Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (KR102178376B1) in view of Ryoung et al. (KR100995668B1) and further in view of Yoldas (US4346324A).
Regarding claim 1, Shim teaches a laser source, an optical turning device, and a reflecting device comprising a convex surface [Fig 1, 110, 120, and 130; 0027]. Shim also teaches wherein the laser source is configured to provide a light beam; wherein the optical turning device is configured to accept the light beam and to direct it towards the selective reflecting device; wherein the selective reflecting device is configured to reflect the light beam; and wherein the optical turning device is configured to turn the light beam and to change a position on the selective reflecting device, on the convex surface, that is illuminated by the light beam under a first scanning mode [Fig 1, 110, 120, and 130; 0029-0030].
Shim does not teach wherein a selective reflecting device comprises a selective reflecting layer disposed on the convex surface and the selective reflecting layer is configured to allow a visible light to pass through.
Ryoung does teach a selective reflecting device comprising a convex mirror that is configured to reflect the light beam and allow a visible light to pass through [Ryoung: Fig 2, 30a; 0035-0037]. Ryoung fails to mention a selective reflecting layer disposed on the convex surface. However, this is a technique well known in the art. For example, Yoldas teaches a coating/layer that reflects a light beam and allows a visible light to pass through [Yoldas: Fig 1, 14; Column 3, line 65 to Column 4, line 1].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Shim by implementing a convex mirror comprising a layer that is configured to reflect the light beam and allow a visible light to pass through, similar to Ryoung and Yoldas with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a LiDAR apparatus comprising a convex mirror with a selective reflecting layer that reflects a laser and allows a visible light to pass through.
Regarding claim 8, Shim teaches an optical turning device comprising a MEMS mirror, which faces towards the selective reflecting layer and the convex surface is protruding towards the MEMS mirror [Fig 1, 120; 0029].
Regarding claim 9, Shim teaches a laser source, and the MEMS mirror are aligned along a straight line that does not intersect the selective reflecting layer [Fig 1, 110 and 120; 0029].
Regarding claim 13, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach an image sensor disposed on the back of the convex surface.
Ryoung does teach an image sensor disposed on the back of the convex surface [Fig 2, 40; 0042].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Shim by implementing an image sensor disposed on the back of the convex surface, similar to Ryoung with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a LiDAR apparatus comprising a convex mirror with an image sensor behind it.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (KR102178376B1) in view of Ryoung et al. (KR100995668B1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US20230076962A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach wherein a wavelength of the light beam from the laser source ranges from 800 nm to 2 µm.
Wang does teach a laser source that produces a laser beam with wavelength ranging from 800 nm to 2 µm [Fig 2, 208; 0027].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a laser source that produces laser beams whose wavelength ranges from 800 nm to 2 µm, similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of producing laser beams in the 800nm to 2 µm wavelength range.
Regarding claim 3, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach a first lens device, wherein the first lens device is located between the laser source and the optical turning device.
Wang does teach a first lens device located between the laser source and the optical turning device [Fig 7, 210; 0043].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a first lens device located between the laser source and the optical turning device, similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve imaging [0049].
Regarding claim 4, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Shim does not teach wherein the first lens device comprises a plurality of first lenses, and the positions of the first lenses are configured to be adjustable under the first scanning mode.
Wang does teach a first lens device that comprises a plurality of first lenses, whose positions can be adjusted [Fig 7, 210; 0044].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a first lens device comprising a plurality of first lenses, whose positions can be adjusted, similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to detect a more uniform signal and improve imaging [0049].
Regarding claim 5, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach a beam splitting device disposed between the laser source and the optical turning device; and a receiver disposed besides the beam splitting device, wherein the laser source, the beam splitting device, and the optical turning device are aligned along a first straight line, and the receiver is not located on the first straight line.
Wang does teach a beam splitter and a receiver disposed besides the beam splitting device [Fig 7, 702 and 220; 0043]. Additionally, the beam splitter is located between the laser source and the optical turning device, all three are aligned along a first straight line and the receiver is not located on the first straight line [Fig 7, 208, 702, 212, and 220; 0043].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a beam splitter located between the laser source and the optical turning device, wherein all three are aligned along a first straight line and the receiver is not located on the first straight line, similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a beam splitter aligned with a laser source and an optical turning device, with a receiver besides the beam splitter.
Regarding claim 6, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 5.
Shim does not teach a second lens device, wherein the second lens device is located between the beam splitting device and the optical turning device.
Wang does teach a second lens device located between the beam splitting device and the optical turning device [Fig 7, 210; 0043].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a second lens device located between the beam splitting device and the optical turning device, similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve imaging [0049].
Regarding claim 7, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Shim does not teach wherein the second lens device comprises a plurality of second lenses, and the positions of the second lenses are configured to be adjustable under the first scanning mode.
Wang does teach a second lens device that comprises a plurality of second lenses, whose positions can be adjusted [Fig 7, 210; 0044].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a second lens device comprising a plurality of second lenses, whose positions can be adjusted, similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to detect a more uniform signal and improve imaging [0049].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (KR102178376B1) in view of Ryoung et al. (KR100995668B1) and further in view of Shusaku et al. (WO2019167587A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Shim does not teach wherein the convex surface comprises a first clear area, and the first clear area of the convex surface is free from the selective reflecting layer, and the MEMS mirror is located in front of the convex surface, and the laser source is located on the back of the convex surface, and the first clear area is located between the laser source and the optical turning device.
Shusaku does teach a first clear area on the convex surface free from the selective reflecting layer [Fig 22, 7A and 70; 0074], the MEMs mirror located in front of the convex surface, the laser source located on the back of the convex surface, and the first clear area located between the laser source and the MEMS mirror [Fig 22, 1, 7A, and 2; 0074].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a first clear area on the convex surface free from the selective reflecting layer and the MEMs mirror located in front of the convex surface, the laser source located on the back of the convex surface, and the first clear area located between the laser source and the MEMS mirror, similar to Shusaku with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a laser source located behind a convex surface, a MEMS mirror located in front of the convex surface, a convex surface with a clear area, and the clear area located between the laser source and the MEMS mirror.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (KR102178376B1) in view of Ryoung et al. (KR100995668B1) and further in view of Mikami et al. (US8861982B2).
Regarding claim 11, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach wherein the optical turning device comprises a prism pair, and the prism pair has a first angled surface facing towards the laser source, and the prism pair has a second angled surface facing towards the selective reflecting device.
Mikami does teach a prism pair, with a first angled surface facing towards the laser source, and a second angled surface facing towards the selective reflecting device [Fig 5, 501; Column 11, line 9-16].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a prism pair and arranging them is such a way that a first angled surface is facing towards the laser source and a second angled surface is facing towards the selective reflecting device, similar to Mikami with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a prism pair, with a first angled surface facing towards the laser source, and a second angled surface facing towards the selective reflecting device.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (KR102178376B1) in view of Ryoung et al. (KR100995668B1) and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP6822466B2).
Regarding claim 12, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach wherein the convex surface is spherical, and the radius of curvature of the convex surface ranges from 16 mm to 32 mm.
Yoshida does teach a spherical convex surface with a radius of curvature that ranges from 16 mm to 32 mm [Fig 36, 41; 0127].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a spherical convex surface with a radius of curvature that ranges from 16 mm to 32 mm, similar to Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to widen the scanning range [0120].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (KR102178376B1) in view of Ryoung et al. (KR100995668B1) and further in view of Paul et al. (WO2015189562A1).
Regarding claim 18, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Shim does not teach wherein the selective reflecting device has a focusing surface surrounding the convex surface, the selective reflecting layer covers the focusing surface.
Paul does teach a focusing surface surrounding the convex surface [Fig 3, 370 (370 is missing from figure 3, but it is present in the description); Page 7, Line 37 – Page 8, Line 1]. While Paul fails to mention a selective reflecting layer covers the focusing surface, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the layer, as in claim 1, to cover the focusing surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Shim by implementing a focusing surface surrounding the convex surface and a selective reflecting layer that covers the focusing surface, similar to Paul with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of a focusing surface with a selective reflecting layer, surrounding the convex surface.
Regarding claim 19, Shim as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 18. Shim also teaches the optical turning device is configured to turn the light beam and to change a position on the selective reflecting layer on the focusing surface that is illuminated by the light beam in a second scanning mode following the first scanning mode [0029].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious the apparatus of claim 14, specifically including:
The LiDAR apparatus of claim 14 wherein the case comprises: a top wall; a bottom wall being directly beneath the top wall; and a cylinder wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall, the cylinder wall has a second clear area, and the second clear area forms a spiral circling the inner space of the case.
Similarly for claims 15-17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Yong et al. (US20250216513A1) teaches a cylindrical window for a LiDAR system and a cylinder wall connecting the top wall and the bottom wall [Fig 2A, 200; 0048]
Kalscheur et al. (US20160245919A1) teaches teach a first lens device [Fig 1, 104; 0045] that is adjustable [Fig 2A and 2B, 204; 0053].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N ZERON CERRATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3245. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/J.N.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights