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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112 rejections are withdrawn.
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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Keilaf (20190271767) in view of Wang (20200292672) and Kane (8203703).
Referring to claim 10, Keilaf shows A Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising:
a light emitting unit comprising a light source comprising one or more laser emitters for generating one or more laser beams for producing reflected photons off of a target (see figure 3C Ref 112);
a scanning unit comprising a scanning mirror for changing an outgoing direction of the one or more laser beams (see figure 3C note the TX mirror);
a light receiving unit comprising a MEMS mirror array including a plurality of receiving mirrors and a photon detector, the MEMS mirror array being configured to deflect the reflected photons to the photon detector (see figure 3C note the RX mirror); and
a control system for controlling the LiDAR system, the control system being configured to adjust the scanning and receiving mirrors (see paragraph 97 and 98 note the MEMS mirror array is controlled by a processor that is not shown and controlled by the processor Ref 118).
However Keilaf fails to show the details of the light emitting unit, scanning unit, and light receiving unit added to the claims.
Wang shows a similar device that includes a plurality of laser emitters generating a plurality of laser beams producing reflected photons off a target, wherein the plurality of laser beams are at an angle with respect to one another (see figure 11 Ref 1125 also note the angle Ref 1118)
A scanning unit comprising a scanning mirror for changing an outgoing direction of the plurality of laser beams (see figure 11 Ref 1132), and a second scanning mirror for directing the plurality of laser beams to the scanning mirror, (see figure 11 Ref 1135), wherein the scanning axes of the scanning mirror and the second scanning mirror are angled or orthogonal (see figure 11 Ref 1142 and 1146). It would have been obvious to include the multiple beams and the multiple scanning mirrors as shown by Wang because this allows for scanning both a first FOR (as shown by Wang in figure 11 Ref 1158A) and a second FOR (as shown by Wang in figure 11 Ref 1158B) simultaneously (see figure 11 and paragraph 86).
However while Keilaf shows a light receiving unit including a MEMS array with a high fill factor as shown in figure 3C Keilaf fails to specifically show the fill factor of the MEMS array in figure 3C.
Kane shows a similar device that includes a receiver MEMS array (see figure 2 Ref 2 and 6) and teaches a high fill factor of 75% or higher (see column 13 lines 59-61). It would have been obvious to include a fill factor of 75% or higher because this is well know for a fill factor of a MEMS array to be consider a high fill factor.
Referring to claim 13, Keilaf shows positions of the MEMS mirror are detectable by electrical sensors using electrical sensing elements configured to send data to the control system (see paragraph 91).
Referring to claim 23, Keilaf shows comprising a light diffusing device positioned between the lens system and the photon detector (see figure 3D Ref 318 also see paragraph 100).
Referring to claim 19, Keilaf shows the receiving mirrors in the MEMS array are arranged in a 2D mirror array, and each of the mirrors has two rotation axes (see figure 3C also see paragraph 96-97).
Referring to claim 12, Keilaf shows the scanning mirror is a MEMS mirror (see figure 3C).
Referring to claim 17, Keilaf shows the scanning and receiving mirrors are rotatable in one dimension (1D) and/or in two dimensions (2D), and are controllable by the control system to rotate independently or collectively (see paragraph 97).
Referring to claim 20, Keilaf shows the scanning unit is configured to project a plurality of scanning lines onto a target (see figure 2A and 2B).
Referring to claim 21, Keilaf shows the scanning unit is configured to project photons onto a plurality of scanning areas to detect a plurality of scanning points in each of the scanning areas (see figure 2A, 2B also see figure 3C note the sectioned FOV).
Referring to claim 24, Keilaf shows the scanning MEMS mirror is part of the MEMS mirror array (see figure 3C).
Referring to claim 25, Keilaf shows the scanning MEMS mirror is separate from the MEMS mirror array (see figure 2B Ref 114).
Referring to claim 26, Keilaf shows the scanning MEMS mirror and the MEMS mirror array are packaged together (see figure 3C).
Referring to claim 14, Keilaf fails to show but Wang shows the scanning mirror is a galvanometer-based scanning mirror (see paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to include the galvanometer-based scanning mirror as shown by Wang because this is extremely common in a scanning LIDAR system and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf (20190271767) in view of Wang (20200292672) and Kane (8203703) and further in view of Zhou (10551613).
Referring to claims 8 and 18, Keilaf fails to show but Zhou shows the receiving mirrors of the MEMS mirror array are defined by a long edge and a short edge, and the mirrors are positioned parallel to one another along the long edge, a rotation axis of the MEMS mirror array is parallel to the long edge (see figure 22b-22c). It would have been obvious to include the mirrors as shown by Zhou because this allows for a higher fill factor than square mirrors at taught by Zhou (see column 16 lines 38-46).
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf (20190271767) in view of Wang (20200292672) and Kane (8203703) and further in view of Druml (20200159005).
Referring to claim 11 and 22, Keilaf shows at least one of a first axis control circuit and a second axis control circuit for adjusting the scanning and receiving mirrors;
a light source control circuit configured to control the light emitting unit to modulate the one or more laser beams (see figure 2A Ref 108 also see paragraph 121);
a detector output process circuit configured to receive signals from the photon detector (see figure 2A Ref 212 and 108). However Keilaf fails to show a fault detection circuit configured to detect failure of the scanning unit, of the light receiving unit and/or of the photon detector.
Druml shows a similar device that includes a fault detection circuit configured to detect failure of the scanning unit, of the light receiving unit and/or of the photon detector (see paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to include the fault detection unit as shown by Druml because this is extremely well known to allow fault detection in a scanning LIDAR system, especially a LIDAR system used in an autonomous vehicle as shown by Keilaf (see paragraph 122 also see paragraph 505 for error detection).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf (20190271767) in view of Wang (20200292672) and Kane (8203703) and further in view of Dussan (20160047895).
Referring to claim 15, Keilaf fails to show but Dussan shows the scanning unit further comprises an angle detection system comprising a second light source and a position sensor, wherein the second light source is configured to emit a detectable laser beam that is deflected by the scanning mirror and detected by the position sensor to obtain mirror position data, the position sensor being configured to send the mirror position data to the control system (see figure 6A and 6B). It would have been obvious to include the second light source to detect the location of the scanning mirrors because this allows for feedback for the mirror control as shown by Dussan.
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 LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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 at 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
