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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/09/2026
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 18 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. P transceivers communicatively coupled to the scanner, where P is equal to M, and M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, P transceivers in one-to-one correspondence with M micro reflectors) 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). Here, Applicant argues that Panas, Wang, Liu and Holzinger do not teach P transceivers communicatively coupled to the scanner, where P is equal to M, and M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, P transceivers in one-to-one correspondence with M micro reflectors. However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 07/02/2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Panas, Wang, Liu or Holzinger addresses these limitations is not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Boone, Wang, Jeong, Steinberg, Holzinger, and Singer in the present Office Action.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 depend on 1, 9, and 18 respectively, and are similarly addressed by Boone, Wang, Jeong, Steinberg, Holzinger in the present Office Action.
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 5 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "when P is less than M." However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites "P is a positive integer equal to M." It is unclear how P can be less than M (claim 5), when P is required to be equal to M (parent claim 1). The specifications and drawings do not clarify the ambiguity.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation "when P is less than M." However, claim 9, from which claim 15 depends, recites "P is a positive integer equal to M." It is unclear how P can be less than M (claim 15), when P is required to be equal to M (parent claim 1). The specifications and drawings do not clarify the ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4,and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boone et al. (US 20040258415).
Regarding claim 1, Boone teaches:
A detection apparatus comprising (apparatus #501 of Fig. 5B):
a scanner comprising a micro reflector array (MEMS mirror array #542 of Fig. 5B), wherein the micro reflector array comprises M micro reflectors ([69] states that Fig. 5B shows four optical channels, [74] states that there is one mirror for each channel M = 4), wherein the M micro reflectors are configured to reflect optical signals [77] , and wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (M=4 as shown above); and
P transceivers (multi channel transceiver board #510 of Fig. 5B has one laser diode for each transmission optical channel [70], P=4) communicatively coupled to the scanner (Fig. 5B shows an optical path from laser diodes #514 to MEMS mirror array #542, [71]), wherein the P transceivers are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M micro reflectors ([70] states that there is one laser for each transmission channel and [74] states that there is one mirror for each channel, thus they are in a one to one correspondence, as shown in Fig. 5B), wherein P is a positive integer equal to M (P = M = 4 as shown above), and wherein the P transceivers are configured to:
transmit the optical signals [71]; and/or
receive the optical signals reflected by the M micro reflectors. (alternatively, [78] states that there is one photo-diode per mirror, meaning one photo-diode per channel [74], thus P = M = 4, alternatively, each photodiode #518 and laser diode #514 pair coupled to a channel could be considered a transceiver)
Regarding claim 4, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the P transceivers comprises a laser (laser diodes #514 of Fig. 5B), a collimation system (GRIN collimators #517 of Fig. 5B), an optical splitting system (circulators #516 of Fig. 5B, [73]), and a receiving system (photodiodes #518 of Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 6, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the M micro reflectors is a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) reflector (#542 of Fig. 5B, MEMS mirror array)
Regarding claim 7, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first transceiver of the P transceivers (top laser diode #514 shown in Fig. 5B) is configured to:
transmit a first optical signal to be reflected by a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors corresponding to the first transceiver [71 and 76]; and/or
receive a second optical signal from the first micro reflector
Regarding claim 8, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein one of the P transceivers is in a transmitting-receiving coaxial structure (Using the interpretation in claim 1 where each laser diode #514 and photo diode #518 paired by a circulator is a transceiver, the top laser diode #514 and top photo diode #518 transmit and receive coaxially through top GRIN collimator #517 [71-72]), and wherein the transmitting-receiving coaxial structure indicates that a first optical signal sent by the one of the P transceivers and a second optical signal received by the one of the P transceivers pass through a same path (Fig. 5B shows a shared optical path through GRIN collimator for outgoing and returning light [71-72]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Wang et al. (CN 110632618).
Regarding claim 2, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 1,
Boone does not teach, but Wang teaches:
wherein the detection apparatus further comprises N beam expansion systems (#30 of Fig. 1, beam expander module) configured to:
receive, from the P transceivers (#10 of Fig. 1, first transceiver module), a portion of or all of the optical signals through one or more of the M micro reflectors (#20 of Fig. 1, first scanning module), wherein N is a positive integer less than or equal to M (1 beam expander is shown, and 2 mirrors are shown (scanning modules #20 and #50, [13]), N = 1,M = 2, N < M, N >= 1): and
change a detection range of the detection apparatus [36]; and/or
the P transceivers (#10 of Fig. 1, first transceiver module), are further configured to receive a first optical signal of the optical signals that arrives at one or more of the M micro reflectors through the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the one or more micro reflectors [81].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the telescopic optics of Boone with the beam expansion module similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the power density of the beam by decreasing the divergence.
Regarding claim 3, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 2, wherein a first transceiver of the P transceivers is configured to:
transmit a second optical signal (top laser diode #514 of Fig. 5B emits light [71-72]); and/or
receive a third optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors (top photodiode #518 of Fig. 5B receives light from the MEMS mirror through the GRIN collimator and the circulator [71-72])
Boone does not teach:
receive a third optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors through a first beam expansion system of the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the first micro reflector
wherein the N beam expansion systems comprise a first beam expansion system, wherein the first beam expansion system is configured to receive the second optical signal through the first micro reflector, and wherein the first micro reflector is located in a middle position of the M micro reflectors.
However, Wang teaches:
receive a third optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors through a first beam expansion system of the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the first micro reflector [81]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the telescopic optics of Boone with the beam expansion module similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the power density of the beam by decreasing the divergence.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boone in view of Jeong et al. (US 20170356983).
Regarding claim 5, Boone teaches:
The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein H transceivers in the P transceivers are configured to transmit H optical signals of the optical signals (the four lasers #514 of Fig. 5B transmit four signals),
Boone does not teach:
wherein the detection apparatus further comprises an optical splitting system when P is less than M wherein the optical splitting system is configured to split the H optical signals into K optical signals, wherein H is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to P, and wherein K is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to M.
However, Jeong teaches:
wherein the detection apparatus further comprises an optical splitting system when P is less than M (optical generation unit #417 of Fig. 5, P=1) wherein the optical splitting system is configured to split the H optical signals into K optical signals (optical splitter unit #510 of Fig. 5 [179]), wherein H is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (optical generation unit #417 of Fig. 5 shows one optical signal) and less than or equal to P (there is 1 transceiver (optical generation unit #417 and photo detector #421), so H = P = 1), and wherein K is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to M (K is a plurality, thus K>= 2 [179], the output of optical splitters is routed to OPA #1010a of Fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the transceiver of Wang to use a beam splitter similar to Jeong with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the number of steerable beams without increasing the number of lasers required, increasing the versatility of the system.
Claim(s) 9, 12-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200) in view of Boone.
Regarding claim 9, Steinberg teaches:
A detection method implemented by a detection apparatus (LIDAR system illustrated in Fig. 2B), wherein the detection method comprises:
transmitting, by P transceivers of the detection apparatus (projecting units #102 of Fig. 2B, [133-134]), at least one optical signal (projected light #204 of Fig. 2B);
receiving, by the P transceivers (sensor #116 of Fig. 2B is shown receiving light), an echo of the at least one optical signal (reflected light #206 of Fig. 2B) reflected by the M micro reflectors (projected light #204 is shown being reflected by deflector #114 in Fig. 2B, [128]).
Steinberg does not teach:
reflecting, by M micro reflectors of a micro reflector array of the detection apparatus and that are in a one-to-one correspondence with the P transceivers, the at least one optical signal, wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 2, wherein N is a positive integer less than or equal to M, and wherein P is a positive integer less than or equal to M; and
However, Boone teaches:
reflecting, by M micro reflectors of a micro reflector array of the detection apparatus (#542 of Fig. 5B, MEMS mirror array [76-77]) and that are in a one-to-one correspondence with the P transceivers ([69] states that Fig. 5B shows four optical channels, [74] states that there is one mirror for each channel M = 4, multi-channel transceiver board #510 of Fig. 5B has one laser diode for each transmission optical channel [70], P=4, Fig. 5B shows that the transceivers (lser diodes #514 and corresponding photodiodes #518, are in a one to one correspondence ), the at least one optical signal [76-77], wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (M = 4), wherein N is a positive integer less than or equal to M, and wherein P is a positive integer equal to M (P = 4); and
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Steinberg to use a micromirror array in a one to one correspondence with transceivers similar to Boone with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for different scan patterns to be used simultaneously for different fields of view, increasing the versatility of the LIDAR system.
Regarding claim 12, Steinberg teaches:
The detection method of claim 9,
Steinberg does not teach:
further comprising adjusting, by the micro reflector array, a rotation angle of at least one of the M micro reflectors to change a scanning angle of an optical signal reflected by the at least one of the M micro reflectors in space.
However, Boone teaches:
further comprising adjusting, by the micro reflector array, a rotation angle of at least one of the M micro reflectors to change a scanning angle of an optical signal reflected by the at least one of the M micro reflectors in space [76].
Regarding claim 13, Steinberg teaches:
The detection method of claim 12, wherein after adjusting the rotation angle, the method further comprises:
increasing the scanning angle [553]; and
removing a blind area between a first field of view formed in the space by a portion of or all optical signals in the at least one optical signal and a second field of view formed in the space by the optical signal reflected by the at least one of the M micro reflectors (Fig. 31 shows LIDAR #7 increasing it’s field of view to cover the blind spot left between LIDAR #7’s field of view and LIDAR #5’s field of view).
Regarding claim 14, Steinberg, as modified above teaches:
The detection method of claim 9, wherein each of the P transceivers comprises a laser (projecting unit #102 of Fig. 2B), a collimation system (optical assembly #202B in Fig. 2A, [128]), an optical splitting system (asymmetrical deflector #216 of Fig. 2B [133], the deflector may be a polarizing beam splitter), and a receiving system (sensor #116 of Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 16, Steinberg, as modified above, teaches:
The detection method of claim 9,
Steinberg does not teach:
wherein a first micro reflector is a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) reflector.
However, Boone teaches:
wherein a first micro reflector is a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) reflector (#542 of Fig. 5B, MEMS mirror array)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Steinberg to use a micromirror array in a one to one correspondence with transceivers similar to Boone with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for different scan patterns to be used simultaneously for different fields of view, increasing the versatility of the LIDAR system.
Regarding claim 17, Steinberg, as modified above, teaches:
The detection method of claim 9, wherein one of the P transceivers is in a transmitting-receiving coaxial structure (Fig. 2B shows the projected light #204 and the reflected light following the same path external path [133]), and wherein the transmitting-receiving coaxial structure indicates that a first optical signal sent by the one of the P transceivers and a second optical signal received by the one of the P transceivers pass through a same path [133].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Boone as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 10, Steinberg, as modified above, teaches:
The detection method of claim 9,
receiving, by the P transceivers, a second echo of the portion of or all of the optical signals (the top sensor #116 of Fig. 2B receives a separate echo signal )
Steinberg does not teach:
further comprising: changing, by N beam expansion systems of the detection apparatus, a detection range of the detection apparatus;
enabling a portion of or all of optical signals in the at least one optical signal to arrive at the N beam expansion systems after being reflected by one or more of the M micro reflectors and to be transmitted by the N beam expansion systems; and
However, Wang teaches:
changing, by N beam expansion systems of the detection apparatus, a detection range of the detection apparatus [36];
enabling a portion of or all of optical signals in the at least one optical signal to arrive at the N beam expansion systems after being reflected by one or more of the M micro reflectors and to be transmitted by the N beam expansion systems [81]; and
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Steinberg with the beam expansion module similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the coverage zone of the LIDAR system, and increasing its versatility [36].
Regarding claim 11, Steinberg, as modified above, teaches:
The detection method of claim 10,
Steinberg does not teach:
further comprising adjusting, by the N beam expansion systems, a focal length to change a scanning angle of the portion of or all the optical signals in space.
However, Wang teaches:
further comprising adjusting, by the N beam expansion systems, a focal length to change a scanning angle of the portion of or all the optical signals in space ([Wang:36] states that the beam expander module changes the detection distance, the instant application states in [81] that changing the focal length is equivalent to changing the detection range)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Steinberg with the beam expansion module similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the coverage zone of the LIDAR system, and increasing its versatility [36].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Boone as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Holzinger (US 10698303).
Regarding claim 15, Steinberg, as modified above, teaches:
The detection method of claim 14,
Steinberg does not teach:
wherein P is less than M, and wherein the method further comprises:
splitting, by an optical splitting system of the detection apparatus, H optical signals in the at least one optical signal into K optical signals, wherein the H optical signals are from H transceivers in the P transceivers, wherein H is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to P, and wherein K is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to M;
reflecting, by K micro reflectors, the H optical signals; and
reflecting, by M-K micro reflectors in the M micro reflectors, P-H optical signals in the at least one optical signal.
However, Holzinger teaches:
splitting, by an optical splitting system (beam shaping element #17 of Fig. 1) of the detection apparatus, H optical signals in the at least one optical signal into K optical signals (“configured to split the laser light from the laser light source into a multiplicity of partial beams, which are each oriented toward one of the mirrors of the micromirror array”, H = 1, K = M), wherein the H optical signals are from H transceivers in the P transceivers (P=1, laser #16 of Fig. 1), wherein H is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to P (H = P = 1), and wherein K is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to M (K = M);
reflecting, by K micro reflectors , the H optical signals (#18 of Fig. 1, micromirror array);and
reflecting, by M-K micro reflectors in the M micro reflectors, P-H optical signals in the at least one optical signal (beam-shaping element #17 produces M optical signals (where M is the number of micromirrors), [Col. 7 Lines 26-46] states that each mirror is illuminated by a partial beam and each partial beam illuminates a mirror. When these are in a one-to-one relationship, this limitation includes 0 beams).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Steinberg to use a beam splitting optic similar to Holzinger with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the number of lasers required for the system, thus reducing the complexity.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer (US 20200116832) in view of Boone.
Regarding claim 18, Singer teaches:
A light detection and ranging or laser imaging, detection, and ranging (lidar) system comprising (multiple beam, single mirror lidar system #300 of Fig. 5):
an optical splitting system configured to split an incident optical signal into optical signals (splitter #306 of Fig. 5, [47); and
a detection apparatus coupled to the optical splitting system and comprising (LIDAR channels #202, 204, and 206 of Fig. 5 as well as MEMS mirror #102)
a scanner (MEMS Mirror #102)
P transceivers communicatively coupled to the scanner (LIDAR channels #202, 204, and 206 of Fig. 5) configured to:
transmit the optical signals [27, 39]; and/or
receive the optical signals [27, 39] reflected by the M micro reflectors [52],
Singer does not teach:
a scanner comprising a micro reflector array, wherein the micro reflector array comprises M micro reflectors, wherein the M micro reflectors are configured to reflect the optical signals, and wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 2; and
wherein the P transceivers are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M micro reflectors,
However, Boone teaches:
a scanner comprising a micro reflector array (MEMS mirror array #542 of Fig. 5B), wherein the micro reflector array comprises M micro reflectors ([69] states that Fig. 5B shows four optical channels, [74] states that there is one mirror for each channel M = 4), wherein the M micro reflectors are configured to reflect optical signals [77] , and wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (M=4 as shown above); and
wherein the P transceivers are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M micro reflectors ([70] states that there is one laser for each transmission channel thus P=4 ,and [74] states that there is one mirror for each channel, thus they are in a one to one correspondence, as shown in Fig. 5B)
wherein P is a positive integer equal to M (P = M = 4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Singer to use a micro reflector array in a one to one correspondence to the transceivers similar to Boone with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility and adaptability of the LIDAR system by allowing for multiple scan patterns for different fields of view.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer in view of Boone as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 19, Singer teaches:
The lidar system of claim 18,
Singer does not teach:
wherein the detection apparatus further comprises N beam expansion systems configured to:
receive, from the P transceivers, a portion of or all optical signals through one or more of the M micro reflectors, wherein N is a positive integer less than or equal to M; and
change a detection range of the detection apparatus; and/or
the P transceivers are further configured to receive an optical signal that arrives at one or more of the M micro reflectors through the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the one or more micro reflectors.
However, Wang teaches:
wherein the detection apparatus further comprises N beam expansion systems (#30 of Fig. 1, beam expander module) configured to:
receive, from the P transceivers (#10 of Fig. 1, first transceiver module), a portion of or all optical signals through one or more of the M micro reflectors (#20 of Fig. 1, first scanning module), wherein N is a positive integer less than or equal to M (1 beam expander is shown, 1 is less than or equal to M as M is greater than or equal to 2): and
change a detection range of the detection apparatus [36]; and/or
the P transceivers are further configured to receive an optical signal that arrives at one or more of the M micro reflectors through the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the one or more micro reflectors [81].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Singer with the beam expansion module similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the coverage zone of the LIDAR system, and increasing its versatility [36].
Regarding claim 20, Singer, as modified above, teaches:
The lidar system of claim 19, wherein a first transceiver of the P transceivers (LIDAR channel #204 of Fig. 5) is configured to
transmit a first optical signal [27 and 39]; and/or
receive a second optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector [52],
Singer does not teach:
receive a second optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors through a first beam expansion system of the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the first micro reflector,
wherein the first beam expansion system is configured to receive the first optical signal through the first micro reflector, and
wherein the first micro reflector is located in a middle position of the M micro reflectors.
However, Boone teaches:
receive a second optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors that is reflected by the first micro reflector, ( [72 and 77])
a one to one correspondence between mirrors and transceivers (Fig. 5B of Boone shows mirrors and transceivers in a one to one correspondence [69-70, 74, and 77])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Singer to use a micro reflector array in a one to one correspondence to the transceivers similar to Boone with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the versatility and adaptability of the LIDAR system by allowing for multiple scan patterns for different fields of view. In this combination, the first micro reflector would occupy the middle position of the M micro reflectors as Singer shows three channels. The channels in a one to one correspondence would use an array of three mirrors. The middle channel (Singer: #204 of Fig. 5) would then be using the middle mirror of the 3 mirrors.
Additionally, Wang teaches:
receive a second optical signal that arrives at a first micro reflector of the M micro reflectors through a first beam expansion system of the N beam expansion systems and that is reflected by the first micro reflector [81]
wherein the first beam expansion system is configured to receive the first optical signal through the first micro reflector, and [81]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LIDAR system of Singer with the beam expansion module similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the coverage zone of the LIDAR system, and increasing its versatility [36].
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 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