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 .
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (20240061114).
Referring to claim 1, Zhu shows a LIDAR, comprising:
an emitter (see figure 11A, wherein the emitter is configured to emit detection light to a target object in a target region (see figure 11A and 11B note the dashed output line);
a receiver (see figure 11A and 11B Ref 1103), wherein the receiver is configured to receive echo light reflected by the target object (see figure 11A and 11B note the return line;
a scanner (see figure 11a and 11b Ref 1104), wherein the scanner is downstream of the transceiver lens along the transmission path of the detection light, and the scanner is upstream of the transceiver lens along the transmission path of the echo light (see the light path shown in figure 11a and 11b); and
an extinction module (see figure 11A), wherein the extinction module includes a first extinctor (see figure 11A Ref 1109), a second extinctor (see figure 11A Ref 1110), and a third extinctor (see figure 11A Ref 1108), the first extinctor is positioned at an outgoing end of the emitter, the second extinctor is positioned at a receiving end of the receiver, and the third extinctor is positioned between the transceiver lens and the scanner (see figures 11A Ref 11B).
While the embodiments in figure 11A and 11B fail to show a beam splitter and a transceiver lens Zhu does show a beam splitter (see figure 11a Ref 1105 also see paragraph 206-207), wherein the beam splitter is downstream of the emitter along a transmission path of the detection light, and the beam splitter is upstream of the receiver along a transmission path of the echo light (see figure 11A and 11B note the light path as shown in figure 11A and 11B);
a transceiver lens (see figure 6 Ref 64 also see paragraph 125-126), wherein the transceiver lens is downstream of the beam splitter along the transmission path of the detection light, and the transceiver lens is upstream of the beam splitter along the transmission path of the echo light (note the transceiver lens is positioned directly before the scanner).
It would have been obvious to include the beam splitter because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results and adds no new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to include the transceiver lens as shown by the embodiment shown in figure 6 because this improves detection efficiency as shown by Zhu (see paragraph 126).
Referring to claim 2, Zhu shows the beam splitter includes a reflection part and a transmission part connected to the reflection part, the reflection part is configured to reflect one of the detection light and the echo light, the transmission part is configured to transmit the other one of the detection light and the echo light, and the transmission part is recessed relative to the reflection part; or
wherein the beam splitter is provided with a first light-transmitting hole, the beam splitter is configured to reflect one of the detection light and the echo light, and the first light-transmitting hole is configured to transmit the other one of the detection light and the echo light (see paragraph 206-207 also see figure 17 Ref 600).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (20240061114) in view of Campbell (20180284237).
Referring to claim 9, Zhu shows a polygon mirror, wherein the polygon mirror is provided with a plurality of second reflection surfaces that are arranged around a second axis, and the polygon mirror is configured to rotate around the second axis, and the second axis intersects the first axis (see figure 4A and 4B Ref 41); and
two adjacent second reflection surfaces of the polygon mirror are connected through a transition surface, and the transition surface is provided with a reflection coating (see the polygonal mirror shown in figure 4A and 4B also see paragraph 116-117).
However Zhu fails to show a galvanometer, wherein the galvanometer is provided with a first reflection surface, and the galvanometer is configured to rotate around a first axis.
Campbell shows a similar device that includes a galvanometer, wherein the galvanometer is provided with a first reflection surface, and the galvanometer is configured to rotate around a first axis (see figure 3B Ref 262A and 270). It would have been obvious to include the galvanometer with the reflection surface as shown by Campbell because this allows the device to produce a two-dimensional scanning pattern as shown by Campbell (see figure 5 and 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao (20250306180), Li (20250306174), Xu (20250199131), Li (20240103138), Wang (20220075032).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights