DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed April 13, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding the Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the 35 UC 112(b) rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 17, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of amendment of the claims. The 35 UC 112(b) rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 17, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 UC 102 rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-20, 22, and 23
have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, the clause “wherein an axis of the multi-sided scanner is positioned such that a vertex of the multi-sided scanner is immediately adjacent to a window when the multi-sided scanner is in at least one of the plurality of rotational positions” in amended claim 1, is not disclosed by Schanz. Examiner argues, that while the specific clause is not specifically recited, the limitation is disclosed in the normal operation of the scanner system of Schanz. The multi-sided scanner rotates about an axis (4 in Fig. 2, see also paragraph [0017]). In Fig. 1 of Schanz, for the particular position of the scanner, the lower right corner of the multi-sided scanner (corner of prism below the reference number 10) is immediately adjacent to the window. Note: Applicant’s argument refers to Fig. 3 of the instant application, where the circled vertex of the multi-sided scanner appears to actually touch the window (330). However, the claim language “immediately adjacent” is interpreted broadly to include the case in which there is some distance between the vertex and the window, thus encompassing the configuration disclosed by Schanz Fig. 1). Therefore, the 35 UC 102 rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-20, 22, and 23 is maintained.
Applicant further argues claims 9, 16, and 21 are allowable by virtue of their dependencies from their respective base claims and for additional distinguishing subject matter recited therein. However, Examiner has argued above that the base claims remain rejected under 35 USC 102; further, the distinguishing subject matter of the claims 9, 16, and 21 is taught by and/or obvious over the Sano reference as described in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 UC 103 rejection of claims 9, 16, and 21 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schanz (US2004/0240020).
With regard to claims 1 and 18, Schanz discloses a LIDAR system (para. [0009]) comprising (see Fig. 1 and para. [0013]):
PNG
media_image1.png
329
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a multi-sided scanner (prism 10) comprising a plurality of sides, wherein the multi-sided scanner is configured to rotate in a same direction at a plurality of different times to produce a plurality of rotational positions; and
an optical source (radiation source 11) configured to: transmit, at a first angle relative to a field of view (FOV) window at a first rotational position of the multi-sided scanner, an optical beam (beam “T”) towards a first side (lowest side) of the plurality of sides to cause a first portion of the optical beam to traverse the first side to produce a first adjusted beam transmitted within the multi-sided scanner towards a second side (left side) of the plurality of sides to produce a second adjusted beam, wherein a trajectory of the second adjusted beam traverses a third side (right side) of the plurality of sides to exit the multi-sided scanner to produce a first FOV portion; and
transmit, at the first angle at a second rotational position of the multi-sided scanner (not shown, but the following limitations are inherent to the normal optical path of a beam in the prism when it is rotated from the position shown in the Fig. and as described), the optical beam (“T”) towards the first side (lowest side) to cause a second portion of the optical beam to traverse the first side to produce a third adjusted beam transmitted within the multi-sided scanner towards the second side (left side) to produce a fourth adjusted beam, wherein a trajectory of the fourth adjusted beam traverses the third side (right side) of the plurality of sides to exit the multi-sided scanner to produce a second FOV portion; and
a window (12) positioned adjacent to the multi-sided scanner and configured to directly receive the second adjusted beam to form the first FOV portion and the second FOV portion
Note: Schanz does not specifically mention FMCW LIDAR; however, this phrase is part of the preamble of the claim and since no additional structure further limiting the type of LIDAR appears in the body of the claim, the phrase is given no patentable weight by the Examiner (see MPEP § 2111.02).
With regard to claim 11, Schanz discloses a method of producing a field of view (FOV) in a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (para. [0009]), the method comprising (see Fig. 1 and para. [0013]):
rotating a multi-sided scanner (10) in a same direction at a plurality of different times to produce a plurality of rotational positions, wherein the multi-sided scanner comprises a plurality of sides;
transmitting (from optical source 11), at a first angle relative to a FOV window at a first rotational position of the multi-sided scanner, an optical beam (“T”) towards a first side (lower side) of the plurality of sides to cause a first portion of the optical beam to traverse the first side to produce a first adjusted beam transmitted within the multi-sided scanner towards a second side (left side) of the plurality of sides to produce a second adjusted beam, wherein a trajectory of the second adjusted beam traverses a third side (right side) of the plurality of sides to exit the multi-sided scanner to produce a first FOV portion; and
transmitting (not shown, but the following limitations are inherent to the normal optical path of a beam in the prism when it is rotated from the position shown in the Fig. and as described) at the first angle at a second rotational position of the multi-sided scanner, the optical beam towards the first side (lower side) to cause a second portion of the optical beam to traverse the first side to produce a third adjusted beam transmitted within the multi-sided scanner towards the second side (left side) to produce a fourth adjusted beam, wherein a trajectory of the fourth adjusted beam traverses the third side (right side) of the plurality of sides to exit the multi-sided scanner to produce a second FOV portion.
Note: Schanz does not specifically mention FMCW LIDAR; however, this phrase is part of the preamble of the claim and since no additional structure further limiting the type of LIDAR appears in the body of the claim, the phrase is given no patentable weight by the Examiner (see MPEP § 2111.02).
With regard to claims 2-4, the limitations are merely the beams resulting from bending the light in the multi-sided scanner.
With regard to claim 5-6 , 12-13, and 19, the window (5) for receiving the adjusted beams is positioned adjacent to the multi-sided scanner, is on the opposite side of the source (11) and receives the adjusted beams to form the FOV portions (30).
With regard to claims 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, and 23 Schanz cites the prism as being of the same type as in DE 41 15 747 C2, German patent by inventor Johann Hipp (translation cited). In that patent, the prism is made of glass (Description, 16th paragraph). The refractive index of glass is greater than that of air; hence the limitation of claims 7, 14 and 20 are satisfied when the prism is placed in air or vacuum.
With regard to claims 8 and 15, the surface is proximate to a window adjacent to the multi-sided scanner and configured to form the first FOV and second FOV.
With regard to claim 22, the multi-sided scanner is a triangular prism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schanz as applied to claims 1, 11, and 18 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (US 5,574,592).
Schanz does not specifically disclose that the multi-sided scanner is a pentagon shape. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sano teaches a rotating, multi-sided scanner that adjusts the direction of laser beams to a field of view by similar means as Schanz (e. g. Figs. 1(a) & (b) showing the light beam adjusted by internal refraction in the multi-sided scanner. While the polygon of Fig. 1 is shown as having eight sides, this is merely exemplary and it would have been clear to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, from the specification that the number of sides is a design choice depending on pulse and rotation rate, maximum angle of field of view. Therefore, the limitation that the multi-sided scanner of Schanz is a pentagon shape would have been obvious as a design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Note that the citations made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant; they are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights