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 (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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “housing shroud that includes at least two coves, each of the at least two coves having at least six sides and at least one rounded edge joining at least two of the at least six sides” described in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 11-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hughes et al. (US 20190310351).
Regarding claim 1, Hughes teaches:
A lidar system, comprising (#10A of Fig. 2, Lidar system):
a light source (#12 of Fig. 2, light source) configured to emit an output beam comprising pulses of light [54];
a scanner (#50 of Fig. 2, scanner) configured to scan the output beam across a field of regard of the lidar system [72], wherein the scanner includes a component shaped to optimize at least one of: a noise or a vibration of the scanner (#300 of Fig. 21, polygon mirror, [147-148]); and
a receiver (#18 of Fig. 2, receiver) configured to detect a received pulse of light [76], the received pulse of light comprising a portion of one of the emitted pulses of light scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system [55].
Regarding claim 3, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the shaped component is a polygon (#300 of Fig. 21, polygon mirror, [147-148]).
Regarding claim 4, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the shaped component includes an edge region (edge shown in Fig. 21, [147-148]) where a plurality of surfaces of the shaped component meet (edge shown in Fig. 21, [147-148]), and the plurality of surfaces includes a first surface and a second surface (edge shown in Fig. 21, [147-148], the first surface being the central chamfer #302, and the second surface being either of the upper or lower chamfers).
Regarding claim 5, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of surfaces that meet at the edge region includes the first surface, the second surface, a third surface, and a fourth surface. (edge shown in Fig. 21, [147-148], the first surface being the central chamfer #302, the second surface being the lower chamfer #302, the third surface being the wall #304, and the fourth surface being the adjacent reflective surface)
Regarding claim 6, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the first surface is shaped as a first triangle (the first surface being the central chamfer #302 of Fig. 21, [147-148]) and the second surface is shaped as a second triangle (the second surface being the lower chamfer #302 of Fig. 21, [147-148]).
Regarding claim 9, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the first surface of the edge region is angled with respect to a vertical surface of the scanner (the first surface being the central chamfer #302 of Fig. 21, the vertical surface being the adjacent reflective surface shown in Fig. 21, [147-148]).
Regarding claim 11, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the vertical surface of the scanner is on an internal vertical wall of a housing shroud in which the component is provided. (Fig. 22 and Fig. 23 illustrate a bracket that partially encloses the polygon mirror, [147] teaches that the chamfers #302 of Fig. 21 are angled with respect to the wall #304 and the adjacent reflective surfaces, the reflective surfaces are shown to be vertical similar to the internal walls of bracket #260B shown in Fig. 22, thus the chamfers are angled with respect to a vertical surface of the bracket, the surface being the internal wall forming cavity #262)
Regarding claim 12, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the edge region is rounded [147].
Regarding claim 13, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a housing shroud (#260B of Fig. 22, bracket) that at least partially surrounds the component [147], wherein the housing shroud is shaped to optimize at least one of: the noise or the vibration of the scanner (#310 of Fig. 22, tapered features, [150]).
Regarding claim 16, Hughes teaches:
A method of manufacture, comprising:
providing a component shaped to optimize at least one of: a noise or a vibration (#310 of Fig. 22, tapered features, [150]) of a scanner (#50 of Fig. 2, scanner), wherein:
the scanner is configured to scan an output beam [72] comprising pulses of light [54] emitted by a light source (#12 of Fig. 2, light source) across a field of regard [72] of a lidar system (#10A of Fig. 2, Lidar system); and
the lidar system includes a receiver (#18 of Fig. 2, receiver) configured to detect a received pulse of light [76], the received pulse of light comprising a portion of one of the emitted pulses of light scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system [55].
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Wang et al. (US 20190278557), hereafter referred to as Zhenli.
Regarding claim 2, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Hughes does not teach:
wherein the component is shaped to meet a loudness threshold.
However, Zhenli teaches:
Comparing sound data to a preset threshold (Step #S102 of Fig. 1, [35-36]) to prevent hearing damage to a user [3-4]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the polygon mirror of Hughes to generate noise below a certain threshold similar to Zhenli with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the safety of the scanner by preventing hearing damage to a user.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Howard et al. (US 20240183947).
Regarding claim 7, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 6
Hughes does not teach:
wherein the first triangle and the second triangle meet a point of the edge region
However, Howard teaches:
Using a top and bottom chamfer (Fig. 7, [63])
Additionally, Hughes teaches:
Using chamfers to reduce the air drag of a polygon mirror [147]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polygon mirror of Hughes to have top and bottom chamfers similar to Zhenli with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further improving the aerodynamic and noise performance of the system. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to further modify the apparatus by joining the two chamfers at a single point, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Changing the sizes of the chamfers would change the aerodynamic profile of the mirror and the usable area of the mirror (Hughes: [147-148]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the chamfer dimensions to create a balance between aerodynamics and usable FOV. In this combination, the triangular first and second surfaces would be the top and bottom triangular chamfers (as seen in Howard), with the third and fourth surface being the adjacent reflective surfaces.
Regarding claim 8, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 6,
Hughes does not teach:
wherein the first triangle has a larger surface area than the second triangle.
However, Howard teaches:
Using multiple polygonal mirrors with top and bottom chamfers (Fig. 7, [63])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR scanner of Hughes with multiple chamfered polygonal mirrors similar to Howard with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the scanner to quickly switch between fields of view, which Howard teaches is beneficial for autonomous vehicles using LIDAR (Howard: [3]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to further modify the apparatus by using chamfers of different surface areas, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Changing the sizes of the chamfers would change the aerodynamic profile of the mirrors, the usable area of the mirrors (Hughes: [147-148]), the compactness of the system, and the vertical FOV of the mirrors (Howard: [63]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the chamfer dimensions to create a balance between aerodynamics, FOV, and compactness. In this combination, the triangular first and second surfaces would be the top and bottom triangular chamfers (as seen in Howard), with the first surface being the larger of the two triangles after optimization, and the third and fourth surfaces being the adjacent reflective surfaces.
Regarding claim 10, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 9
Hughes does not teach:
wherein an angle between the first surface of the edge region and the vertical surface of the scanner is between 10-30 degrees, inclusive.
However, Howard teaches:
Using chamfers to increase the compactness of the system (Fig. 7, [63])
Additionally, Hughes teaches:
Using chamfers to reduce the air drag of a polygon mirror [147]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to modify the apparatus with a chamfer angle of 30 degrees with respect to a vertical surface of the scanner, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Changing the angles of the chamfers would change the aerodynamic profile of the mirror (Hughes: [147]) and the size of the system (Howard: [63]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the chamfer angle to create a balance between aerodynamics and compactness. In this combination, the surfaces designated in the rejection of claim 9 apply.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Wang et al. (US 20220365176) hereafter referred to as Ning-Yi.
Regarding claim 14, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the housing shroud includes at least one cove (#262 of Fig. 22, cavity)
Hughes does not teach, but Ning-Yi does teach:
the cove being of a trapezoidal shape with rounded edges (#1110 of Fig. 11A, enclosure)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bracket of Hughes with a trapezoidal enclosure similar to Ning-Yi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further reducing air vibrations facilitating smoother rotation of a polygon mirror (Ning-Yi: [132]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes.
Regarding claim 15, Hughes teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the housing shroud includes at least two coves (housing #248 of Fig. 18 and bracket #260B of Fig. 22, [123]),
Hughes does not explicitly teach:
each of the at least two coves having at least six sides and at least one rounded edge joining at least two of the at least six sides
However, Hughes does explicitly teach:
The first cove having at least six sides and at least one rounded edge joining at least two of the six sides (two front windows, three sides walls, and one bottom wall shown in Fig. 18), and
PNG
media_image1.png
557
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second cove having at least five sides with at least one rounded edge joining at least two of the five sides (two noise reducing feature sides, one side wall, one top wall and one bottom wall, Fig. 22) and, the second cove having a flat exterior surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
525
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement the bracket of Hughes with a sixth flat interior side. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the size and weight of the bracket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights