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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. According to [0024] diode bar 44 comprises plurality of laser diodes along the length.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 US 20190293800 A1.
Regarding claim 1 D1 teaches
a light-emitting unit including a plurality of light emitters(44[0024]) arranged along a specific array direction and configured to emit a beam;(fig. 2 )
an optical unit positioned on an optical path of the beam emitted from the light-emitting unit and configured to form a projected beam extending along the specific array direction;(fig. 2 46, 48, 50) and
a light-receiving unit(24) configured to receive a return light of the projected beam projected to a measurement area(23), wherein
the optical unit includes: ;fig. 2 46, 48, 50)
a first optical element having a negative power(46) along a transmission direction of the beam in a specific section that is orthogonal to the specific array direction;(46 perform that ) and
a second optical element(50 depending what is called behind) positioned behind the first optical element such that the first optical element is between the light-emitting unit and the second optical element, the second optical element having a positive power along the transmission direction in the specific section.(fig. 2 and [0024])
5. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
a front emission surface of the first optical element is separated from a rear incident surface of the second optical element.(fig. 7C)
8. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the optical unit includes
a concave cylindrical lens , as the first optical element, having a concave incident surface concavely curved toward an incident side and
a convex cylindrical lens, as the second optical element, having a convex emission surface convexly curved toward an emission side.(fig. 7C)
9. The light detection device according to claim 8, wherein
at least one of the concave incident surface or the convex emission surface is formed as an aspherical surface.[0028]
10. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the light-emitting unit includes, as the light emitters, a light-emitting element array including surface-emitting laser elements formed as a two-dimensional array in a light-emitting region elongated in the specific array direction, and[0048 with fig. 7C]
each of the surface-emitting laser elements has a beam emitting surface directed in the transmission direction.[0048]
14. (New) The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the first optical element is configured to deflect the beam in the specific section progressively into a direction away from a beam light axis, and the second optical element is configured to deflect the beam in the specific section progressively toward the beam light axis and condense the beam (fig. 2 inherent)
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) 2, 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
2. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the optical unit includes a plurality of at least one of the first optical element or the second optical element.
It is just a matter of repetition of parts and It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to cover larger area by using multiple units
Regarding claim 3 D1 teaches
3. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the first optical elements are positioned before the second optical elements.(fig. 7C)
but does not teach
the optical unit includes a plurality of the second optical elements and a plurality of the first optical elements
It is just a matter of repetition of parts and It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to cover larger area by using multiple units
Regarding claim 12 Although D1 does not explicitly teach
12. The light detection device according to claim 10, wherein
the light-emitting unit includes a plurality of light-emitting element arrays arranged along a short direction of the light-emitting region, and(this is just a matter of the repetition of parts to cover large area)
the plurality of light-emitting element arrays are configured to sequentially emit the beam in the short direction.(and this is obvious configuration in order to sequentially scan different areas and therefore save power by not illuminating all sources simultaneously)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to provide lidar device which can sequentially illuminate large area of interest without requiring extremely large instantaneous power.
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20180052234 A1.
Regarding claim4 D1 does not teach but D2 teaches
4. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
a front emission surface of the first optical element is in contact with a rear incident surface of the second optical element.[0047]
6. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the first optical element and the second optical element are integrally formed.(fig. 4 lenses 406+405) and [0047]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 as it is matter of the design choice which will result in specific dimensions of the output beam and based on the design will illuminate desired FOV.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20120057345 A1.
Regarding claim 1 D1 does not teach but D3 teaches
7. The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein
the optical unit further includes, before the first optical element,
a front optical element having a plurality of emission surface portions arranged along the specific array direction, each of the emission surface portions convexly curved in an orthogonal section, which is orthogonal to the specific section and along the transmission direction, toward an emission side, and
a rear optical element having a plurality of incident surface portions arranged along the specific array direction and facing to the plurality of emission surface portions, respectively, each of the incident surface portions convexly curved in the orthogonal section toward an incident side.(fig. 1A 52a and 52b) [0034]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to spread across the complete non-uniform input beam from the combined Gaussian beams in plane.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D4 US 11555899 B2.
Regarding claim 11 D1 does not teach but D4 teaches
11. The light detection device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a scanning unit (13)configured to scan the beam emitted from the light-emitting unit to project the beam to the measurement area, wherein
the scanning unit includes a rotary mirror rotatable about a rotation axis that is along the specific array direction.(fig. 1)(col 5 and 6)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D4 in order to scan the beam pattern along larger region of interest.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Although D1 does not teach
13. (New) The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the positive power of the second optical element is made greater than the negative power of the first optical element so that a combined power of the first optical element and the second optical element is positive.
This is just a matter of predictable modification (design choice) in order to achieve the desired beam quality.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D5 US 20120057345 A1.
Although D1 does not teach D5 teaches similar to D1 fig. 2 configuration (D5 fig. 1A)
15. (New) The light detection device according to claim 1, wherein the optical unit further includes:a third optical element(46) positioned behind the second optical element(44) such that the second optical element is between the first optical(42) element and the third optical element(46), the third optical element having a positive power along the transmission direction in the specific section(fig. 1A);
But does not teach
and a fourth optical element positioned behind the light-emitting unit such that the fourth optical element is between the light-emitting unit and the first optical element, the fourth optical element having a negative power along the transmission direction in the specific section.
Although D1 and D5 do not explicitly teach last limitation it is clear that last element is to amplify the effect of the 1st optical element and it is just a matter of the design choice in order to achieve desired strength of the negative power lens if for example one negative lens does not have enough power of doing it.
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D5 to use multiple focusing positive and negative length in order to achieve desired focusing and defocusing power.
It is important to note that desired focusing or defocusing not always can be achieved by single lens, but putting two one on the row one can achieve desired focusing or defocusing.
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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights