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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 3 August 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 17, and 25 were amended; no claims were cancelled; claims 26-28 were added; therefore, claims 1-28 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
The 112(b) to claim 8 is withdrawn due to amendment
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-28 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “four or five reflective facets” and “the second reflective facet being different from, and adjacent to, the first reflective facet”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 3 August 2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Campbell addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Campbell and Mersseman in the present Office Action.
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, 3-5, 8-11, 14-15, 17, 19-21, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Mersseman US 20200081129 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches a low-profile light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system, the system comprising:
a housing (280 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
a rotatable polygon mirror having four or five reflective facets (270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]; “a lidar system of this disclosure can include a rotatable polygon mirror with any suitable number of reflective surfaces, such as for example 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12” in paragraph [0105]);
a first oscillating mirror disposed laterally on one side of the rotatable polygon mirror, the first oscillating mirror being configured to direct one or more first transmission light beams to a first reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror (262A in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
a second oscillating mirror disposed laterally on another side of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second oscillating mirror being configured to direct the one or more second transmission light beams to a second reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second reflective facet being different from the first reflective facet (262B in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); wherein
a combination of the first oscillating mirror, the second oscillating mirror, and the rotatable polygon mirror is arranged in the housing (Fig. 3B, [0103-110]) and configured to:
scan the first transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a first field-of-view (vertical scanning by 262A and horizontal scanning by 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]),
scan the second transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a second field-of-view, the second field-of-view at least partially overlapping with the first field-of-view in the horizontal direction (vertical scanning by 262B and horizontal scanning by 270, and 292A and 292B overlap in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), and
direct return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and return light formed based on the second transmission light beams to one or more detectors (unlabeled receivers shown in annotated Fig. 3B below, [0103-110]).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3B: arrows indicating receivers for sides A and B
Campbell does not explicitly teach the second reflective facet being adjacent to the first reflective facet.
Mersseman teaches reflecting light off adjacent facets of a polygonal mirror (120 in Fig. 1)
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 Campbell such that the second reflective facet being adjacent to the first reflective facet similar to Mersseman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping overlap the fields of view from each light source.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the rotatable polygon mirror comprises one or more reflective facets (6 facets shown in Fig. 3B and 5-12 discussed in [0105]).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the rotatable polygon mirror comprises a total of eight reflective facets (8 reflective surfaces, [0105]).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the four or five reflective facets of the rotatable polygon mirror is substantially parallel to the rotational axis of the rotatable polygon mirror (shown parallel to rotational axis in Fig. 3B, [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein horizontal positions of the first oscillating mirror, the second oscillating mirror, and the rotatable polygon mirror are arranged such that the first field- of-view and the second field-of-view overlap by 30 to 50 degrees horizontally (shown in Fig. 3B, [0108-110]).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first oscillating mirror and the second oscillating mirror are independently or synchronously controlled (Fig. 3B, [0103-110]; examiner notes that any two rotating mirrors are inherently either independently or synchronously controlled).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a first transmitter configured to direct the one or more first transmission light beams to the rotatable polygon mirror via the first oscillating mirror (laser-sensor link 252A, Fig. 3B, [00103-104]); a second transmitter configured to direct the one or more second transmission light beams to the rotatable polygon mirror via the second oscillating mirror (laser-sensor link 252B, Fig. 3B, [00103-104]);.
Regarding claim 11, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 10, further comprising a first collection lens and a second collection lens, wherein: the first oscillating mirror is configured to direct the return light formed based on the first transmission light beams to the first collection lens (each receiver has a collection lens in annotated Fig. 3B above, [0063, 93]), and the second oscillating mirror is configured to direct the return light formed based on the second transmission light beams to the second collection lens (each receiver has a collection lens in annotated Fig. 3B above, [0093]).
Regarding claim 14, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the first transmitter comprises a first fiber array configured to transmit the one or more first transmission light beams; and the second transmitter comprises a second fiber array configured to transmit the one or more second transmission light beams (laser-sensor links 252A and 252B can have any suitable number of optical links, Fig. 3B, [0104]).
Regarding claim 15, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more detectors are configured to detect the return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and the return light formed based on the second transmission light beams (Fig. 3B, [0007, 103-110]).
Regarding claim 17, Campbell teaches a method performed by a low-profile light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system comprising a rotatable polygon mirror having four or five reflective facets comprising a first reflective facet and a second reflective facet, a first oscillating mirror disposed laterally on one side of the rotatable polygon mirror, and a second oscillating mirror disposed laterally on another side of the rotatable polygon mirror (Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), the method comprising:
directing, by the first oscillating mirror, one or more first transmission light beams to the first reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror (262 A in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
directing, by the second oscillating mirror, one or more second transmission light beams to the second reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second facet being different from the first facet (262 B in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
performing, by a combination of the first oscillating mirror, the second oscillating mirror, and the rotatable polygon mirror that is arranged in a housing (Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), steps including:
scanning the first transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a first field-of-view (vertical scanning by 262A and horizontal scanning by 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]),
scanning the second transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a second field-of-view, the second field-of-view partially overlapping the first field-of-view (vertical scanning by 262B and horizontal scanning by 270, and 292A and 292B overlap in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), and
directing return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and return light formed based on the second transmission light beams to one or more detectors (unlabeled receivers shown in annotated Fig. 3B above, [0103-110]) .
Campbell does not explicitly teach the first reflective facet being adjacent to the second reflective facet.
Mersseman teaches reflecting light off adjacent facets of a polygonal mirror (120 in Fig. 1)
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 Campbell such that the first reflective facet being adjacent to the second reflective facet similar to Mersseman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping overlap the fields of view from each light source.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection to claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection to claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, see rejection to claim 11.
Regarding claim 23, see rejection to claim 15.
Regarding claim 25, Campbell teaches a vehicle ([0006]) comprising a low-profile light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system, the system comprising:
a housing (280 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
a rotatable polygon mirror having four or five reflective facets (270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]; “a lidar system of this disclosure can include a rotatable polygon mirror with any suitable number of reflective surfaces, such as for example 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12” in paragraph [0105]);
a first oscillating mirror disposed laterally on one side of the rotatable polygon mirror, the first oscillating mirror being configured to direct one or more first transmission light beams to a first reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror (262A in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
a second oscillating mirror disposed laterally on another side of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second oscillating mirror being configured to direct the one or more second transmission light beams to a second reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second reflective facet being different from the first reflective facet (262B in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); wherein
a combination of the first oscillating mirror, the second oscillating mirror, and the rotatable polygon mirror is arranged in the housing (Fig. 3B, [0103-110]) and configured to:
scan the first transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a first field-of-view (vertical scanning by 262A and horizontal scanning by 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]),
scan the second transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a second field-of-view, the second field-of-view at least partially overlapping with the first field-of-view in the horizontal direction (vertical scanning by 262B and horizontal scanning by 270, and 292A and 292B overlap in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), and
direct return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and return light formed based on the second transmission light beams to one or more detectors (unlabeled receivers shown in annotated Fig. 3B above, [0103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach the second reflective facet being adjacent to the first reflective facet.
Mersseman teaches reflecting light off adjacent facets of a polygonal mirror (120 in Fig. 1)
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 Campbell such that the second reflective facet being adjacent to the first reflective facet similar to Mersseman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping overlap the fields of view from each light source.
Regarding claim 26, Campbell teaches a low-profile light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system, the system comprising:
a housing (280 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
a rotatable polygon mirror having three, four, or five reflective facets (270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]; “a lidar system of this disclosure can include a rotatable polygon mirror with any suitable number of reflective surfaces, such as for example 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12” in paragraph [0105]);
a first mirror disposed laterally on one side of the rotatable polygon mirror, the first mirror being configured to direct one or more first transmission light beams to a first reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror (262A in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
a second mirror disposed laterally on another side of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second mirror being configured to direct the one or more second transmission light beams to a second reflective facet of the rotatable polygon mirror, the second reflective facet being different from the first reflective facet (262B in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
wherein a combination of the first mirror, the second mirror, and the rotatable polygon mirror is arranged in the housing (Fig. 3B, [0103-110]) and configured to:
scan the first transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a first field-of-view (vertical scanning by 262A and horizontal scanning by 270 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]),
scan the second transmission light beams in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction to a second field-of-view, the second field-of-view at least partially overlapping with the first field-of-view in the horizontal direction (vertical scanning by 262B and horizontal scanning by 270, and 292A and 292B overlap in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), and
direct return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and return light formed based on the second transmission light beams to one or more detectors (unlabeled receivers shown in annotated Fig. 3B above, [0103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach the second reflective facet being adjacent to the first reflective facet.
Mersseman teaches reflecting light off adjacent facets of a polygonal mirror (120 in Fig. 1)
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 Campbell such that the second reflective facet being adjacent to the first reflective facet similar to Mersseman with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping overlap the fields of view from each light source.
Regarding claim 27, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 26, wherein at least one of the first and the second mirror is an oscillating mirror (262A and B in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Mersseman US 20200081129 A1 and further in view of Bhatia US 20220334381 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Bhatia teaches wherein at least one of a height of the combination, a height of the rotatable polygon mirror, or a height of the housing is no more than 40 mm (thickness of polygon mirror less than 30 mm, Figs. 3A-3D, [0035]).
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 Campbell such that at least one of a height of the combination, a height of the rotatable polygon mirror, or a height of the housing is no more than 40 mm similar to Bhatia with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping keep the size of the lidar system small.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection to claim 2.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Mersseman US 20200081129 A1 and further in view of Villeneuve US 20190221988 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein a rotational speed of the rotatable polygon mirror is configured based at least on a total number of the reflective facets of the rotatable polygon mirror and a scan density requirement associated with at least one of the first field-of- view, the second field-of-view, or an area of overlapping between the first field-of-view and the second field-of-view.
Villeneuve teaches relationship between number of reflective surfaces, rotation speed, and density of scan lines ([0088])
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 Campbell such that a rotational speed of the rotatable polygon mirror is configured based at least on a total number of the plurality of reflective facets of the rotatable polygon mirror and a scan density requirement associated with at least one of the first field-of- view, the second field-of-view, or an area of overlapping between the first field-of-view and the second field-of-view similar to Villineuve with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring the field of view is scanned at a desired frequency.
Regarding claim 7, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 6,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the rotational speed of the rotatable polygon mirror required to reach a pre-determined point density is less than that of a second rotatable polygon mirror of a second LiDAR system comprising the second rotatable polygon mirror and only one oscillating mirror.
Villeneuve teaches relationship between number of reflective surfaces, rotation speed, and density of scan lines ([0088])
Additionally, Campbell does teach multiple sensor heads (360 or 660 in Fig. 12, each of which can be lidars shown in Figs. 1A-4B, [0151-153]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that at least one of the sensor heads could be 100D (Fig. 3B) and another 100C (Fig. 3A) such that each has a polygon mirror and one has two oscillating mirrors while another only has a single oscillating mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try different numbers of facets on the polygon mirrors to ensure lidar coverage over the desired fields of view. Based on Villeneuve’s relation, when the single oscillating mirror’s polygon mirror has a fewer number of facets, then its polygon mirror will need to spin faster (note that 4 facets are shown in Fig. 3A and 6 facets are shown in Fig. 3B which would satisfy this requirement)).
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 Campbell such that the rotational speed of the rotatable polygon mirror required to reach a pre-determined point density is less than that of a second rotatable polygon mirror of a second LiDAR system comprising the second rotatable polygon mirror and only one oscillating mirror similar to Villineuve and Campbell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring density of scan data is comparable across different sensors of the system.
Claims 12-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Mersseman US 20200081129 A1 and further in view of Choi US 20190324125 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 11,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of: the first collection lens comprises a first opening and at least a portion of the first transmitter is disposed in the first opening; and the second collection lens comprises a second opening and at least a portion of the second transmitter is disposed in the second opening.
Choi teaches transmitter 121 disposed in an opening 111 of a receiving mirror 110 (Figs. 1-3, see at least [0033-49, 59])
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 Campbell such that at least one of: the first collection lens comprises a first opening and at least a portion of the first transmitter is disposed in the first opening; and the second collection lens comprises a second opening and at least a portion of the second transmitter is disposed in the second opening similar to Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping keep the size of the lidar system small, and allow easy alignment of the optical system (Choi: [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of: the first opening is disposed at, or approximate to, an edge, a corner, or a center of the first collection lens; the second opening is disposed at, or approximate to, an edge, a corner, or a center of second collection lens.
Choi teaches transmitter 121 disposed in an opening 111 of a receiving mirror 110 (Figs. 1-3, see at least [0033-49, 59]; opening is in edge and center of receiving lens)
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 Campbell such that at least one of: the first opening is disposed at, or approximate to, an edge, a corner, or a center of the first collection lens; the second opening is disposed at, or approximate to, an edge, a corner, or a center of second collection lens similar to Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping keep the size of the lidar system small, and allow easy alignment of the optical system (Choi: [0007]).
Regarding claim 22, see rejection to claim 12.
Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Mersseman US 20200081129 A1 and further in view of Eichenholz US 20190154804 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach further comprising a window configured to facilitate: transmitting both the first transmission light beams and the second transmission light beams toward external of the LiDAR system; and receiving, from external of the LiDAR system, both the return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and the return light formed based on the second transmission light beams.
Eichenholz teaches a housing with a single window (167 in Fig. 26B; with similar multiple emitter and single scanner setup).
Additionally, Campbell does teach windows (282A and 282B in Fig. 3B; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the two windows could be replaced by Eichenholz’s single window).
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 Campbell to include a window configured to facilitate: transmitting both the first transmission light beams and the second transmission light beams toward external of the LiDAR system; and receiving, from external of the LiDAR system, both the return light formed based on the first transmission light beams and the return light formed based on the second transmission light beams similar to Gimpel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure a maximum field of view for each side of the lidar system.
Regarding claim 24, see rejection to claim 16.
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Mersseman US 20200081129 A1 and further in view of Hughes US 20190154816 A1.
Regarding claim 28, Campbell as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the housing comprises a window having a continuous exterior surface that forms a portion of an exterior surface of the housing, and wherein the first transmission light and the second transmission light are scanned in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction through the window.
Hughes teaches scanning in two dimensions through a continuous mirror from two light sources on opposite sides of a scanner (window 167 in Fig. 26B, [0119])
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 Campbell such that the housing comprises a window having a continuous exterior surface that forms a portion of an exterior surface of the housing, and wherein the first transmission light and the second transmission light are scanned in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction through the window similar to Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping increase the possible size of the field of view for each light source.
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 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
Prosecution Insights