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 Amendment
The following addresses Applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 30 July 2026.
Claim 14 was amended; no new claims were added; no claims were cancelled; therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on Pages 9-11 regarding Park failing to disclose a controller configured to control, based on the first reflected light beam, the laser emitters to emit a second light beam and citing specific embodiments from Paragraphs [0115]-[0117] of the Applicant’s specification, this argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., closed-loop feedback or specific real-time angular calculation formulas) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Park discloses controlling the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time, and a third laser at a third emitting time with specified time gaps (Park, paragraph [0065]). Under BRI, emitting a second beam following the initial beam after a controlled delay means the occurrence and timing of the second emission are contingent upon (and therefore “based on”) the first emission event (i.e., without the first beam sequence, the second beam sequence is not initialized).
In response to Applicant’s argument on Page 11 regarding an internal inconsistency in the Office Action regarding the mapping of the “reflector” across Claim 1 and dependent Claims 7, 8, and 13, without conceding that the prior mapping was insufficient under BRI, the rejection of Claim 1 over Park has been updated to consistently utilize the rotating reflector structure as mapped in Claims 7, 8, and 13. Park explicitly discloses a rotating reflector with a plurality of reflective surfaces (Park, paragraphs [0033] and [0325]). This clarification maintains the same primary ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Park.
In response to Applicant’s argument on Pages 13-15 regarding Kim’s failure to teach receiving a second reflected light beam reflected from a “second location” of the reflector and asserting that Kim merely depicts ray traces of a single beam, Applicant’s argument regarding Kim is noted. However, the limitation is now met primarily by Park under 25 U.S.C. 103. Park discloses a rotating reflector and a predetermined time delay between the first emission moment and the second emission moment (Park, paragraphs [0033] and [0065]). Because the reflector in Park continuously rotates during the time interval between the first and second emissions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the second emitted beam inevitably strikes and reflects from a different, second physical location on the moving reflector surface as an obvious physical outcome.
In response to Applicant’s argument on Pages 15-16 regarding Lu’s failure to teach controlling a rotation speed of the reflector based on an angle by which the reflector rotates between the first emission moment and the second emission moment, this argument has been fully considered but is unpersuasive. Under BRI, Lu explicitly teaches that by controlling the rotation speeds of the MEMS mirror and rotary base, as well as controlling the firing timing of the laser emitters, different scanning patterns and 2D sensing resolutions are achieved (Lu, paragraph [0059]). In a rotating scanning system, the angular position swept by the reflector between pulse emissions directly dictates the spatial resolution and scanning pattern. Controlling the relationship between rotation speed and laser firing timing is the functional equivalent of controlling rotation speed based on the angular displacement between emission moments. Therefore, the combination of Park and Lu renders this limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 2022/0146682 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a detection apparatus ([0054] a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device); comprising:
one or more laser emitters comprising a first laser emitter configured to emit a first light beam ([0065] a laser emitting unit configured to emit a laser aperiodically at a controlled emitting time);
a reflector configured to reflect the first light beam at a first location to create a first reflected light beam ([0082] For example, an optic may be disposed on an upper portion of the laser emitting element, and thus the optic may enable a laser beam emitted from the laser emitting element to be detected by a detecting unit immediately without reaching an object. The optic may be a mirror);
one or more laser detectors comprising a first laser detector configured to receive the first reflected light beam from the reflector ([0065] a detecting unit configured to detect a laser which is emitted from the laser emitting unit and reflected by the object aperiodically during at a controlled detecting window); and
a controller configured to control, based on the first reflected light beam, the one or more laser emitters to emit a second light beam for target detection ([0065] control the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time and a third laser at a third emitting time, wherein a first time gap between the first emitting time and the second emitting time is different from a second time gap between the second emitting time and the third emitting time).
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses that the controller is further configured to control the first laser emitter to emit the second light beam ([0066] the processor is configured to control the laser emitting unit to emit the first laser, the second laser, and the third laser consecutively), or wherein the controller is configured to control a second laser emitter to emit the second light beam, wherein the second laser emitter is different from the first laser emitter.
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses that the controller is further configured to control, based on the first reflected light beam, the one or more laser emitters to emit the second light beam to a detection area ([0065] control the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time and a third laser at a third emitting time, wherein a first time gap between the first emitting time and the second emitting time is different from a second time gap between the second emitting time and the third emitting time) through the reflector, and wherein the reflector is configured to reflect the second light beam to create a second reflected light beam ([0105] the optic unit 200 may change a flight path of a laser beam such that a laser beam emitted from the laser emitting unit 100 is directed to a scanning region), and wherein the one or more laser detectors corresponding to the one or more laser emitters are configured to receive the second reflected light beam ([0065] control the detecting unit to: detect a first set of photons during a first detecting time window and generate a first set of signals, detect a second set of photons during a second detecting time window and generate a second set of signals, and detect a third set of photons during a third detecting time window and generate a third set of signals… and determine the distance information of the object based on at least the first set of signals, the second set of signals and the third set of signals.).
Regarding Claim 5, Park discloses that the controller is further configured to perform the target detection based on the second reflected light beam ([0065] determine the distance information of the object based on at least the first set of signals, the second set of signals and the third set of signals).
Regarding Claim 6, The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first laser emitter and the first laser detector are located based on the first location of the reflector ([0338] Here, a portion of each of the reflective surfaces of the rotating polygonal mirror, which is used to irradiate the emitted laser to the scan region of the LiDAR device, will be referred to as an irradiated portion. In addition, a portion of each of the reflective surfaces of the rotating polygonal mirror, which is used for the detecting unit to receive the laser reflected from the object existing on the scan region, will be referred to as a light-receiving portion).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses that the reflector comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces ([0033] FIG. 25 is a top view for describing a viewing angle of a rotating polygonal mirror when the number of reflective surfaces is five and a shape of upper and lower portions of a body is a regular pentagonal shape), wherein the first location is located on a first reflective surface in the plurality of reflective surfaces ([0325] For example, when the laser is reflected through a first reflective surface of the rotating polygonal mirror 650, the reflected laser may be reflected upward at an angle of 120 degrees with respect to the incident laser 653. In addition, when the laser is reflected through a third reflective surface of the rotating polygonal mirror 650, the reflected laser may be reflected downward at an angle of 120 degrees with respect to the incident laser 653).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses that each reflective surface is the plurality of reflective surfaces comprises the first location, and wherein angles between first locations of any two groups of adjacent reflective surfaces are the same ([0325] For example, when the laser is reflected through a first reflective surface of the rotating polygonal mirror 650, the reflected laser may be reflected upward at an angle of 120 degrees with respect to the incident laser 653. In addition, when the laser is reflected through a third reflective surface of the rotating polygonal mirror 650, the reflected laser may be reflected downward at an angle of 120 degrees with respect to the incident laser 653).
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses that the reflector is a swing mirror, a three-surface reflector, a four-surface reflector, a five-surface reflector ([0033] FIG. 25 is a top view for describing a viewing angle of a rotating polygonal mirror when the number of reflective surfaces is five and a shape of upper and lower portions of a body is a regular pentagonal shape), or a six-surface reflector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of Ledbetter et al. (US 2020/0150247 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Park is not relied upon as teaching that the controller is further configured to adjust a rotation speed of the reflector based on the first reflected light beam.
However, Ledbetter teaches that the controller is further configured to adjust a rotation speed of the reflector based on the first reflected light beam ([0081] The modules may incorporate real-time feedback of point map performance to make necessary adjustments to, for example, repetition rate, mirror rotations speed).
Park and Ledbetter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-dimensional LiDAR sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector control subsystem of Park to include the real-time performance feedback features of Ledbetter with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to actively stabilize operational scanning patterns, mitigate physical motor lag, and preserve high-fidelity coordinate tracking across changing operating environments. By integrating Ledbetter’s teaching of incorporating real-time feedback of point map performance to make necessary adjustments to mirror rotation speeds into the scanning control layout of Park, the system can utilize the first reflected light beam received immediately at the detector assembly to assess live scanning performance metrics. Because spatial point mapping errors are a direct artifact of subtle variations in the reflector’s real-time physical sweep, tracking the behavior of this reflected return signal allows the controller to instantly calculate timing drifts and dynamically modulate the mirror drive motor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using ongoing point map performance feedback derived from reflected beam detections to modify the real-time velocity of a scanning element would yield the predictable result of preventing coordinate distortion and maintaining strict spatial layout consistency during continuous aperiodic scanning cycles.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of MA (US 2023/0035528 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Park is not relied upon as teaching an emitting mirror group, disposed between the first laser emitter and the reflector, and configured to focus the first light beam from the first laser emitter to the reflector; or
a receiving mirror group, disposed between the first laser detector and the reflector, and configured to focus to the first laser detector, the first reflected light beam.
However, MA teaches an emitting mirror group, disposed between the first laser emitter and the reflector, and configured to focus the first light beam from the first laser emitter to the reflector ([0185] therefore, the angle of the plane mirror can be changed to change the deflection direction, so that the outgoing laser passing through the plane mirrors can arrive and be focused, thereby reducing the size of the deflection mechanism 213. For example, as shown in FIG. 11, included angles between outgoing lasers emitted by a plurality of plane mirrors and the laser emission module 211 are successively decreased in the first direction, so that an outgoing laser passing through each plane mirror is focused toward the center).
Park and MA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical signal steering assemblies and multi-channel LiDAR sensor transmitters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter transmission path of Park to include the emitting mirror group features of MA with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to minimize the physical footprint of the optical assembly, optimize beam center targeting, and increase angular coverage without adding additional laser emitters. By integrating MA’s teaching of positioning an emitting plane mirror group between a laser emitter and a central scanning reflector to sequentially decrease included angles and focus an outgoing laser passing through each plane mirror toward a central trajectory into Park’s multi-emitter system, the apparatus can achieve a tighter optical alignment and significantly reduce the overall size of the deflection mechanism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a group of dedicated intermediate mirrors to pre-deflect and consolidate multiple transmit channels onto a single scanning element would yield the predictable result of maximizing transmission field density while preserving independent aperiodic emission control.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of MA (US 2023/0035528 A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 2022/0326357 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Park is not relied upon as teaching at least one narrow-band optical filter in the emitting mirror group.
However, Banerjee teaches at least one narrow-band optical filter in the emitting mirror group ([0056] the passive section mirror 312 may be a narrow band mirror or filter, e.g. at least regarding the first mirror 302 and the second mirror 306).
Park (as previously modified by MA) and Banerjee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical signal transmission paths and multi-wavelength laser steering assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emitting mirror group assembly of Park (as previously modified by MA) to include the narrow-band optical filter features of Banerjee with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to suppress ambient background noise, prevent internal optical cross-talk between multi-emitter arrays, and maximize signal purity along the outgoing transmission path. By integrating Banerjee’s teaching of utilizing a passive section mirror that functions as a narrow band mirror or filter within a multi-reflector steering group into the mitting plane mirror group layout of Park (as previously modified by MA), the system can optically isolate the target laser wavelength directly at the intermediate reflection staging point. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that embedding narrow-band wavelength filtering properties directly into the surface coatings of an emitting mirror group would yield the predictable result of stripping away unwanted spectral emissions before the light beams hit the primary scanning reflector, thereby maximizing downstream environmental tracking precision.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of Shimadu et al. (US 20170108794 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Park is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more laser emitters further comprises a second laser emitter, wherein the one or more laser detectors further comprises a second laser detector, wherein the first emitter and first laser detector are located on a first side of the reflector, wherein the second laser emitter and the second laser detector are located on a second side of the reflector, wherein the second side is different from the first side, wherein the controller is configured to control, based on the first reflected light beam of the first light beam received by the first laser detector, the second laser emitter to emit the second light beam, and wherein the second laser detector is configured to receive a second reflected light beam of the second light beam reflected by the reflector.
However, Shimadu teaches that that the one or more laser emitters further comprises a second laser emitter ([0026] the exposing unit 500 includes a first laser source 503Y, a second laser source 503M, a third laser source 503C, and a fourth laser source 503K (also referred to as laser sources 503 when not distinguishing therebetween)), wherein the one or more laser detectors further comprises a second laser detector ([0033] The first BD sensor 560 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the first BD sensor 560… The second BD sensor 570 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the second BD sensor 570), wherein the first emitter and first laser detector are located on a first side of the reflector, wherein the second laser emitter and the second laser detector are located on a second side of the reflector, wherein the second side is different from the first side (Fig. 3 Examiner Note: Fig. 3, reproduced below, clearly illustrates that emitter C is on “a first side of the reflector” and emitter Y is on “a second side of the reflector” wherein the second side is different from the first side, further detectors BD1 and BD2 are also represented on both sides of the divide, please see the dotted line annotation in the figure demonstrating on which side of the reflector these sensors lie), wherein the controller is configured to control, based on the first reflected light beam of the first light beam received by the first laser detector, the second laser emitter to emit the second light beam ([0047] Based on a time difference between the receiving timing of a BD signal from the first BD sensor 560 and the receiving timing of a BD signal from the second BD sensor 570, a writing timing of each of the third laser source 503C and the fourth laser source 503K may be corrected), and wherein the second laser detector is configured to receive a second reflected light beam of the second light beam reflected by the reflector ([0033] The first BD sensor 560 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the first BD sensor 560… The second BD sensor 570 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the second BD sensor 570.).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park and Shimadu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning devices and laser beam detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the component layout of Park to include the cross-facet, multi-hemisphere spatial configuration of Shimadu with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maximize the structural utility of multiple active facets of a single rotating polygon mirror concurrently while isolating optical tracks to prevent signal cross-talk. By integrating Shimadu’s teaching of distributing dynamic scanning paths and respective beam detection sensors (BD1 and BD2) across separate, opposite sides of a centralized reflective axis into Park’s system, the system can utilize opposite sectors of a single mirror to execute multi-channel tracking without geometric interference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that balancing the optical workload across distinct spatial hemispheres would yield the predictable result of expanding system throughput using a single, centralized scanning driver.
Regarding Claim 12, Park is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more laser emitters further comprises a second laser emitter, wherein the one or more laser detectors further comprises a second laser detector, wherein the first laser emitter, the first laser detector, the second laser emitter, and the second laser detector are located on a same side of the reflector, wherein the second laser emitter is configured to emit the second light beam, and wherein the second laser detector is configured to receive a second reflect light beam of the second light beam reflected by the reflector.
However, Shimadu teaches that the one or more laser emitters further comprises a second laser emitter ([0026] the exposing unit 500 includes a first laser source 503Y, a second laser source 503M, a third laser source 503C, and a fourth laser source 503K (also referred to as laser sources 503 when not distinguishing therebetween)), wherein the one or more laser detectors further comprises a second laser detector ([0033] The first BD sensor 560 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the first BD sensor 560… The second BD sensor 570 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the second BD sensor 570), wherein the first laser emitter, the first laser detector, the second laser emitter, and the second laser detector are located on a same side of the reflector (Fig. 3 Examiner Note: As demonstrated by a horizontal axis annotation cutting across the center of the polygon mirror 505 in Fig. 3 below, the required components sit currently on the same [lower] side of the reflector assembly. Specifically, the first laser emitter 503Y, the second laser emitter 503C, the first detector BD1 (560), and the second detector BD2 (570) are all positioned concurrently within the bottom half of the housing), wherein the second laser emitter is configured to emit the second light beam ([0028] Each of the light-emitting portions LD may be, for example, a laser diode, i.e., a light emitting point of a semiconductor laser array.), and wherein the second laser detector is configured to receive a second reflect light beam of the second light beam reflected by the reflector ([0033] The first BD sensor 560 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the first BD sensor 560… The second BD sensor 570 is positioned at such a location where the laser beams L reflected off the reflecting surface of the polygon mirror 505 can be incident on the second BD sensor 570).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park and Shimadu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning devices and laser beam detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the component layout of Park to include the single-hemisphere hardware consolidation of Shimadu with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to minimize the manufacturing footprint, lower structural assembly costs, and simplify physical calibration. By integrating Shimadu’s teaching of grouping a plurality of distinct laser sources (503Y, 503C) and their corresponding reflected-beam detectors (BD1, BD2) entirely within a single, localized hemisphere below the optical axis into Park’s system, the system can consolidate adjacent electro-optical hardware into a shared mounting zone. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that clustering these components on a single side of the assembly would yield the predictable result of reducing raw wiring complexity and lowering fabrication costs via standardized manufacturing brackets.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0317261 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Park teaches a method, implemented by a detection apparatus ([0054] a method of controlling a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device), wherein the method comprises:
controlling a first laser emitter of the detection apparatus to emit a first light beam at a first emission moment ([Abstract] a laser emitting unit configured to emit a laser aperiodically at a controlled emitting time);
receiving by a first laser detection of the detection apparatus a detecting unit configured to detect a laser which is emitted from the laser emitting unit ([Abstract] a detecting unit configured to detect a laser which is emitted from the laser emitting unit), a first reflected light beam of the first light beam reflected from a first location of a reflector of the detection apparatus ([0082] thus the optic may enable a laser beam emitted from the laser emitting element to be detected by a detecting unit immediately without reaching an object. The optic may be a mirror);
controlling the first laser emitter to emit a second light beam at a second emission moment based on the first reflected light beam ([0065] control the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time and a third laser at a third emitting time, wherein a first time gap between the first emitting time and the second emitting time is different from a second time gap between the second emitting time and the third emitting time);
receiving, by the first laser detector, a second reflected light beam of the second light beam ([0065] detect a second set of photons during a second detecting time window and generate a second set of signals) reflected from a second location of the reflector ([0033] FIG. 25 is a top view for describing a viewing angle of a rotating polygonal mirror when the number of reflective surfaces is five and a shape of upper and lower portions of a body is a regular pentagonal shape [0065] control the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time and a third laser at a third emitting time, wherein a first time gap between the first emitting time and the second emitting time is different from a second time gap between the second emitting time and the third emitting time Examiner Note: Park teaches a rotating reflector and a predetermined time delay between the first emission moment and the second emission moment. Because the reflector in Park continuously rotates during the time interval between the first and second emissions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the second emitted beam inevitably strikes and reflects from a different, second physical location on the moving reflector surface as an obvious physical outcome); and
controlling a rotation speed of the reflector ([0131] the processor 400 may control the operating speed of the optic unit 200. In detail, the optic unit 200 may control the rotational speed of a rotating mirror).
Park is not relied upon as teaching controlling a rotation speed of the reflector based on an angle by which the reflector rotates between the first emission moment and the second emission moment.
However, Lu teaches controlling a rotation speed of the reflector based on an angle by which the reflector rotates between the first emission moment and the second emission moment ([0059] by controlling the rotation speeds of MEMS mirror 612 and rotary base 621, different scanning patterns may be also achieved. Further, by controlling the rotation speed of rotary base 621 and/or firing time of the laser emitter(s) of LiDAR system 600, the resolution of the 2D environmental sensing may be also controlled).
Park and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning devices and rotational radar sensor frameworks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector speed control subsystem of Park to include the dynamic rotation speed control features of Lu with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to optimize horizontal spatial resolution and dynamically vary operational scanning patterns across specific target zones. By integrating Lu’s teaching of controlling the rotation speed of a rotary scanner base and matching it to the firing times of laser emitters to adjust the resolution of environmental sensing into Park’s multi-emitter timing control framework, the processor can directly modulate motor velocity based on calculated angular displacements between sequential pulse triggers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modulating reflector rotation speeds to match the exact angular flight intervals of preceding light paths would yield the predictable result of ensuring steady, programmable point distributions across varying mechanical scan speeds.
Regarding Claim 16, Park teaches controlling, based on the first reflected light beam received by the first laser detector, one or more laser emitters to emit a third light beam;
emitting the third light beam to a detection area through the reflector; and
receiving, by one or more laser detectors corresponding to the one or more laser emitters, by using the reflector, a third reflected light beam of the third light beam that passes through the detection area ([0065] control the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time and a third laser at a third emitting time, wherein a first time gap between the first emitting time and the second emitting time is different from a second time gap between the second emitting time and the third emitting time, control the detecting unit to: detect a first set of photons during a first detecting time window and generate a first set of signals, detect a second set of photons during a second detecting time window and generate a second set of signals, and detect a third set of photons during a third detecting time window and generate a third set of signals… determine the distance information of the object based on at least the first set of signals, the second set of signals and the third set of signals).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0317261 A1) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Kimura et al (US 12,352,858 B2) and Ledbetter et al. (US 2020/015247 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Park is not relied upon as teaching determining the rotation speed of the reflector based on the angle by which the reflector rotates between the first emission moment and the second emission moment; and adjusting the rotation speed for the reflector at a next moment based on the rotation speed of the reflector.
However, Kimura teaches that controlling the rotation speed of the reflector comprises:
determining the rotation speed of the reflector based on the angle by which the reflector rotates between the first emission moment and the second emission moment ([Col. 7, ll. 47-55] Also, an angular difference, between the measurement direction, in relation to the reflected laser light beam, of the photodetector for TOF measurement 18a in current received light, and that of the photodetector for noise measurement 18b in succeeding received light, that is a horizontal resolution, is determined by the rotational speed of the polygon mirror 14, a measurement time interval, an incident angle of the emission light beam to the polygon mirror 14 and the like).
Park (as previously modified by Lu) and Kimura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning devices and laser radar detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector scanning control architecture of Park (as previously modified by Lu) to include the rotation speed determination features of Kimura with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately establish horizontal scanning limits and dynamically balance measurement time intervals against the physical behavior of the scanner. By integrating Kimura’s teaching of determining the rotation speed of a polygon mirror based on the angular difference and sweep intervals existing between successive laser emission tracking milestones into the system of Park, the apparatus can mathematically align its processing clock directly with the live motion of the reflector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that deriving reflector velocity properties directly from the angular boundaries of an emission window would yield the predictable result of ensuring tight data point distribution uniformity throughout a target sector.
Kimura is not relied upon as teaching adjusting the rotation speed for the reflector at a next moment based on the rotation speed of the reflector.
However, Ledbetter teaches adjusting the rotation speed for the reflector at a next moment based on the rotation speed of the reflector ([0081] The modules may incorporate real-time feedback of point map performance to make necessary adjustments to, for example, repetition rate, mirror rotations speed, skew angle, tilt, etc.).
Park (as previously modified by Lu, and Kimura) and Ledbetter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-dimensional LiDAR sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector control subsystem of Park to include the real-time performance feedback features of Ledbetter with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to directly regulate downstream optical scan densities by dynamically tying past kinematic reflector performance to future motor velocity adjustments. By integrating Ledbetter’s teaching of incorporating real-rime feedback of point map performance to execute subsequent closed-loop modifications to mirror rotation speeds into the velocity-tracking layout of Park, the controller can process the resulting point cloud data as a direct effect of the scanner’s current velocity profile. Because spatial point density distortions are a direct artifact of the reflector’s real-time motion, evaluating this point cloud feedback allows the system to determine the exact structural behavior of the current rotation speed and immediately leverage it to calculate the necessary velocity change for the next moment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using the structural spatial output of a current mirror velocity to directly calculate and adjust the motor speed parameter for subsequent scanning moment would yield the predictable result of actively stabilizing horizontal resolution uniformity across shifting operational cycles.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0317261 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Mongeon (US 4,340,299).
Regarding Claim 17, Park is not relied upon as teaching that controlling the one or more laser emitters to emit the third light beam comprises: controlling the one or more laser emitters to start emitting the third light beam at a third emission moment, wherein a first rotation angle of the reflector at the third emission moment is a first angle; and controlling the one or more laser emitters to stop emitting the third light beam at a fourth emission moment, wherein a second rotation angle of the reflector at the fourth emission moment is a second angle, wherein a third rotation angle of the reflector at the first emission moment is a third angle, and wherein the third angle is outside of an angle range of the first angle and the second angle.
However, Mongeon teaches that controlling the one or more laser emitters to emit the third light beam comprises:
controlling the one or more laser emitters to start emitting the third light beam at a third emission moment, wherein a first rotation angle of the reflector at the third emission moment is a first angle ([Col. 3, l. 69]-[Col. 4, ll. 1-4] The vector generator receives, over a line 40, from the scanner, a first scan position signal (i.e. trigger pulse) that identifies the position of the scan with respect to a particular scan point or position, for instance, point A); and
controlling the one or more laser emitters to stop emitting the third light beam at a fourth emission moment, wherein a second rotation angle of the reflector at the fourth emission moment is a second angle ([Col. 4, ll. 4-8] From that pulse, the vector generator produces a scan position signal 39 (SP signal)… The SP signal is generated synchronously with the scan and at the scan repetition rate), wherein a third rotation angle of the reflector at the first emission moment is a third angle, and wherein the third angle is outside of an angle range of the first angle and the second angle ([Col. 4, ll. 8-11] One complete scan is shown by the time window TW; this reflects the movement of the scan from position A, for example, at the reference point 42 to position C (at 43) and then returning to A once again).
Park (as previously modified by Lu) and Mongeon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning devices and laser transmission control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmission and scanning control loop of Park to include the angular windowing and reference-point synchronization scheme of Mongeon with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent data distortion, maximize spatial tracking accuracy, and ensure strict synchronization between successive operational scanning cycles without inducing internal signal interference. By integrating Mongeon’s teaching of delineating a specific operational time window bounded by active sweeping limits (angles 1 and 2) while isolating an initialization trigger pulse at a benchmark position physically outside of that range into Park’s architecture, the system can periodically anchor and recalibrate its timing clock during a non-scanning interval. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that separating the timing calibration angle from the active operational scan field would yield the predictable result of eliminating optical cross-talk within the main tracking area while maintaining precise scan velocity alignment.
Regarding Claim 18, Park is not relied upon as teaching determining the third emission moment based on the first emission moment and a first delay, wherein the first delay is time required for the reflector to rotate from the third angle to the first angle, and wherein the first delay is predefined or preset; and determining the fourth emission moment based on the third emission moment, the first delay, and a first preset value, wherein the first preset value is related to an angle error of the reflector.
However, Mongeon teaches determining the third emission moment based on the first emission moment and a first delay, wherein the first delay is time required for the reflector to rotate from the third angle to the first angle, and wherein the first delay is predefined or preset ([Col. 4, ll. 8-12 One complete scan is shown by the time window TW; this reflects the movement of the scan from position A, for example, at the reference point 42 to position C (at 43) and then returning to A once again.); and
determining the fourth emission moment based on the third emission moment, the first delay, and a first preset value, wherein the first preset value is related to an angle error of the reflector ([Col. 4, ll. 12-20] The points C and D, which are in quadrature (90.degree.) with points A and B, are identified at reference points 45 and 46, respectively, in the SP signal 39; there they are also in quadrature. The vector generator also produces a quadrature phase scan position signal 45 (QSP signal); this signal is 90.degree. out of phase with respect to the SP signal. It should be apparent that the QSP and SP signals thus reflect the scan position relative to two quadrature points (i.e. A and B)).
Park (as previously modified by Lu) and Mongeon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning devices and laser transmission control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scan timing architecture of Park to include the preset delay indexing and angular error correction calculations of Mongeon with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately predict spatial tracking coordinates, automate scan window alignment without manual hardware adjustments, and dynamically compensate for mechanical component drift. By integrating Mongeon’s teaching of utilizing a fixed, predefined time delay relative to an initial trigger pulse (Point A) to index downstream scanning movements, and further modulating those coordinates using a preset quadrature phase offset (QSP signal) related directly to mechanical tracking and angle errors of the rotating scanner into Park’s system, the controller can mathematically lock the emission timing windows directly to the true physical orientation of the reflector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a structured combination of predefined rotational delays and preset angular error offsets to derive successive emission moments would yield the predictable result of stabilizing spatial data acquisition accuracy despite motor variation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0317261 A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Ledbetter (US 2022/0150247 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Park is not relied upon as teaching that obtaining a first trajectory and a second trajectory that are on a detection surface of the first laser detector after the first light beam is reflected from the first location of the reflector, wherein the second trajectory is obtained when the reflector does not deviate; determining an offset angle of the reflector based on the first trajectory and the second trajectory; obtaining point cloud data based on the third reflected light beam of the third light beam that passes through the detection area; and correcting, based on the offset angle, the point cloud data.
However, Ledbetter teaches that obtaining a first trajectory and a second trajectory that are on a detection surface of the first laser detector after the first light beam is reflected from the first location of the reflector ([0058] Two light beams 830 and 832 are shown originating from their respective sources (not shown) by first interfacing with mirror galvanometer 820 and then interfacing with polygon 810, which redirects the light beams to the FOV. Depending on the rotation orientation of polygon 810, light beams 830 and 832 may interact with the same facet (as shown in FIG. 8C) or two or more facets (as shown in FIG. 8B). Simultaneous interaction with multiple facets can increase the field of view of the LiDAR system,), wherein the second trajectory is obtained when the reflector does not deviate ([0058] A skew angle is defined as the angle existing between the planar face of the mirror and the rotation axis. When the planar face and the rotation axis are parallel to each other, the skew angle is zero (0));
determining an offset angle of the reflector based on the first trajectory and the second trajectory ([0081] The modules may incorporate real-time feedback of point map performance to make necessary adjustments to… skew angle);
obtaining point cloud data based on the third reflected light beam of the third light beam that passes through the detection area ([0057] By properly positioning detectors 712 and 718 based on the relative positioning of their respective light source outputs (e.g., respective positions of outputs 706 and 714) and, optionally, by properly controlling the wavelength(s) of the transmitted light, the returned light will be properly focused on to the correct detectors, and each received light can be a point in the points map. Each received light pulse can be interpreted as a point in 3D space); and
correcting, based on the offset angle, the point cloud data ([0081] The modules may incorporate real-time feedback of point map performance to make necessary adjustments to… skew angle… The modules may configure LiDAR system 1800 to operate accordingly to produce point maps more suitable for the first mode).
Park (as previously modified by Lu) and Ledbetter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multidimensional LiDAR sensors and geometric coordinate calibration frameworks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the point map generation system of Park (as previously modified by Lu) to include the real-time geometric feedback calibration features of Ledbetter with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate geometric spatial mapping distortions and automatically correct environmental data sets for mechanical mirror fabrication variations in real time. By integrating Ledbetter’s teaching of monitoring a reflected light beam trajectory against an ideal baseline state where the reflector does not deviate (a skew angle of zero), calculating an angular offset from the resulting spatial curvature, and executing real-time feedback coordinate adjustments to the point map parameters into Park’s dynamic scanning framework, the system can actively treat geometric distortion as an artifact of physical mirror deviation. Because distortion in the collected point cloud data is a direct downstream effect of the reflector’s structural tracking deviation, calculating the precise angular offset of the path allows the controller to dynamically flatten out and rectify the 3D space coordinates. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that leveraging a calculated physical path trajectory deviation to execute real-time closed-loop adjustments to a generated point map would yield the predictable result of ensuring high-fidelity spatial reconstruction across shifting operational environments.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0146682 A1) in view of MA(US 2023/0035528 A1) and Kim (US2020/0003871).
Regarding Claim 20, Park teaches a detection apparatus ([0054] a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device) comprising:
at least one laser emitter comprising a first laser emitter configured to emit a first light beam ([0065] a laser emitting unit configured to emit a laser aperiodically at a controlled emitting time);
a reflector configured to reflect the first light beam at a first location ([0082] For example, an optic may be disposed on an upper portion of the laser emitting element, and thus the optic may enable a laser beam emitted from the laser emitting element to be detected by a detecting unit immediately without reaching an object. The optic may be a mirror);
at least one detector comprising a first laser detector configured to receive a first reflected light beam of the first light beam reflected from the first location of the reflector ([0065] a detecting unit configured to detect a laser which is emitted from the laser emitting unit and reflected by the object aperiodically during at a controlled detecting window);
a controller configured to control, based on the first reflected light beam received by the first laser detector, one or more laser emitters to emit a second light beam for target detection ([0065] control the laser emitting unit to emit at least a first laser at a first emitting time, a second laser at a second emitting time and a third laser at a third emitting time, wherein a first time gap between the first emitting time and the second emitting time is different from a second time gap between the second emitting time and the third emitting time).
Park is not relied upon as teaching an emitting mirror group, disposed between the first laser emitter and the reflector, and configured to focus the first light beam from the first laser emitter to the reflector, and a receiving mirror group, disposed between the first laser detector and the reflector, and configured to focus the first laser detector, the first reflected light beam of the first light beam reflected from the first location.
However, MA teaches an emitting mirror group, disposed between the first laser emitter and the reflector, and configured to focus the first light beam from the first laser emitter to the reflector ([0185] therefore, the angle of the plane mirror can be changed to change the deflection direction, so that the outgoing laser passing through the plane mirrors can arrive and be focused, thereby reducing the size of the deflection mechanism 213. For example, as shown in FIG. 11, included angles between outgoing lasers emitted by a plurality of plane mirrors and the laser emission module 211 are successively decreased in the first direction, so that an outgoing laser passing through each plane mirror is focused toward the center).
Park and MA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical signal steering assemblies and multi-channel LiDAR sensor transmitters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter transmission path of Park to include the emitting mirror group features of MA with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to minimize the physical footprint of the optical assembly, optimize beam center targeting, and increase angular coverage without adding additional laser emitters. By integrating MA’s teaching of positioning an emitting plane mirror group between a laser emitter and a central scanning reflector to sequentially decrease included angles and focus an outgoing laser passing through each plane mirror toward a central trajectory into Park’s multi-emitter system, the apparatus can achieve a tighter optical alignment and significantly reduce the overall size of the deflection mechanism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a group of dedicated intermediate mirrors to pre-deflect and consolidate multiple transmit channels onto a single scanning element would yield the predictable result of maximizing transmission field density while preserving independent aperiodic emission control.
MA is not relied upon as teaching a receiving mirror group, disposed between the first laser detector and the reflector, and configured to focus the first laser detector, the first reflected light beam of the first light beam reflected from the first location.
However, Kim teaches a receiving mirror group, disposed between the first laser detector and the reflector, and configured to focus the first laser detector, the first reflected light beam of the first light beam reflected from the first location ([0050] The second reflector 32 may reflect the light reflected by the first reflector 31, such that the light is incident on the light receiver unit 50).
Park (as previously modified by MA) and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR receiving optical paths and photodetector array alignment networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver optical tracking layout or Park (as previously modified by MA) to include the receiving mirror group features of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maximize returned signal capture efficiency, prevent optical cross-talk at the detector interface, and ensure precise focus onto peripheral light receiving units. By integrating Kim’s teaching of disposing a dedicated receiving mirror group including a secondary reflector between a primary scanning reflector and a first laser detector to guide and reflect returning light directly such that the light is incident on the light receiver unit into the optical assembly of Park, the system can isolate and optimize the return path independently of the transmission path parameters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a dedicated multi-reflector group to capture and route light retuning from a specific scanning facet sector would yield the predictable result of enhancing signal-to-noise ratio and preventing scattered light loss during high-velocity wide-angle sweeps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights