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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 08 December 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2021-0174813 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese US 20230184908 in view of Mudge US 11874478 B1 and Fu US 20200264283 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Verghese teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) apparatus comprising:
a transmitter including a transmission optical module that emits laser light toward a detection target (light source 106 is a laser and transmitter 108 in Fig. 1, [0078-81]), and a transmitter lens through which the laser light emitted from the transmission optical module is transmitted (lens 224, Fig. 2, [0101]); and
a receiver configured to receive laser light reflected back from the detection target (110 in Fig. 1, receiver 210 in Fig. 2, [0082-85, 100]),
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the transmitter lens includes a transmitter glass, and a transmitter absorbing coating layer that is formed of an absorbent material, which absorbs energy of the laser light, and with which one surface of the transmitter glass is coated.
Fu teaches bandpass filter for light transmission (Figs. 7-8, [0044-45, 50])
Mudge teaches glass lenses (Col. 4 lns. 8-10) and coating lenses with filter coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
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 Verghese such that the transmitter lens includes a transmitter glass, and a transmitter absorbing coating layer that is formed of an absorbent material, which absorbs energy of the laser light, and with which one surface of the transmitter glass is coated similar to Fu and Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring only desired wavelengths are transmitted.
Regarding claim 2, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the transmitter absorbing coating layer is disposed adjacent to one surface of the transmitter glass facing the transmission optical module.
Verghese and Mudge do not specify which surface of a lens to coat, but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either surface would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one surface or the other would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that the transmitter absorbing coating layer is disposed adjacent to one surface of the transmitter glass facing the transmission optical module similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 3, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of the transmitter absorbing coating layer in a traveling direction of the laser light is identical to or larger than a transmission area of the laser light (the beam traveling through 208 is smaller than the size of the coated lens 224 in Fig. 2B, [0078-81]; as coated by Mudge above).
Regarding claim 4, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 3, wherein a central part of the transmitter absorbing coating layer is positioned on an imaginary line that connects a starting point of the laser light to a central part of the transmitter glass (center portion of 224 (as coated by Mudge) is in the center of the path of the beam from the emitter in transmitter 208 in Fig. 2B, [0078-81]).
Regarding claim 5, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 3, wherein a cross-sectional area of the transmitter absorbing coating layer is larger than a transmission area of the laser light by 10% or more (the beam traveling through 208 is smaller than the size of the coated lens 224 in Fig. 2B, [0078-81]; as coated by Mudge above).
Regarding claim 6, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein the receiver includes a bandpass filter (bandpass filter, [0113], positioned before, after, or on lens, [0115]).
Verghese does not explicitly teach the bandpass filter is formed of an absorbent material that absorbs energy of the laser light.
Mudge teaches absorptive filters (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
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 Verghese such that the bandpass filter is formed of an absorbent material that absorbs energy of the laser light similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths and decreasing reflections into the environment or housing of the detector.
Regarding claim 7, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 6,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein a wavelength of the laser light is 900nm to 910nm, and an absorption wavelength band of the transmitter absorbing coating layer is 850nm or more.
Fu teaches a 905 nm laser ([0050]) and bandpass filter prevents other lights with different wavebands from the laser of passing through ([0044-45, 50]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would include at least some wavelengths greater than 850nm; examiner notes that this is changing the wavelength band of Verghese which could be done to use lower cost components).
Mudge teaches coating lenses with bandpass filter and absorptive coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
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 Verghese such that a wavelength of the laser light is 900nm to 910nm, and an absorption wavelength band of the transmitter absorbing coating layer is 850nm or more similar to Fu and Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring only desired wavelengths are transmitted.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese US 20230184908 in view of Mudge US 11874478 B1 and Fu US 20200264283 A1, and further in view of Hyperphysics (“Multi-Layer Anti-Reflection Coatings”, 2018).
Regarding claim 8, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver includes a receiver glass, and an anti-reflecting (AR) coating layer that is disposed on both sides of the receiver glass and composed of a plurality of layers having a refractive index that is greater than 1 and smaller than a refractive index of the receiver glass.
Mudge teaches glass lenses (Col. 4 lns. 8-10) and coating lenses with filter coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
Additionally, Hyperphysics teaches multiple AR coating layers with indices of refraction greater than 1 and less than that of the glass (Multi-Layer Anti-Reflection Coatings, see 2 layer coating; )
Verghese and Mudge do not specify which surface of a lens to coat, but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either or both surfaces would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one or both surfaces would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that the receiver includes a receiver glass, and an anti-reflecting (AR) coating layer that is disposed on both sides of the receiver glass and composed of a plurality of layers having a refractive index that is greater than 1 and smaller than a refractive index of the receiver glass similar to Mudge and Hyperphysics with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the signal passing through the lens by decreasing unwanted reflections.
Regarding claim 9, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 8,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein a wavelength of the laser light is 900nm to 910nm, and an absorption wavelength band of the transmitter absorbing coating layer is smaller than 850nm.
Fu teaches a 905 nm laser ([0050]) and bandpass filter prevents other lights with different wavebands from the laser of passing through ([0044-45, 50]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would include at least some wavelengths greater than 850nm; examiner notes that this is changing the wavelength band of Verghese which could be done to use lower cost components).
Mudge teaches coating lenses with bandpass filter and absorptive coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
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 Verghese such that a wavelength of the laser light is 900nm to 910nm, and an absorption wavelength band of the transmitter absorbing coating layer is 850nm or more similar to Fu and Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring only desired wavelengths are transmitted.
Claims 10-11, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese US 20230184908 in view of Mudge US 11874478 B1.
Regarding claim 10, Verghese teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) apparatus comprising:
a transmitter configured to emit laser light toward a detection target (light source 106 is a laser and transmitter 108 in Fig. 1, [0078-81]); and
a receiver (110 in Fig. 1, receiver 210 in Fig. 2, [0082-85, 100]) including a receiver lens through which laser light reflected back from the detection target is transmitted (lens, [0083-85]), and a reception optical module configured to receive the laser light passing through the receiver lens (detectors of receiver, [0083-85]),
wherein the receiver lens includes a receiver glass, and
a receiver absorbing layer that is formed of an absorbent material, which absorbs energy of the laser light (absorptive filter, [0117], incorporated into receiver lens, [0120]).
Verghese does not explicitly teach the receiver lens includes a receiver glass and one surface of the receiver glass facing the detection target is coated with the receiver absorbing coating layer.
Mudge teaches glass lenses (Col. 4 lns. 8-10) and coating lenses with filter coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
Additionally, Verghese and Mudge do not specify which surface of a lens to coat, but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either surface would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one surface or the other would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that the receiver lens includes a receiver glass and one surface of the receiver glass facing the detection target is coated with the receiver absorbing coating layer similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 11, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 10,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver absorbing coating layer is disposed adjacent to one surface of the receiver glass facing the detection target.
However, based on the disclosures of Verghese (absorptive filter, [0117], incorporated into receiver lens, [0120]) and Mudge (absorption coating, Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either surface would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one surface or the other would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that the receiver absorbing coating layer is disposed adjacent to one surface of the receiver glass facing the detection target similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 15, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 10,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein a bandpass filter that is formed of an absorbent material that absorbs energy of the laser light, and transmits only light waves within a preset wavelength range is disposed on one surface of the receiver glass facing the reception optical module.
Mudge teaches coating lenses with bandpass filter and absorptive coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
Additionally, Verghese and Mudge do not specify which surface of a lens to coat, but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either surface would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one surface or the other would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that a bandpass filter that is formed of an absorbent material that absorbs energy of the laser light, and transmits only light waves within a preset wavelength range is disposed on one surface of the receiver glass facing the reception optical module similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 16, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 10, wherein the receiver includes a bandpass filter that is disposed on one side of the receiver facing the detection target and transmits only light waves within a preset wavelength range (bandpass filter, [0113], positioned before, after, or on lens, [0115]).
Verghese does not explicitly teach the bandpass filter is formed of an absorbent material that absorbs energy of the laser light.
Mudge teaches coating lenses with bandpass filter and absorptive coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
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 Verghese such that the bandpass filter is formed of an absorbent material that absorbs energy of the laser light similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths and decreasing reflections into the environment or housing of the detector.
Regarding claim 18, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 16, wherein a cross-sectional area of the bandpass filter in a traveling direction of the laser light is identical to or larger than a transmission area of the laser light (Verghese shows filters (400 in Fig. 4, 500 in Fig. 5, 600 in Fig. 6) the size of or larger than the receiver lens 238 and the transmit beam with a cross-sectional area much smaller than the receiver lens (see transmit lens 224 in Fig. 2C) such that the area of the bandpass filter is larger than the transmission area of the laser light, [00078-81,113-115]).
Regarding claim 19, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 18, wherein the bandpass filter has a central part positioned on an imaginary line that connects the detection target to a central part of the receiver glass (lens 238 is facing the environment and targets in Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 20, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 18, wherein a cross-sectional area of the receiver absorbing coating layer is larger than a transmission area of the laser light by 10% or more (Verghese shows the transmit beam with a cross-sectional area much smaller than the receiver lens (see transmit lens 224 in Fig. 2C) such that the area of lens coating layer is at least 10% larger than the transmission area of the laser light, [00078-81,113-115]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese US 20230184908 in view of Mudge US 11874478 B1 and further in view of Hyperphysics (“Multi-Layer Anti-Reflection Coatings”, 2018).
Regarding claim 12, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 10,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein an anti-reflecting (AR) coating layer composed of a plurality of layers having a refractive index that is greater than 1 and smaller than a refractive index of the receiver glass is disposed on one side of the receiver lens.
Mudge teaches coating lenses with AR coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
Additionally, Hyperphysics teaches multiple AR coating layers with indices of refraction greater than 1 and less than that of the glass (Multi-Layer Anti-Reflection Coatings, see 2 layer coating; )
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 Verghese such that an anti-reflecting (AR) coating layer composed of a plurality of layers having a refractive index that is greater than 1 and smaller than a refractive index of the receiver glass is disposed on one side of the receiver lens similar to Mudge and Hyperphysics with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the signal passing through the lens by decreasing unwanted reflections.
Regarding claim 13, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 12,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the AR coating layer is disposed on one surface of the receiver absorbing coating layer facing the detection target.
Mudge teaches coating lenses with AR and other coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
Additionally, Mudge do not specify which surface of a lens to coat, but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either surface would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one surface or the other would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that the AR coating layer is disposed on one surface of the receiver absorbing coating layer facing the detection target similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 14, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 12,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the AR coating layer is disposed on one surface of the receiver glass facing the reception optical module.
Mudge teaches coating lenses with AR and other coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
Additionally, Mudge do not specify which surface of a lens to coat, but one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only two possible surfaces and coating either surface would be a simple rearrangement of parts. Coating one surface or the other would not produce any unexpected results and is an obvious matter of design choice (See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7, MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.)
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 Verghese such that the AR coating layer is disposed on one surface of the receiver glass facing the reception optical module similar to Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese US 20230184908 in view of Mudge US 11874478 B1 and further in view of Fu US 20200264283 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Verghese as modified above teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 16,
Verghese does not explicitly teach wherein the preset wavelength range is 200 nm or more and 1,200 nm or less.
Fu teaches a 905 nm laser ([0050]) and bandpass filter prevents other lights with different wavebands from the laser of passing through ([0044-45, 50]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would include at least some wavelengths greater than 850nm; examiner notes that this is changing the wavelength band of Verghese which could be done to use lower cost components).
Mudge teaches coating lenses with bandpass filter and absorptive coatings (Col. 12 ln. 62 – Col. 13 ln. 26, claim 6).
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 Verghese such that the preset wavelength range is 200 nm or more and 1,200 nm or less similar to Fu and Mudge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing noise by limiting what light passes through the lens to the detector to only desired wavelengths and decreasing reflections into the environment or housing of the detector.
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