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 28 April 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 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 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dynamically adjust the first rotating reflector to a different vertical position relative to the second rotating reflector…based on a detected change of an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the issue of whether Campbell or Ain-Kedem addresses these limitations is not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Campbell, Ain-Kedem, and Park in the present Office Action.
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 and Park US 20230204731 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 to a different vertical position relative to the second rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on a detected change of 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 a change of 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])) Furthermore, Park teaches detecting a change of an orientation of a rotating mirror using an encoder ([0370]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of Campbell and Ain-Kedem would find it beneficial to know the current and changing orientation of the rotating polygon mirrors to choose which position the laser and mirror is aimed)
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 to a different vertical position relative to the second rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on a detected change of an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem and Park 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, and determining when it is beneficial to switch between the portions of the rotating polygon mirrors.
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 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 adjusting the FOV in a first direction relative to the second rotating reflector by actuating the first rotating reflector along a vertical direction using a first actuator based on a detected change of 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 a change of 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])) Furthermore, Park teaches detecting a change of an orientation of a rotating mirror using an encoder ([0370]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of Campbell and Ain-Kedem would find it beneficial to know the current and changing orientation of the rotating polygon mirrors to choose which position the laser and mirror is aimed)
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 adjusting the FOV in a first direction relative to the second rotating reflector by actuating the first rotating reflector along a vertical direction using a first actuator based on a detected change of an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem and Park 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, and determining when it is beneficial to switch between the portions of the rotating polygon mirrors.
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;
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 to a different vertical position relative to the second rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on a detected change of 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 a change of 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])) Furthermore, Park teaches detecting a change of an orientation of a rotating mirror using an encoder ([0370]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of Campbell and Ain-Kedem would find it beneficial to know the current and changing orientation of the rotating polygon mirrors to choose which position the laser and mirror is aimed)
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 to a different vertical position relative to the second rotating reflector along the vertical direction for adjusting the FOV in the first direction based on a detected change of an orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem and Park 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, and determining when it is beneficial to switch between the portions of the rotating polygon mirrors.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious the system of claim 5 or method of claim 13, specifically including: the detected change of orientation of the FMCW LIDAR system is based on a change of an orientation of a housing of the FMCW LIDAR system, in response to the change of the orientation of the housing of the FMCW LIDAR system, the actuator maintains the FOV in the first direction at the various vertical positions.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights