110]). Additionally, according to Applicant’s citation (HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FIELD_OF_VIEW; Examiner has provided a version of the Wikipedia article from 2018 as NPL, however the relevant definition is identical in meaning to the current version), “The field of view (FOV) is the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment. In the case of optical instruments or sensors, it is a solid angle through which a detector is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation.” Campbell clearly shows a field of view that is an angular extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment in Fig. 7 ([0130-133]). Notably, Applicant does not claim a total field of view. However, Campbell does discuss the ability to scan multiple fields of regard (similar to Applicant’s FOV) with different scan patterns with different dimensions ([0119]) which would necessitate the scanning mirrors adjusting their range. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Ain-Kedem does not teach or suggest “an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction” (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 9-11): Examiner notes that “to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system” is a statement of intended use and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, Ain-Kedem’s motor adjusting the translate shaft 1404 in Figs. 14-17, [0035, 44, 57-62] would clearly be capable of adjusting a field of view. Additionally, the use of Ain-Kedem’s motor clearly provides a different field of view than would be available without it (e.g. if only scanning a single of the stacked polygons instead of both, [0091]), and this adjustment is dependent on an orientation of the LIDAR system (an orientation of the polygons is an orientation of the system). Furthermore, Applicant argues that Ain-Kedem does not teach adjusting the first rotating reflector (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 9-10). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, Campbell already teaches a rotating reflector (e.g. 262 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide additional adjustments to Campbell’s mirror 262 in order to further adjust a FOV similar to Ain-Kedem. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Ain-Kedem US 20200064623 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0076-77]), comprising:
an optical source to transmit an optical beam toward a target via a first rotating reflector and a second rotating reflector to form a field of view (FOV) (light source 250, scan mirrors 262, and polygon mirror 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
the first rotating reflector adjustable along a vertical direction to adjust the FOV in a first direction (262 adjusts y-axis in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
the second rotating reflector to provide for the FOV in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (270 adjust x-axis in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
an optical receiver adapted to receive at least a returned portion of the optical beam transmitted toward the target (receivers shown in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system;
Ain-Kedem teaches an actuator adjusting a mirror vertically to dynamically adjust the FOV in the vertical direction (separator motor which can cyclically translate shaft 1404, Figs. 14-17, [0035, 44, 57-62]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system” is very broad and can be interpreted as positions of various elements of the system. In this case, changing the field of view based on position of the polygon mirrors (e.g. [0061]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 2, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1, the FMCW LIDAR system further comprises a second actuator (motor for polygon mirror 270 in Fig. 3B, [0098, 103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the second rotating reflector is adjustable to adjust the FOV in the second direction.
Ain-Kedem teaches rotations of polygon mirror stacks which would change FOV (702 and 704 in Figs. 14-17, and can have different numbers of facets which would change the FOV, [0035, 44, 57-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the second rotating reflector is adjustable to adjust the FOV in the second direction similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the first rotating reflector comprises a galvo mirror (262 in Fig. 3B, [0098]) and the second rotating reflector comprises a polygon mirror (270 in Fig. 3B, [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein the actuator is to secure the first rotating reflector at various vertical positions relative to the second rotating reflector (separator 1402 positioned at different positions in Figs. 14-15 and 16-17, [0057-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the actuator is to secure the first rotating reflector at various vertical positions relative to the second rotating reflector similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 5, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 4,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein, in response to a change of the orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system, the actuator maintains the FOV in the first direction at the various vertical positions (separator 1402 positioned at different positions in Figs. 14-15 and 16-17 based on rotation of polygon mirrors, [0057-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that in response to a change of the orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system, the actuator maintains the FOV in the first direction at the various vertical positions similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 6, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to a ground and the second direction is parallel to the ground (Figs. 7-8; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vertical direction in Figs. 3B, 7, and 8 are the same and perpendicular to the ground while the second direction is perpendicular to the vertical and therefore parallel to the ground).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein the actuator comprises a guide along which the first rotating reflector is affixed at different positions during adjustment (separator shaft 1404 acts as a guide in Figs. 14-15 and 16-17, [0057-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the actuator comprises a guide along which the first rotating reflector is affixed at different positions during adjustment similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 8, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 7,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator further comprises one or more reference spacers corresponding to one or more vertical projection angles of the orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system to allow for accurate positioning of the first rotating reflector (polygon mirrors 702 and 705 in Figs. 14-15 and 16-17 effectively act as reference spacers, [0057-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include one or more reference spacers corresponding to one or more vertical projection angles of the orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system to allow for accurate positioning of the first rotating reflector similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 9, Campbell teaches a method of changing vertical projection and detection angles of a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0076-77]), the method comprising:
transmitting an optical beam toward a target;
forming a field of view (FOV) using the optical beam via a first rotating reflector and a second rotating reflector (light source 250, scan mirrors 262, and polygon mirror 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
adjusting the FOV in a first direction in a first direction (262 adjusts y-axis in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
providing the FOV via the second rotating reflector in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (270 adjust x-axis in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
receiving, by an optical receiver, a returned portion of the optical beam (receivers shown in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach actuating the first rotating reflector along a vertical direction using a first actuator based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system
Campbell does not explicitly teach an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system;
Ain-Kedem teaches an actuator adjusting a mirror vertically to dynamically adjust the FOV in the vertical direction (separator motor which can cyclically translate shaft 1404, Figs. 14-17, [0035, 44, 57-62]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system” is very broad and can be interpreted as positions of various elements of the system. In this case, changing the field of view based on position of the polygon mirrors (e.g. [0061]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 17, Campbell teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0076-78]), comprising:
a laser diode for transmitting an optical beam toward a target via one or more optics comprising a first rotating reflector and a second rotating reflector to form a field of view (FOV) (laser diode, [0078]; light source 250, scan mirrors 262, and polygon mirror 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]),
wherein the first rotating reflector is adjustable along a vertical direction to adjust the FOV in a first direction (262 adjusts y-axis in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), and
wherein the second rotating reflector provides for the FOV in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (270 adjust x-axis in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
an optical receiver adapted to receive at least a returned portion of the optical beam transmitted toward the target(receivers shown in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector or the second rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the LIDAR system;
Ain-Kedem teaches an actuator adjusting a mirror vertically to dynamically adjust the FOV in the vertical direction (separator motor which can cyclically translate shaft 1404, Figs. 14-17, [0035, 44, 57-62]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “based on an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system” is very broad and can be interpreted as positions of various elements of the system. In this case, changing the field of view based on position of the polygon mirrors (e.g. [0061]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include an actuator operatively coupled to the first rotating reflector or the second rotating reflector to dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on an orientation of the LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the field of view depending on the desired field of view and/or refresh rate.
Regarding claim 18, Campbell as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 17, wherein the actuator is controlled by a controller receiving feedback regarding the orientation of the LIDAR system (controller 150 varies power based on current orientation of beam and/or mirrors, Figs. 9-10, [0067, 122]).
Regarding claim 19, see rejection to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection to claim 4 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645