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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, it appears to be missing content from the end as indicated by empty brackets at the end of the claim. It is unclear what the top end of the intended claimed M2 factor range should be sense the corresponding range description in the specification also contains a set of double brackets, which are presumably some kind of drafter’s placeholder. Deletion of the clause “such that the M2 factor for the modified beam is greater than 1 and less than or equal to about [[]]” at the end of claim 2 would address the rejection.
Regarding Claim 19, it too appears to be missing content from its end given the presence of an “and” at the end of claim 19. The intention may have been for the claim to be close in scope to Claim 11, so incorporating the final clause of claim 11 into Claim 19 could address the 112(b) issue with Claim 19. Alternatively, the “and” could be removed from the end of Claim 19 to address the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20240241366 (hereinafter Akselrod).
Regarding Claim 1, Akselrod teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system (Claims 23-54 are directed to LIDAR systems and the following paragraphs also reference LIDAR applications for the sensor at [0038],[0046],[0048],[0060],[0062],[0064]-[0066],[0118]) for a vehicle, the LIDAR sensor system comprising:
a laser source (laser assembly 310, see FIG. 3A & [0078] suggesting laser assembly can include VCSELs or edge-emitting lasers) configured to generate a beam;
one or more optics (metasurface 330 / freeform optic 350) configured to provide a modified beam (160 as shown in FIG. 1) by modifying a cross-sectional shape of the beam to be outside of a boundary of a target shape for the beam (FIGS. 1 & 3A are included below for reference and FIG. 1 clearly shows a change in a diameter (i.e. shape) of a beam 150/160 incident to metasurface 110, equivalent to metasurface 310 from FIG. 3A); and
PNG
media_image1.png
457
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more scanners (metasurface 130/330, [0042] e.g. liquid crystal metasurface scanning up to 180 degrees, as shown by steering direction arrow in FIG. 1) configured to output the modified beam (160).
Regarding Claim 2, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein:
the cross-sectional shape of the beam is defined in a plane perpendicular to an axis of the beam;
the target shape is a Gaussian shape such that a distribution of a power of the beam outward from the axis is within a threshold of a Gaussian distribution ([0078] describes the use of VCSELs, which are known to output laser beams with Gaussian distributions, FIG. 1 includes dotted lines showing the longitudinal axes of input and output beams 150/160);
the one or more scanners are configured to output the modified beam in a scan pattern (FIG. 1, see steering direction arrow & FIG. 3A shows the different directions in which the beam steering system can direct light) having a first point at which the modified beam is outputted and a second point at which the modified beam is outputted such that there is a predefined distance between the first point and the second point (any two points in a beam would be separated by some distance); and
the one or more optics are configured to modify the cross-sectional shape to include light outside of the boundary and within the predefined distance from a center of the modified beam such that the M2 factor for the modified beam is greater than 1 and less than or equal to about [[]] (see 112(b) rejection above regarding the [[]] nomenclature. [0158] describes the M2 factor as describing a shape and/or divergence of a laser beam, given it is well known that generating a laser beam with an M2 factor of 1 or below is impossible to achieve as a factor of 1 represents a perfectly collimated laser beam, the M2 factor range here does not limit the scope of the invention without an upper bounds).
Regarding Claim 3, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optics comprise a lens having an aberration to modify the cross-sectional shape (Akselrod teaches this limitation since it does not describe the use of a lens free of aberrations, since the use of lenses with spherical aberrations is predominant in the LIDAR industry as demonstrated by Hu et al, “Investigation of Spherical Aberration Effects on Coherent LIDAR Performance”).
Regarding Claim 4, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 3, wherein the aberration comprises at least one of a spherical aberration or a comatic aberration (see the rejection of claim 3 above, which describes the predominant use of lenses with spherical aberration in the LIDAR industry).
Regarding Claim 5, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optics are structured according to a Zernike polynomial that represents the cross-sectional shape of the modified beam ([0074] teaches the use of a freeform optic 350 with a Zernike polynomial surface).
Regarding Claim 7, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optics are configured to modify the beam to have an elliptical shape (FIG. 3A shows beams exiting from the lateral sides of freeform optic 350 & [0087] describes how these beams undergo elliptical divergence that would need to be corrected if one wanted a Gaussian distribution to be maintained).
Regarding Claim 8, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optics comprise a diffractive element configured to diffract a portion of the beam to modify the cross-sectional shape ([0056] describes freeform optic 350 as taking the form of a diffractive element, which would tend to modify the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam).
Regarding Claim 9, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, further comprising a collimator coupled with the laser source to collimate the beam to have the target beam shape, wherein the one or more optics are configured to receive the beam from the collimator as a collimated beam and modify the cross-sectional shape of the beam by modifying the collimated beam (FIG. 3A shows a divergent beam or set of beams emitted from laser assembly 310 being collimated by lens assembly 311 prior to entering prism 320 and being reshaped at metasurface 330).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20240241366 (hereinafter Akselrod) in view of US PG PUB 20210325610 (hereinafter Rogers).
Regarding Claim 10, Akselrod teaches an autonomous vehicle control system, comprising:
a laser source configured to generate a beam (laser assembly 310, see FIG. 3A & [0078] suggesting laser assembly can include VCSELs or edge-emitting lasers);
one or more optics (metasurface 330 / freeform optic 350) configured to provide a modified beam (160 as shown in FIG. 1) by modifying a cross-sectional shape of the beam to be outside of a boundary of a target shape for the beam (FIGS. 1 & 3A are included below for reference and FIG. 1 clearly shows a change in a diameter (i.e. shape) of a beam 150/160 incident to metasurface 110, equivalent to metasurface 310 from FIG. 3A);
one or more scanners configured to output the modified beam (metasurface 130/330, [0042] e.g. liquid crystal metasurface scanning up to 180 degrees, as shown by steering direction arrow in FIG. 1); and
one or more processors ([0070] describes the use of a processor in conjunction with the beam steering system), but fails to teach the remainder of claim 10.
However, Rogers teaches where the processor(s) are configured to: determine at least one of a range to an object or a velocity of the object based on a return signal from reflection of the modified beam by the object ([0071] describes determining a range to an object from a return signal reflected off the object); and control operation of an autonomous vehicle responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity ([0057] describes use of range data collected by LIDAR to control self driving of a vehicle / automobile).
Rogers and Akselrod both describe scanning LIDAR systems. Since LIDAR systems are widely known for use in automotive self-driving applications and since Rogers specifically teaches the use of a LIDAR system to identify a distance / velocity to objects near a vehicle and control the vehicle in accordance with the distance / velocity information a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the laser scanning optics configuration taught by Akselrod into any of the vehicular configurations described in Rogers (e.g. FIGS. 2A, 2D, 2I, 2J).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Akselrod and Rogers teaches the autonomous vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein:
the target shape is a Gaussian shape ([0078] of Akselrod describes the use of VCSELs, which are known to output laser beams with Gaussian distributions, FIG. 1 includes dotted lines showing the longitudinal axes of input and output beams 150/160);
the vehicle controller is configured to control the one or more scanners to output the modified beam in a scan pattern (FIG. 1, see steering direction arrow & FIG. 3A shows the different directions in which the beam steering system can direct light) having a first point at which the modified beam is outputted and a second point at which the modified beam is outputted such that there is a predefined distance between the first point and the second point (any two points in a beam would be separated by some distance); and
the one or more optics are configured to modify the cross-sectional shape to include light outside of the boundary and within the predefined distance from a center of the modified beam (FIGS. 1 & 3A of Akselrod clearly shows a change in a diameter (i.e. shape) of a beam 150/160 incident to metasurface 110, equivalent to metasurface 310 from FIG. 3A).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Akselrod and Rogers teaches the autonomous vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein the one or more optics comprise a lens having an aberration to modify the cross-sectional shape (Akselrod and Rogers teaches this limitation since they do not describe the use of a lens free of aberrations, since the use of lenses with spherical aberrations is predominant in the LIDAR industry as demonstrated by Hu et al, “Investigation of Spherical Aberration Effects on Coherent LIDAR Performance”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Akselrod and Rogers teaches the autonomous vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein the one or more optics are structured according to a Zernike polynomial that represents the cross-sectional shape of the modified beam ([0074] teaches the use of a freeform optic 350 with a Zernike polynomial surface).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Akselrod and Rogers teaches the autonomous vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein the one or more optics are configured to modify the beam to have an elliptical shape (FIG. 3A shows beams exiting from the lateral sides of freeform optic 350 & [0087] describes how these beams undergo elliptical divergence that would need to be corrected if one wanted a Gaussian distribution to be maintained).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Akselrod and Rogers teaches the autonomous vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein the one or more optics comprise a diffractive element configured to diffract a portion of the beam to modify the cross-sectional shape ([0056] describes freeform optic 350 as taking the form of a diffractive element, which would tend to modify the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Akselrod and Rogers teaches the autonomous vehicle control system of claim 10, further comprising a collimator coupled with the laser source to collimate the beam to have the target beam shape, wherein the one or more optics are configured to receive the beam from the collimator as a collimated beam and modify the cross-sectional shape of the beam by modifying the collimated beam (FIG. 3A shows a divergent beam or set of beams emitted from laser assembly 310 being collimated by lens assembly 311 prior to entering prism 320 and being reshaped at metasurface 330).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20210325610 (hereinafter Rogers) in view of US PG PUB 20240241366 (hereinafter Akselrod).
Regarding Claim 18, Rogers teaches an autonomous vehicle (310), comprising:
a LIDAR sensor system (320), comprising:
a laser source (212) configured to generate a beam;
one or more optics configured to provide a modified beam by modifying a cross-sectional shape of the beam to be outside of a boundary of a target shape for the beam (Rogers is largely silent as to the optics used to make up a scanning system); and
one or more scanners (218) configured to output the modified beam;
a steering system ([0161] describes vehicle 361 including a steering system);
a braking system ([0161] describes vehicle 361 including a braking system); and
a vehicle controller comprising one or more processors (314) configured to:
determine at least one of a range to an object or a velocity of the object based on a return signal from reflection of the modified beam by the object ([0071] describes determining a range to an object from a return signal reflected off the object); and
control operation of at least one of the steering system and the braking system responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity ([0057] describes use of range data collected by LIDAR to control self driving of a vehicle / automobile).
While Rogers is silent as to the optics making up a scanner, Akselrod teaches an optical scanner with one or more optics configured to provide a modified beam by modifying a cross-sectional shape of the beam to be outside of a boundary of a target shape for the beam (see FIG. 1 of Akselrod showing change in cross-sectional beam shape affected by metasurface 110 and FIG. 3A showing how a metasurface 330 can be incorporated with a prism and freeform optic to output a wide field of view scan).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Rogers and Akselrod teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 18, wherein:
the target shape is a Gaussian shape ([0078] of Akselrod describes the use of VCSELs, which are known to output laser beams with Gaussian distributions, FIG. 1 includes dotted lines showing the longitudinal axes of input and output beams 150/160);
the one or more scanners are configured to output the modified beam in a scan pattern (FIG. 1, see the steering direction arrow & FIG. 3A shows the different directions in which the beam steering system can direct light) having a first point at which the modified beam is outputted and a second point at which the modified beam is outputted such that there is a predefined distance between the first point and the second point (any two points in a beam would be separated by some distance); and (the final clause of claim 19 appears to be unintentionally omitted).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Rogers and Akselrod teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 18, further comprising a collimator coupled with the laser source to collimate the beam to have the target beam shape, wherein the one or more optics are configured to receive the beam from the collimator as a collimated beam and modify the cross-sectional shape of the beam by modifying the collimated beam (FIG. 3A shows a divergent beam or set of beams emitted from laser assembly 310 being collimated by lens assembly 311 prior to entering prism 320 and being reshaped at metasurface 330).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod in view of Rogers.
Regarding Claim 6, Akselrod teaches the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the one or more optics comprise a birefringent optic configured to defocus a portion of the beam to modify the cross-sectional shape.
However, Rogers teaches wherein the one or more optics comprise a birefringent optic configured to defocus a portion of the beam to modify the cross-sectional shape (FIGS. 2I-2K show transceiver configurations using birefringent optics that would split outgoing light into polarized beams and “defocus” the light based on the description in [0153] of the instant specification)
Rogers and Akselrod both describe LIDAR configurations that include a scanning laser beam. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to improve the LIDAR configuration taught by Akselrod with the birefringent optic taught by Rogers. Doing so would be obvious as it would allow for the incorporation of adjacent receiving and transmitting pathways as shown in FIG. 2I and 2J of Rogers, allowing for the use of the same optics going back and forth between the transmitter and receiver.
Regarding Claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20220260687 describes the use of a Powel lens to modify the shape of the emitted laser from Gaussian to line shaped
US20210223370 at [0034] describes the incorporation of a beam expander prism into a laser emitter for a LIDAR scanning device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights