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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 15 ends in a period while it is not the last line of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, line 8 the phrase “of first side to” is a grammatical error.
The claim must end with a period (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
According to the claim, the flexure extends in the forward direction of the platform from a first side to a fold and in an opposite direction to the base toward a second side, with the laser mounted on a third side between the first and second sides. Applicant’s disclosure only discusses the fold in the embodiment of figure 12, while depicting the third side (516-3) in the embodiment of figure 5. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would not no how to incorporate the two embodiments as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 6-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pei et al. (US 2019/0120940), hereinafter Pei.
In re. claim 6, Pei teaches a system for scanning LiDAR, the system comprising: a platform (620) comprising a first side (facing lens (612/ 614)) and a second side opposite the first side (fig. 6); an optical component (640) mounted on the platform (fig. 6); a base (610); a lens (612, 614) coupled with the base (fig. 8), the lens characterized by a focal plane (fig. 8); and a flexure (670) coupling the platform to the base (fig. 8), the flexure arranged so that: the base is closer to the second side than the first side (i.e. base portion supporting element (662)) (fig. 6); the flexure extends forward of first side to a fold in the flexure (fold near lens (912, 914) in figure 9); and the flexure extends backward from the fold toward the base (fig. 9).
In re. claim 7, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the optical component (640) is mounted on the first side of the platform (fig. 7).
In re. claim 8, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, wherein: the platform comprises a third side between the first side and the second side; andthe optical component is mounted on the third side of the platform (when the flexures are mounted in the configuration of figure 3A as best understood).
In re. claim 9, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the fold is a curvature of the flexure (fig. 9).
In re. claim 10, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, wherein a distance from the base to the fold (figs. 8-9) is less than four times a distance from the platform (620) to the fold (figs. 8-9).
In re. claim 12, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the lens comprising multiple sub lenses (612, 614) (fig. 6).
In re. claim 13, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the optical component (640) is a laser, arranged to transmit light into an environment (para [0045]); and the system comprises: a detector (650) arranged to detect light from the laser after light is transmitted from the laser into the environment (para [0045]); and instructions that, when executed, calculate a distance to an object in the environment based on detecting the light from the laser (instructions for determining time of flight by processor (190)) (para [0020]).
In re. claim 14, Pei teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a counterweight (630) arranged to move opposite of the platform during operation (para [0046]).
In re. claim 15, Pei teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the flexure comprises a first arm (670a), a second arm (670b), a third arm (680a), and a fourth arm (670b); the first arm and the second arms are coupled with the platform (fig. 6); and the third arm and the fourth arms are coupled with the counterweight (fig. 6).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCord et al. (US 2020/0243577), hereinafter McCord.
In re. claim 6, McCord teaches a system for scanning LiDAR (para [0031]), the system comprising: a platform (104) comprising a first side (facing lens (110)) and a second side opposite the first side (fig. 1); an optical component (130) mounted on the platform (fig. 1); a base (102); a lens (110) coupled with the base (fig. 1), the lens characterized by a focal plane (para [0014]); and a flexure (120) coupling the platform to the base, the flexure arranged so that: the base is closer to the second side than the first side (fig. 1); the flexure extends forward of first side to a fold in the flexure (at mounting points (230a-d)) (fig. 2B); and the flexure extends backward from the fold toward the base (fig. 2B).
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 1-5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei in view of da Silva et al. (US 2012/0236379), hereinafter da Silva.
In re. claim 1, Pei teaches a system for scanning LiDAR, the system comprising: a platform (620) comprising first side (facing lens (612, 614)) and a second side (fig. 6), wherein: the first side is opposite of the second side (fig. 6); a forward direction is in a direction of an outward-pointing normal of the first side (fig. 6); a backward direction is opposite the forward direction (fig. 6); a laser (640) mounted on the platform, the laser arranged to transmit light into an environment (para [0045]); a base (610);a lens (612/614) fixedly coupled with the base (fig. 6), the lens characterized by a focal plane (fig. 6); and a flexure (670a/b) coupling the platform with the base (fig. 6) (para [0045]), the flexure arranged so that: the laser is positioned at the focal plane of the lens (para [0045]); the flexure extends in the forward direction (toward lens (612, 614)) from the platform to a fold in the flexure (fold near lens (912, 914) in figure 9); and the flexure extends in the backward direction from the fold toward the base (in view of figure 9); a detector (650) arranged to detect light from the laser after light is transmitted from the laser into the environment (para [0045]); and instructions that, when executed, calculate a distance to an object in the environment based on detecting the light from the laser (instructions for determining time of flight by processor (190)) (para [0020]).
Pei fails to disclose the flexure extends in the backward direction from the fold to the base, and a memory device for the instructions.
da Silva teaches a flexure (970) (fig. 9E) that extends in the backward direction from a fold to a base (930) (para [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pei to incorporate the teachings of da Silva to have the flexure extend in the backward direction from the fold to the base, for the purpose of increasing angular range of the flexures (da Silva, para [0057]).
The examiner takes official notice that processor instructions are typically stored on memory.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pei as modified by da Silva to have a memory for the instructions, for the predictable result of providing automated execution of the instructions.
In re. claim 2, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the system of claim 1, wherein the laser is mounted on the first side of the platform (fig. 6).
In re. claim 3, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the system of claim 1, wherein:the platform comprises a third side between the first side and the second side; and the laser is mounted on the third side of the platform (when the flexures are mounted in the configuration of figure 3A as best understood).
In re. claim 4, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the system of claim 1, wherein the fold is a curvature of the flexure (fig. 9).
In re. claim 5, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a counterweight (630) and the flexure (680) couples the counterweight with the base (fig. 8).
Pei fails to disclose a memory device for the instructions.
The examiner takes official notice that processor instructions are typically stored on memory.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pei to have a memory for the instructions, for the predictable result of providing automated execution of the instructions.
In re. claim 16, Pei teaches a method for scanning LiDAR, the method comprising: translating (figs. 4a-4b) a platform (620) relative to a lens (612, 614) in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens (fig. 6), wherein: a laser (640) is mounted on the platform (fig. 6); the platform comprises a first side (facing lens (612, 614)) and a second side opposite the first side (fig. 6); the platform is coupled to a base (610) using a flexure (670/680); the flexure is arranged so that: the base is closer to the second side than the first side (i.e. top portion of base in figure 6); the flexure extends forward of first side to a fold in the flexure (near lens (912, 914)) (fig. 9); and the flexure extends backward from the fold toward the base (figs. 6 and 9); emitting light from the laser (para [0045]), while translating the platform (para [0046]); transmitting light emitted from the laser through the lens and into an environment (para [0045]); detecting light from the laser, using a detector (650), after transmitting the light emitted from the laser into the environment (para [0045]); and calculating a distance to an object in the environment based on detecting the light from the laser (instructions for determining time of flight by processor (190)) (para [0020]).
Pei fails to disclose the flexure extends in the backward direction from the fold to the base.
da Silva teaches a flexure (970) (fig. 9E) that extends in the backward direction from a fold to a base (930) (para [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pei to incorporate the teachings of da Silva to have the flexure extend in the backward direction from the fold to the base, for the purpose of increasing angular range of the flexures (da Silva, para [0057]).
In re. claim 17, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the method of claim 16, wherein the laser is mounted on the first side of the platform (fig. 6).
In re. claim 18, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the method of claim 16, wherein: the platform comprises a third side between the first side and the second side; and the laser is mounted on the third side of the platform (when the flexures are mounted in the configuration of figure 3A as best understood).
In re. claim 19, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the method of claim 16, wherein the fold is a curvature of the flexure (fig. 9).
In re. claim 20, Pei as modified by da Silva (see Pei) teach the method of claim 16, further comprising translating a counterweight (630) in opposition to motion of the platform (para [0046]).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCord.
In re. claim 11, McCord fails to disclose the optical component is arranged to be halfway between the base and the fold.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified McCord to have the optical component arranged halfway between the base and the fold, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II). Doing so would provide added material for the support structure, improving the strength of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647