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 .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses Applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 27 April 2026.
Claims 1 and 13 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 Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 April 2026 with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0247498 A1) in view of Greiner et al. (US 2019/0196015 A1) and Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shi teaches a radar ([Abstract] a laser measurement system and a laser radar), comprising:
a light source, configured to emit a ray for detection([0010] the emergent light beam of each laser ranging component is sent only to a reflector corresponding to the laser ranging component. Similarly, an echo light beam received by a reflector from the MEMS micromirror is also sent only to a laser ranging component corresponding to the reflector);
a second beam diffraction element, configured to converge the at least two first beams to a position ([0109] An emergent light beam 104a in the laser ranging component 100a is emitted onto the reflector 110. The reflector 110 performs optical path reflecting, and emits the reflected light beam onto the MEMS micromirror 120… a light beam 140b generated by the laser ranging component 100b is emitted onto the MEMS micromirror 120, and a light beam 140c generated by the laser ranging component 100c is emitted onto the MEMS micromirror 120);
a reflection assembly, comprising a reflector configured to reflect the at least two first beams converged to the position to a detection area ([0109] The emergent light beam 104a whose direction is adjusted by the MEMS micromirror 120 hits a target object. An echo light beam 105a of the emergent light beam 104a returns along an original path, and is received by the detector 103a after passing through the MEMS micromirror 12), and a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing ([0109] the MEMES micromirror 120 implements scanning of the light beam 140a through two-dimensional swinging)
Shi is not relied upon as teaching a first beam diffraction element, configured to diffract the ray into at least two first beams; that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least wo first beams partially overlap; and a detector, configured to receive at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area, wherein a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams.
However, Greiner teaches a first beam diffraction element, configured to diffract the ray into at least two first beams and a detector, configured to receive at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area ([0034] beam replication unit 105 may be developed as a diffractive optical element… Laser beam 103-1 strikes beam replication unit 105 and is replicated to form replicated beams 103-2); and a ([0034] Replicated beams 103-2 may be reflected by the object. LIDAR device 100 furthermore has receiver unit 104… able to receive laser light reflected by the object).
Shi and Greiner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIDAR device of Shi to include the first beam diffractive element and detector of Greiner with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase efficiency. By integrating Greiner’s teaching of a beam replication unit (diffractive optical element) to split a single ray into multiple beams into Shi’s multi-component scanning framework, the system can use a single light source. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a diffractive element to generate multiple beams into a system already configured for wide-angle MEMS scanning and beam convergence would yield the predictable result of simplification of the design via reduction of light sources.
Greiner is not relied upon as teaching that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap and that a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams.
However, Donovan teaches that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap and that a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams ([0036] The LIDAR system FOV 200 shown in FIG. 2A is generated by a 4×4 (16) laser array. The divergence/collimation of the laser has been chosen so that there is only enough overlap of each of the optical beams such that there are no “gaps” in the field-of-view. That is, the circles 202 overlap and form a 4×4 array. An array of detectors provides an array of square FOV's with a particular size, represented by 256 squares 204. The individual detector region represented by square 204 is sometimes referred to as a pixel. It can be seen that there are 16×16 (256) detectors with practically continuous coverage across the array).
Shi, Greiner, and Donovan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field LIDAR optical beam transmission and reception systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Greiner and Donovan with Shi to achieve the benefit of beam replication and expanded field-of-view coverage, and both utilize detector arrays configured to receive multiple beams reflected back from an optical element. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase efficiency by integrating elements and enabling a single light source to support multi-component sensing through beam splitting. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating Donovan’s overlapping selection areas and array based detection region would yield the predictable result of multiplication of the design’s field and continuous coverage across the detector array.
Regarding Claim 2, Shi teaches that the first beam diffraction element is configured to diffract the ray into an odd quantity of the at least two first beams ([0109] an example in which a quantity N of laser ranging components included in the laser radar is 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Shi teaches that the second beam diffraction element converges the at least two first beams to the position, and incident angles of the at least two first beams are different (Fig. 4 Examiner Note: 102a/b/c hit 110 at different incident angles which is what causes 140a/b/c to be at different angles after reflection from the point at 120).
Regarding Claim 5, Shi teaches that the position is a reflective surface of the reflector ([0109] An emergent light beam 104a in the laser ranging component 100a is emitted onto the reflector 110. The reflector 110 performs optical path reflecting, and emits the reflected light beam onto the MEMS micromirror 120… a light beam 140b generated by the laser ranging component 100b is emitted onto the MEMS micromirror 120, and a light beam 140c generated by the laser ranging component 100c is emitted onto the MEMS micromirror 120).
Regarding Claim 12, Shi teaches that the radar further comprises a collimation structure, wherein the collimation structure is configured to collimate the ray emitted by the light source to the first beam diffraction element. ([0206] 100a mainly includes a laser 101a, a spectroscope 102a, a detector 103a, another necessary optical element… for example, a collimation lens).
Regarding Claim 13, A vehicle, comprising an information processor and a radar ([0003] an MEMS laser radar features high integration, small size, and low power consumption, and can [b]e integrated into a vehicle body to greatly improve an appearance of an unmanned vehicle), the radar is connected to the information processor ([0039] The multi-thread micromirror laser radar includes the laser measurement module according to any one of the first aspect and a data processing circuit, Both the N laser ranging components and the MEMS micromirror are connected to the data processing circuit);
wherein the radar ([Abstract] a laser measurement system and a laser radar) comprises:
a light source, configured to emit a ray for detection ([0010] the emergent light beam of each laser ranging component is sent only to a reflector corresponding to the laser ranging component. Similarly, an echo light beam received by a reflector from the MEMS micromirror is also sent only to a laser ranging component corresponding to the reflector);
a second beam diffraction element, configured to converge the at least two first beams to a position ([0010] the emergent light beam of each laser ranging component is sent only to a reflector corresponding to the laser ranging component. Similarly, an echo light beam received by a reflector from the MEMS micromirror is also sent only to a laser ranging component corresponding to the reflector);
a reflection assembly, comprising a reflector configured to reflect the at least two first beams converged to the position to a detection area ([0109] The emergent light beam 104a whose direction is adjusted by the MEMS micromirror 120 hits a target object. An echo light beam 105a of the emergent light beam 104a returns along an original path, and is received by the detector 103a after passing through the MEMS micromirror 12), and a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing ([0109] the MEMES micromirror 120 implements scanning of the light beam 140a through two-dimensional swinging); and
Shi is not relied upon as teaching a first beam diffraction element, configured to diffract the ray into at least two first beams; that detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two beams partially overlap, and a detector, configured to receive at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area, wherein a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two beams.
However, Greiner teaches a vehicle ([0024] Particularly in a highly automated vehicle, a described LIDAR device may be advantageous for the highly automated driving functions);
a first beam diffraction element, configured to diffract the ray into at least two first beams ([0034] beam replication unit 105 may be developed as a diffractive optical element… Laser beam 103-1 strikes beam replication unit 105 and is replicated to form replicated beams 103-2); and
a detector, configured to receive at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area ([0034] Replicated beams 103-2 may be reflected by the object. LIDAR device 100 furthermore has receiver unit 104… able to receive laser light reflected by the object).
Shi and Greiner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIDAR device of Shi to include first beam diffractive element and detector of Greiner with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase efficiency. By integrating Greiner’s teaching of a beam replication unit (diffractive optical element) to split a single ray into multiple beams into Shi’s multi-component scanning framework, the system can use a single light source. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a diffractive element to generate multiple beams into a system already configured for wide-angle MEMS scanning and beam convergence would yield the predictable result of simplification of the design via reduction of light sources.
Greiner is not relied upon as teaching that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap and that a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams.
However, Donovan teaches that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap and that a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams ([0036] The LIDAR system FOV 200 shown in FIG. 2A is generated by a 4×4 (16) laser array. The divergence/collimation of the laser has been chosen so that there is only enough overlap of each of the optical beams such that there are no “gaps” in the field-of-view. That is, the circles 202 overlap and form a 4×4 array. An array of detectors provides an array of square FOV's with a particular size, represented by 256 squares 204. The individual detector region represented by square 204 is sometimes referred to as a pixel. It can be seen that there are 16×16 (256) detectors with practically continuous coverage across the array).
Shi, Greiner, and Donovan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field LIDAR optical beam transmission and reception systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Greiner and Donovan with Shi to achieve the benefit of beam replication and expanded field-of-view coverage, and both utilize detector arrays configured to receive multiple beams reflected back from an optical element. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase efficiency by integrating elements and enabling a single light source to support multi-component sensing through beam splitting. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating Donovan’s overlapping selection areas and array based detection region would yield the predictable result of multiplication of the design’s field and continuous coverage across the detector array.
Regarding Claim 14, Shi teaches that the first beam diffraction element is configured to diffract the ray into an odd quantity of the at least two first beams ([0109] an example in which a quantity N of laser ranging components included in the laser radar is 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Shi teaches that the second beam diffraction element converges the at least two first beams to the position, and incident angles of the at least two first beams are different (Fig. 4 Examiner Note: 102a/b/c hit 110 at different incident angles which is what causes 140a/b/c to be at different angles after reflection from the point at 120).
Regarding Claim 17, Shi teaches that the position is a reflective surface of the reflector ([0109] An emergent light beam 104a in the laser ranging component 100a is emitted onto the reflector 110. The reflector 110 performs optical path reflecting, and emits the reflected light beam onto the MEMS micromirror 120… a light beam 140b generated by the laser ranging component 100b is emitted onto the MEMS micromirror 120, and a light beam 140c generated by the laser ranging component 100c is emitted onto the MEMS micromirror 120).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0247498 A1), Greiner et al. (US 2019/0196015 A1), and Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1) in further view of Smith et al. (US 2024/0094357 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Shi is not relied upon as teaching that the first beam diffraction element is a beam splitter, and the second beam diffraction element is a beam combiner.
However, Smith teaches that the first beam diffraction element is a beam splitter, and the second beam diffraction element is a beam combiner ([0072] lidar system 100 may include one or more lenses, mirrors, optical filters (e.g., band-pass or interference filters), beam-splitters, optical splitters, polarizers, polarizing beam-splitters, wave plates (e.g., half-wave or quarter-wave plates), diffractive elements, holographic elements, isolators, couplers, detectors, beam combiners, or collimators).
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LIDAR device of Shi to include the first beam diffraction element and detector of Greiner, and to further implement the specific beam splitter and beam combiner configurations as taught by Smith with a reasonable expectation of success. All three systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection and utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase data acquisition rates and improve optical efficiency through parallelized detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a diffractive element and beam splitter to generate multiple beams into Shi’s scanning framework would yield the predictable result of optimized beam steering.
Claims 6-8, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0247498 A1), Greiner et al. (US 2019/0196015 A1), and Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1) in further view of Orloff (US 3915572).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Shi teaches that the reflector is further configured to reflect the at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area ([0109] An echo light beam 105a of the emergent light beam 104a returns along an original path, and is received by the detector 103a after passing through the MEMS micromirror 120, the reflector 110, and the spectroscope 102a. The three groups of laser ranging components 100a, 100b, and 100c have a same structure, and emit laser light beams in a time division manner. The data processing circuit 130 is configured for control and data processing of then groups of laser ranging components 100a, 100b, and 100c and the MEMS micromirror 120);
Shi does not teach that the radar further comprises a split-beam reflection diaphragm, and the split-beam reflection diaphragm is located in an optical path between the second beam diffraction element and the reflection assembly; and the split-beam reflection diaphragm is configured to transmit the at least two first beams converged by the second beam diffraction element, and reflect the at least two second beams reflected back by the reflector; and the detector is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split- beam reflection diaphragm.
However, Orloff teaches that the radar further comprises a split-beam reflection diaphragm, and the split-beam reflection diaphragm is located in an optical path between the second beam diffraction element and the reflection assembly ([Col. 4, ll. 6-9] such beams pass through suitable transmission apertures within a mirror 18 for focusing by a lens system represented schematically by convex lens 19 to a point at 21); and
the split-beam reflection diaphragm is configured to transmit the at least two first beams converged by the second beam diffraction element, and reflect the at least two second beams reflected back by the reflector ([Col. 4, ll. 23-30] That is, the portion of such light which is scattered rearwardly from a moving particle is gathered by lens 19 and is directed as parallel wavefronts onto mirror 18. Mirror 18 is oriented with respect to such light to reflect the same through a collecting lens system, represented schematically by the convex lens 22 for focusing onto means 23 for measuring the modulation frequency and obtaining the desired measurement); and
the detector is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split- beam reflection diaphragm ([Col. 6, ll. 45-48] the means 23 for analyzing the scattered radiation to provide a measurement of such velocity component is designed to take advantage of the two distinguishable Doppler shifted beams).
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radar device of Shi to include the split-beam reflection diaphragm and detector of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase efficiency and optimize optical signal separation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a diaphragm located in the optical path between the diffraction element and the reflection assembly to separate incoming and outgoing signals into a system already configured for MEMS scanning and multi-beam ranging would yield the predictable result of more compact optical routing.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Shi is not relied upon as teaching that the split-beam reflection diaphragm comprises: a body, wherein a light transmission structure configured to transmit the at least two first beams is disposed on the body; and a reflection layer, wherein the reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the reflector, and avoids the light transmission structure; and the reflection layer is configured to reflect the at least two second beams.
However, Orloff teaches that the split-beam reflection diaphragm comprises:
a body, wherein a light transmission structure configured to transmit the at least two first beams is disposed on the body ([Col. 4, ll. 6-7] such beams pass through suitable transmission apertures within a mirror 18); and
a reflection layer, wherein the reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the reflector, and avoids the light transmission structure; and the reflection layer is configured to reflect the at least two second beams ([Col. 4, ll. 23-30, and Fig. 1] That is, the portion of such light which is scattered rearwardly from a moving particle is gathered by lens 19 and is directed as parallel wavefronts onto mirror 18. Mirror 18 is oriented with respect to such light to reflect the same through a collecting lens system, represented schematically by the convex lens 22 for focusing onto means 23 for measuring the modulation frequency and obtaining the desired measurement).
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radar device of Shi to include the split-beam reflection diaphragm and detector of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to optimize signal separation and structural integrity of the optical path. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of a split-beam reflection diaphragm comprising a body with a light transmission structure and a reflection layer into Shi’s multi-component scanning framework, the system can effectively transmit outgoing beams through specific apertures while ensuring returned beams are reflected by a dedicated layer toward a detector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a diaphragm with a reflection layer disposed on a side close to the reflector while avoiding the transmission structure into a system already configured for MEMS scanning and multi-beam ranging would yield the predictable result of reducing optical interference and improving the precision of echo light collection.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Shi is not relied upon as teaching that the light transmission structure is a through hole disposed on the body; or the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body.
However, Orloff teaches that that the light transmission structure is a through hole disposed on the body ([Col. 4, ll. 6-7] such beams pass through suitable transmission apertures within a mirror 18); or
the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body.
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radar device of Shi to include the split-beam reflection diaphragm and detector of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to simplify manufacturing and ensure precise beam alignment. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of a light transmission structure that is a through hole (transmission aperture) disposed on the body of a mirror into Shi’s multi-component scanning framework, the system provides a clear, unobstructed path for outgoing laser beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a through hole disposed on the body to serve as a transmission structure into a system already configured for MEMS scanning and multi-beam ranging would yield the predictable result of minimizing signal loss and distortion during the initial beam emission phase.
Regarding Claim 11, Shi is not relied upon as teaching that the radar further comprises a receiving lens, wherein the receiving lens is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split-beam reflection diaphragm, and converge the at least two second beams to the detector.
However, Orloff teaches that the radar further comprises a receiving lens, wherein the receiving lens is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split-beam reflection diaphragm, and converge the at least two second beams to the detector ([Col. 4, ll. 25-29] is directed as parallel wavefronts onto mirror 18. Mirror 18 is oriented with respect to such light to reflect the same through a collecting lens system, represented schematically by the convex lens 22 for focusing onto means 23 for measuring).
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radar device of Shi to include the split-beam reflection diaphragm and detector of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve detection sensitivity and signal focus. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of a receiving lens (collecting lens system) configured to receive and converge reflected beams to a detector into Shi’s multi-component scanning framework, the system can more efficiently capture scattered radiation for measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a receiving lens configured to receive beams reflected by the split-beam reflection diaphragm into a system already configured for MEMS scanning and multi-beam ranging would yield the predictable result of optimizing the light intensity reaching the detector, thereby enhancing the accuracy of the desired measurements.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0247498 A1), Greiner et al. (US 2019/0196015 A1), Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1) and Orloff (US 3915572) in even further view of Nankano (US 2021/0354700 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Shi is not relied upon as teaching that when the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body, an anti-reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the light transmission area and that is close to the second beam diffraction element.
However, Nankano teaches that when the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body, an anti-reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the light transmission area and that is close to the second beam diffraction element ([0033] The transmissive region 2121 may be provided with an antireflection film).
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, Orloff, and Nankano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radar device of Shi (as modified by Greiner and Orloff) to further include the anti-reflection layer of Nankano with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maximize light transmission and minimize stray reflections. By integrating Nankano’s teaching of an anti-reflection layer disposed on a light transmission area into the previously modified scanning framework, the system can ensure that the emergent beams pass through the transmission structure with minimal loss. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating an anti-reflection layer on a side closer to the second beam diffraction element into a system already configured for multi-beam scanning and signal separation would yield the predictable result of improving the overall optical efficiency and signal integrity of the LIDAR system by reducing unwanted back-reflections.
Regarding Claim 10, Shi is not relied upon as teaching that the split-beam reflection diaphragm further comprises a light absorption layer, the light absorption layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the second beam diffraction element, and the light absorption layer avoids the light transmission structure.
However, Nankano teaches that the split-beam reflection diaphragm further comprises a light absorption layer, the light absorption layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the second beam diffraction element, and the light absorption layer avoids the light transmission structure It is desirable that the bottom portion (bottom layer) of the reflection film is provided with an absorption layer for absorbing the light from the inside of the branching optical element ([0033] It is desirable that the bottom portion (bottom layer) of the reflection film is provided with an absorption layer for absorbing the light from the inside of the branching optical element 21).
Shi, Greiner, Donovan, Orloff, and Nankano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR and optical beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radar device of Shi (as modified by Greiner and Orloff) to further include the alight absorption layer of Nankano with a reasonable expectation of success. Both systems are designed for the transmission and reception of laser signals for object detection, and both utilize optical components to manipulate light paths. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to suppress stray light and reduce optical noise. By integrating Nankano’s teaching of light absorption layer disposed on a side of the body close to the second beam diffraction element while avoiding the light transmission structure, the system can effectively capture unwanted internal reflections. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating light absorption layer (absorption layer for absorbing light from the inside of the branching optical element) into a system already configured for multi-beam scanning and signal separation would yield the predictable result of enhancing signal-to-noise ratio.
Conclusion
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 EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights