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
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “converging, by a conversing lens” which should be corrected to read “converging lens”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 31-50 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 “along a vertical direction” in claims 31, 41 and 47, includes the relative term “vertical” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vertical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, the claims lack a point of reference for what constitutes a vertical direction. From the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, a vertical direction could be any direction, if defined by a point that supports such a conclusion. Thus, the claims are indefinite because a point of reference for which a vertical direction is defined is absent.
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) 31-38, 40-45, 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheggen (US 2016/0259058) in view of Skidmore (US 2013/0314693).
31, 41 and 47 mutatis mutandis: Verheggen teaches a Lidar [0027, lidar system 100] comprising:
an emitting device configured to emit a plurality of laser beams [0027 teaches pulsed laser 1 that emits a series of optical pulses];
a receiving device configured to convert echo beams of the plurality of the laser beams into electrical signals [0028 teaches detector 3 that produces an electrical signal after receiving reflected (echo) signals];
a collimating lens disposed downstream of the emitting device and configured to collimate the plurality of the laser beams [0027 teaches a collimator attached to pulsed laser 1];
a galvanometer disposed downstream of the collimating lens and configured to rotate a reflective surface to reflect the plurality of the laser beams out of the Lidar [0027 teaches oscillating scanner mirror 5 driven by galvanometer scanner motor 12; 0047 describes a programmable galvanometer-based scanner]; and
a mirror disposed downstream of the galvanometer configured to direct the echo beams toward the receiving device [0028, fig. 1: teach secondary scanner mirror 13].
Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches an emitting device configured to emit a plurality of laser beams that are non-uniformly distributed along a vertical direction [0032, 0047 and figs. 2B, 2C and 3, wherein fig. 3 appears to orient laser diode array 11 vertically with respect to packaged laser diode array 30. In arguendo, absent suggestion or explicit vertical orientation of the laser array, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that vertical and horizontal laser array arrangements are alternatives to one another, requiring a rearrangement of parts such that a desired field of view is covered by the laser array. It has been held that rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.]; and a receiving device comprising a plurality of detectors [0028 teaches a detector array 17].
Regarding claims 41 and 47: Verheggen teaches the collimating lens as cited above. Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches to cause a propagation direction of the plurality of the laser beams to be parallel to each other [parallel arrangement illustrated in fig. 2B].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Verheggen with the emitter array and the detector array disclosed in Skidmore with a reasonable expectation of success because such arrays allow for an increased field of view of an environment to be imaged.
32: Verheggen teaches the collimating lens from the rejection of claim 31. Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches to cause a propagation direction of the plurality of the laser beams to be parallel to each other [parallel arrangement illustrated in fig. 2B].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Verheggen with the parallel emitter array disclosed in Skidmore with a reasonable expectation of success because such an array allows for an increased field of view of an environment to be imaged.
33, 42 mutatis mutandis: Verheggen teaches the collimating lens and galvanometer from the rejections of claims 31 and 41. Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches a focusing lens after laser emission and before impinging upon another optical component [0028 teaches that illuminator 12 includes a laser diode array 11 and a diffuser 13, the diffuser including an integrated Fresnel lens (known in the art to direct light toward a focal point)]. The combination of the light emitter and galvanometer of Verheggen with the light emitter with integrated Fresnel lens, would serve to focus emitted laser light onto the next optical component it impinges, in this case, the galvanometer as understood by Verheggen.
34, 43 mutatis mutandis: From the rejections of claims 31 and 41 in combination with the rejections of claims 33 and 42, it follows that the collimating lens attached to laser 1 of Verheggen would coincide with the optical axis as the focusing lens at the detector of Skidmore, since the purpose of both references is to emit laser light that is eventually received at a detector after transmission through a series of lenses and optical components.
35: Verheggen teaches the mirror allows a portion of the plurality of the laser beams to pass through [0030 and fig. 1].
36, 44, 49 mutatis mutandis: Verheggen teaches a receiving converging lens disposed downstream of the mirror and configured to converge the echo beams into the receiving device [0028 teaches that re-imaging module 15 contains “lenses”, through which reflected (echo) light passes onto detector 3. While Verheggen does not explicitly teach that one of the lenses is a converging lens, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that one of the lenses must be a converging lens because fig. 1 illustrates converging beams in the path from components 13 to 3 and because the generally accepted purpose of including lenses that collect light reflected light and direct that light onto a detector is so that light is converged or focused on to the detector in order to extract distance information from an object, for instance.].
37: Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches the emitting device comprises an array of laser emitters non-uniformly arranged on a supporting body [0032, 0047 and figs. 2B, 2C and 3, wherein fig. 3 appears to orient laser diode array 11 vertically with respect to packaged laser diode array 30. In arguendo, absent suggestion or explicit vertical orientation of the laser array, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that vertical and horizontal laser array arrangements are alternatives to one another, requiring a rearrangement of parts such that a desired field of view is covered by the laser array. It has been held that rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Verheggen with the emitter array disclosed in Skidmore with a reasonable expectation of success because such arrays allow for an increased field of view of an environment to be imaged.
38, 45 mutatis mutandis: Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches wherein the array of laser emitters are more densely arranged at a peripheral zone than at a central zone of the supporting body (see fig. 2A-C). However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that rearranging the emitters such that they would be more dense in the center than at a periphery for the purpose of maintaining non-uniform spacing and to increase angular resolution in the center emitting region, known to be useful in applications for autonomous driving, for instance. Rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
40: Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches the emitting device comprises a laser emitter and an optical splitting apparatus [0028 teaches that illuminator 12 includes a laser diode array 11 and diffuser 13, which is known in the art to split light by scattering photons in different directions].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Verheggen with the emitter array disclosed in Skidmore with a reasonable expectation of success because such arrays allow for an increased field of view of an environment to be imaged.
48: Verheggen teaches directing, by the galvanometer, the echo beams toward the mirror [0027 teaches oscillating scanner mirror 5 driven by galvanometer scanner motor 12; 0047 describes a programmable galvanometer-based scanner and 0028, fig. 1: teach secondary scanner mirror 13].
50: Verheggen explicitly lacks, but Skidmore teaches non-uniformly disposing in the emitting apparatus a plurality of laser emitters along the vertical direction [0032, 0047 and figs. 2B, 2C and 3, wherein fig. 3 appears to orient laser diode array 11 vertically with respect to packaged laser diode array 30. In arguendo, absent suggestion or explicit vertical orientation of the laser array, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that vertical and horizontal laser array arrangements are alternatives to one another, requiring a rearrangement of parts such that a desired field of view is covered by the laser array. It has been held that rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Verheggen with the emitter array disclosed in Skidmore with a reasonable expectation of success because such arrays allow for an increased field of view of an environment to be imaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39, 46 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the pending 112(b) rejection from above is overcome. The primary reason(s) for indicating allowable subject matter are as follows: The closest prior art, neither alone nor in combination, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention in such a way that the combination of limitations would be rendered anticipatory or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hall (2011/0216304) is drawn to a lidar based 3D point cloud measuring system that includes a base, a housing, a plurality of optical transmitters and detectors contained within the housing, a rotary motor that rotates the house about a base, and a means of transmitting signals output from the detectors to external components. While Hall teaches multiple transmitters mounted into one hybrid board, Hall fails to teach the claimed arrangement of lasers arranged in a plurality of columns, as such a modification would render Hall inoperable for its intended purpose. Further, Hall fails to teach that multiple transmitters (lasers) along the boards in a horizontal direction as well as vertical. Additionally, while Hall teaches two sets of transmitters, the transmitters are not horizontally and vertically displaced such that they form a crisscross pattern with another set of transmitters. Details of these differences can be found in greater detail in the file wrapper of related application 18/384,631.
Skidmore (US 2013/0314693) is drawn to a range imaging device that employs an array of laser diode emitters that are disposed on a common substrate. The emitters are arranged in a 2D configuration and fail to teach or suggest a second column of emitters such that a crisscrossing arrangement is formed, and such a modification would render Hall inoperable for its intended purpose.
Thus, the closest prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant, nor would there exist a reasonable motivation to combine prior art with similar components in such a way that does not render the original invention inoperable for its intended purpose.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details of why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights