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 15 July 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the claim interpretation of claim 10.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 were amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. New claims 11-20 were added. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Hong and Long fails to teach or suggest all the features of amended claim 1, specifically “the conical scanning mechanism includes at least one wedge prism and a drive source that rotationally drives the at least one wedge prism” and “the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are integrated so as to rotate integrally”. Applicant further argues that Long does not teach the above limitations since Long teaches a fixed mounted bracket.
However, MPEP 2145 IV states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.”
Hong teaches a pair of prisms wedge prisms and a drive source that rotationally drives the wedge prisms in Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0045]. In the prior rejection, Long is used to teach a lens and a wedge prism that are integrated. Specifically, Long teaches a collimating lens and a wedge prism integrated together through a glue adhesive in Paragraph [0041] and Fig. 2. The fixed mounting brackets that Applicant references in the Remarks were not included or necessitated by the previous rejection to teach an integrated lens and wedge prism. Thus, the combination of Hong’s sensor system which rotates wedge prisms with Long’s lens adhered to a wedge prism would thus teach “the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are integrated so as to rotate integrally” and the rejection over Hong, as modified in view of Long, is maintained.
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 16-17 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the collimator lens " in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 3 allows the at least one lens to include either a collimator lens or two lenses constituting a beam expander. Examiner suggests amended claim 16 to recite “wherein the at least one lens includes the collimator lens…”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the two lenses constituting the beam expander " in line 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 3 allows the at least one lens to include either a collimator lens or two lenses constituting a beam expander. Examiner suggests amended claim 17 to recite “wherein the at least one lens includes the two lenses constituting the beam expander…”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al., US 20200033454 A1 (“Hong”) in view of Long et al., CN 216013646 U (“Long”).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a LiDAR apparatus comprising:
a laser light source (Fig. 2, light source 101, Paragraph [0045]); and
at least one lens (Fig. 2, lens 102, Paragraph [0038]) and a conical scanning mechanism configured to control an optical path of emission light from the laser light source, wherein
the conical scanning mechanism includes at least one wedge prism and a drive source that rotationally drives the at least one wedge prism (Fig. 2, two prisms 211-212, controller 208, Paragraph [0046], [0050]), and the at least one wedge prism deflects emission light from the laser light source in a conical shape by rotationally driving the at least one wedge prism by the drive source (Fig. 2, two prisms 211-212, controller 208, outgoing beam 111, Paragraph [0046], [0050])
[…].
Hong does not teach: and the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are integrated so as to rotate integrally.
However, Long teaches a collimating lens and a wedge prism that are connected to each other with adhesive and are in the path of emission light (Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong’s lens and wedge prism by adhering the two optical elements, which is disclosed by Long. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adhering Hong’s lens and rotating wedge prism together would cause the lens and wedge prism to rotate integrally. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce adjustment difficulty, as suggested by Long (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one lens is disposed on an incidence surface of the at least one wedge prism on which emission light from the laser light source is incident (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]), or an emission surface of the at least one wedge prism on which emission light from the laser light source is emitted.
Regarding claim 3, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one lens includes at least any one of a collimator lens (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]) and two lenses constituting a beam expander.
Regarding claim 4, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one wedge prism includes a first wedge prism and a second wedge prism (Hong, Fig. 2, two prisms 211-212, Paragraph [0046]),
the first wedge prism is disposed between the laser light source and the second wedge prism (Hong, Fig. 2, two prisms 211-212, light source 101, Paragraph [0046], [0049]), and
the drive source individually rotationally drives the first wedge prism and the second wedge prism. (Hong, Fig. 2, two prisms 211-212, controller 208, Paragraph [0046], [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one lens is disposed on an incidence surface of the first wedge prism on which emission light from the laser light source is incident (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]), on an emission surface of the first wedge prism from which emission light from the laser light source is emitted, on an incidence surface of the second wedge prism on which emission light from the laser light source is incident, or on an emission surface of the second wedge prism from which emission light from the laser light source is emitted.
Regarding claim 6, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one lens includes at least any one of a collimator lens (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, Paragraph [0041]) and two lenses constituting a beam expander.
Regarding claim 7, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
the at least one lens includes the collimator lens (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, Paragraph [0041]), and the two lenses constituting the beam expander,
the collimator lens is disposed on the incidence surface or the emission surface of the first wedge prism (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]), and
the two lenses are respectively disposed on the incidence surface and the emission surface of the second wedge prism.
Regarding claim 8, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 6.
Hong, as modified in view of Long, does not teach: wherein the at least one lens includes the two lenses constituting the beam expander, and the two lenses are respectively disposed on any two surfaces selected from among the incidence surface and the emission surface of the first wedge prism and the incidence surface and the emission surface of the second wedge prism.
However, Long teaches connecting the collimating lens to the wedge prism. The collimating lens can be placed either between the light source and wedge prism (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]) or after the light source and wedge prism (Long, Fig. 3, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong’s lens and wedge prism by connecting two collimating lenses to both sides of a wedge prism, which is disclosed by Long. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce adjustment difficulty and achieve optical path deflection, as suggested by Long (Paragraph [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses the LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to control the drive source in such a way that a rotation speed of the at least one wedge prism is constant (Hong, Paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 13, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are integrated such that an inertia of the at least one wedge prism is increased as compared with a case where the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are disposed apart from each other, whereby fluctuation of a rotation speed of the at least one wedge prism due to disturbance is suppressed (Hong, Fig. 2, rotating two prisms 211-212, controller 208, Paragraph [0046], [0050]; Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a rotation speed of the first wedge prism and a rotation speed of the second wedge prism are different from each other (Hong, Fig. 2, rotating two prisms 211-212, controller 208, Paragraph [0050]: control speed of each prism independently; See also: Fig. 19 Paragraph [0143]).
Regarding claim 15, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the rotation speed of the first wedge prism is lower than the rotation speed of the second wedge prism (Hong, Fig. 2, rotating two prisms 211-212, controller 208, Paragraph [0050]: control speed of each prism independently; See also: Fig. 19 Paragraph [0143]).
Regarding claim 16, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the collimator lens is formed in a planoconvex spherical lens shape (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the control unit performs feedback control on the drive source in such a way that the rotation speed of the at least one wedge prism becomes constant (Hong, Paragraph [0146]-[0148]).
Regarding claim 20, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are integrated such that a number of interfaces through which the emission light passes is reduced as compared with a case where the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are disposed apart from each other (Long, Fig. 2, collimating lens 123, wedge prism 124, Paragraph [0041]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Long in further view of Jiang et al., WO 2012089113 A1 (“Jiang”).
Regarding claim 11, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses a The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1.
Hong, as modified in view of Long, does not teach: wherein the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism are integrally formed from one optical material.
However, Jiang teaches a prism system comprising an optical wedge and an integral lens (Fig. 6 optical wedge 2, integral lens 54, page 9 lines 7-15). The optical wedge and integral lens may be formed by the same material (page 9 lines 33- page 10 line 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated lens and wedge prism, which is disclosed by Hong and Long, by forming the optical element from the same optical material, which is disclosed by Jiang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manufacture the prism system simply, as suggested by Jiang (page 9 lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 12, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1,
Hong, as modified in view of Long, does not teach: wherein the at least one lens and the at least one wedge prism have a same refractive index and are bonded to each other.
However, Jiang teaches a prism system comprising an optical wedge and an integral lens (Fig. 6 optical wedge 2, integral lens 54, page 9 lines 7-15). The optical wedge and integral lens may be formed by the same material with the same refractive index (page 9 lines 33- page 10 line 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated lens and wedge prism, which is disclosed by Hong and Long, by forming the optical element from the same optical material, which is disclosed by Jiang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manufacture the prism system simply, as suggested by Jiang (page 9 lines 33-35).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Long in further view of Carothers et al., US 20170160541 A1 (“Carothers”).
Regarding claim 17, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 3.
Hong, as modified in view of Long, does not teach: wherein the two lenses constituting the beam expander include a planoconcave lens and a planoconvex lens, the planoconcave lens being disposed between the laser light source and the planoconvex lens.
However, Carothers teaches a beam steering device that includes two prisms. One beam steering prism may have a surface that is curved in a convex shape.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated lens and wedge prism, which is disclosed by Hong and Long, by forming the prism such that the side of the prism opposite the planoconvex lens has a convex shape, which is disclosed by Carothers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manufactured the beam steering device to be advantageously small, compact, and can be readily scaled to meet nearly every automobile mounting configuration, as suggested by Carothers (Paragraph [0052]).
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Long in further view of Zhou et al., US 20220099805 A1 (“Zhou”).
Regarding claim 18, Hong, as modified in view of Long, discloses The LiDAR apparatus according to claim 1.
Hong, as modified in view of Long, does not teach: wherein the laser light source is a fiber laser.
However, Zhou teaches a LIDAR system with a laser emitter that may be a fiber laser (Fig. 3, laser emitter 308, Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified replaced the laser in Hong and Long’s LIDAR system with Zhou’s fiber laser. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one light emitter for the other and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale B).
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights