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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 3A, the direction of the positive z-axis in the leftmost and rightmost views should be the same, so that elements (205) line up in order to provide the function of passing light through them. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, and claims 2-22 dependent on it, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation of claim 1, “light reflected in the reflective region without going through the object among the illumination light from the first deflection unit” is unclear. Since light is reflected from the object but does not go through the object, this part of the limitation does not make sense; further it is not clear what is meant by “among the illumination light from the first deflection unit”. The claims are interpreted as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “deflection unit”, “first light guiding unit”, “second light guiding unit”, and “light receiving unit” in claims 1-22, “optical system” in claims 4 and 8-9, and “control unit” in claims 17-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4, 11-13,a dn 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandewie et al. (US 4,042,822).
With regard to claim 1 Brandewie discloses an optical apparatus comprising: (see Fig. 6 reproduced below)
PNG
media_image1.png
327
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an optical apparatus comprising:
a first deflection unit (3rd col. lines 12-20, rotating scanning mirror 28, shown in Fig. 2) configured to deflect illumination light from a light source (from laser beam expander and ultimately laser (23)) unit to scan an object, and deflect reflected light from the object (from targets);
a first light guiding unit (mirror 29) configured to guide the illumination light from the light source unit to the first deflection unit, and guide the reflected light from the first deflection unit to a light receiving unit; and
a second light guiding unit (corner reflector 34) configured to guide the illumination light from the light source unit to the light receiving unit (detector 40),
wherein the first light guiding unit includes a first passing region (29c) through which the illumination light from the light source unit passes and a reflective region (29b) in which the reflected light (32a) from the first deflection unit is reflected, and
wherein the second light guiding unit is configured to guide, to the light receiving unit (40), light reflected in the reflective region without going through the object among the illumination light from the first deflection unit.
With regard to claim 2, light from the second light guiding unit (34) is incident on the light receiving unit (40) via the (holes in the) first light guiding unit(29).
With regard to claim 3, the first deflection unit is rotatable and non-parallel to an optical axis of the light source (laser), Fig. 2.
With regard to claim 4, an optical system such as a lens guides the illumination light from the first deflection unit to the object and the reflected light from the object to the first deflection unit (2nd col. lines 64-67).
With regard to claim 11, the exit surface (longest side of corner reflector 34) is on the opposite side of the light receiving unit (40) with respect to the first light guiding unit (29).
With regard to claims 12-13, the first light guiding unit includes a second passing region (29d) through which light from the second light guiding unit passes and is incident on the light receiving unit (40), after passing through the first passing region (29c).
With regard to claim 16, the light receiving unit includes optical element (lens 43) and light from the second light guiding unit is incident on the light receiving element via the optical element.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandewie et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dussan et al. (US 2017/0307876).
With regard to claims 7-9, Brandewie do not specifically disclose, but Dussan teaches, a second deflection unit configured to deflect the illumination light from the first deflection unit to scan the object and deflect the reflected light from the object to guide the reflected light to the first deflection unit (Fig. 2B, para. [0051], rotating mirrors (250) and (252) about rotational axes (258) and (260) respectively). Dussan further teaches an optical system (relay imaging optics such as a unity magnification telescope, [0055]) configured to guide the illumination light from the first mirror to the second mirror and guide the reflected light from the second mirror to the first mirror. It was well-known in the art to configured the mirror at a position of an exit pupil of the optical system, for an afocal system. These elements taught by Dussan would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, for the advantage of scanning a two-dimensional area (para. [0052]).
With regard to claims 20-22, Brandewie et al. do not disclose, but Dussan teaches, that the laser range-finding system is part of a moving vehicle, and the vehicle is for example an automonous vehicle configured to determine a possibility of collision between the vehicle and an object based on distance information acquired by the laser range-finding system (paragraphs [0004, 0091, 0102]). This application of laser range-finding is advantageous for autonomous vehicles and therefore mounting the optical system of Brandewie on a vehicle would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandewie et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida ( JP2010204015A, cited in Applicant’s IDS).
With regard to claim 15, Brandewie et al do not disclose that the second light guiding unit is an optical fiber; rather it is the corner reflector. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshida teach (Fig. 1) a laser radar device with a light illuminator (10), a first light guiding unit (30) with an area for passing light (32) and a second light guiding unit which is a fiber (74).The fiber provides the same function as the corner reflector in the optical system of Brandewie; furthermore the fiber is more compact because “it is easy to bend and arrange in the apparatus”, Yoshida; therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, to replace the corner reflector in the optical system of Brandewie with the optical fiber taught by Yoshida.
With regard to claim 17, Brandewie does not disclose, but Yoshida teaches, that a LIDAR (Fig. 1) including a light source, an optical beam steering system, and a light receiving unit (detector) comprises a controller circuit configured to acquire distance information about the object based on an output from the light receiving unit corresponding to the reflected light from the object. Further, Yoshida teaches that the control circuit (80) acquires the distance measurement about the object based on an output from the reflected light from the object.
With regard to claim 18, a part of the laser light from the laser light generating means is guided by the light guide member and emitted to the light detecting means. Further, the correction value calculating means guides the light guide time from the generation of the laser light by the laser light generating means until a part of the laser light is guided by the light guide member and detected by the light detecting means, and the light guide (fiber). A distance correction value is calculated according to the light guide direction distance of the member. Then, the controller corrects the distance to the detected object detected by the distance measurement unit based on the distance correction value calculated by the correction value calculation unit. These elements of Yoshida would have been obvious to include in the system of Brandwie before the effective filing date of the application in order to improve accuracy when the detected light intensity is high.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 10, 14, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on Feb. 13, 2023 and Oct. 7, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Okano and Talty et al. disclose LIDAR systems with light guiding systems.
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