DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/2024 and 3/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-24 are 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.
The term “substantially coplanar” in claims 1, 20, and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially coplanar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “substantially coplanar” allows the laser transmitter, the rotating polygon mirror, and the receiver to deviate from a plane to some undefined degree. Therefore the scope of “substantially coplanar” is indefinite.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “substantially perpendicular” allows angle between the axis of rotation of the polygon mirror and the top surface to vary an undefined amount from 90°. Therefore, the scope “substantially perpendicular” is indefinite.
The term “substantially similar” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “substantially similar” allows the difference in two facet’s tilt angles to differ anywhere from 0° to an undefined angle. Therefore, the scope of “substantially similar” is indefinite.
Claims 2-19 and 21-23 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-7, 10, 13, 17, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al., US 20190212416 A1 (“Li”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Li discloses A vehicle (Fig. 1A, vehicle 100, Paragraph [0024]) comprising: a system for light ranging and detection (LiDAR) (Fig. 1A, LIDAR 150, Paragraph [0024]), comprising: a laser transmitter transmitting one or more channels of light pulses (Fig. 2, transceiver module 220, Paragraph [0026]); a rotating polygon mirror having a plurality of reflective facets (Fig. 2, polygon structure 230, Paragraph [0026]), wherein the rotating polygon mirror directs the one or more channels of light pulses from the laser transmitter through a transmission region at a top surface of the system toward an external field of view and receives reflected light from the external field of view illuminated by the one or more channels of light pulses (Fig. 2, transceiver module 220, polygon structure 230, windshield, Paragraph [0026]); and a receiver detecting the reflected light from channels corresponding to the one or more channels of light pulses (Fig. 2, transceiver module 220, Paragraph [0026]), wherein the laser transmitter, the rotating polygon mirror, and the receiver are substantially coplanar on a plane parallel to the top surface (Fig. 2, transceiver module 220 and polygon structure 230 coplanar to windshield).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the transmission region is an opening (Fig. 2, opening in housing 201, Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Li discloses The system of claim 3 and The vehicle of claim 20, further comprising a window or windshield, wherein the transmission region is an opening coupled to an interior surface of the vehicle window or windshield (Fig. 2, opening in housing 201, windshield, Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Li discloses The system of claim 1 and The vehicle of claim 20, further comprising a window or windshield, wherein the transmission region is coaligned with an optically transparent region in a vehicle window or windshield (Fig. 2, housing 201, windshield, Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Li discloses The system of claim 5 and The vehicle of claim 22, wherein the transmission region is coupled to the optically transparent region in the vehicle window or windshield (Fig. 2, housing 201, windshield, Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the rotating polygon mirror axis of rotation is substantially perpendicular to the top surface (Fig. 2, polygon structure 230 substantially perpendicular to top right surface, Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more lenses collimating the one or more channels of light pulses from the laser transmitter (Fig. 4, lens 420, lens group 430, Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a collection lens, a flat receiving mirror, or a curved focusing mirror collecting the reflected light toward the receiver (Fig. 4, receiver lens 440, Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the receiver comprises one or more light detectors (Fig. 4, detector group 450, Paragraph [0030]).
Claim 24 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kiesl et al., US 20250185190 A1 (“Kiesl”).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: wherein the system has a thickness of less than or equal to 30 millimeters in a direction perpendicular to the top surface.
However, Kiesl teaches a housing that may contain a LIDAR sensor with a scanning unit (Paragraph [0063]). The housing has a thickness that may be less than or equal to 30 mm (Fig. 1, housing cap 1, main body 10, Paragraph [0053]: height preferably within the range of 5mm to 20 mm; See also Paragraph [0073]).
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 Li’s LIDAR system by using a housing that has a thickness of 30 mm or less, which is disclosed by Kiesl. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141 I KSR Rationale F).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wang et al., US 20230049679 A1 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: wherein the plurality of reflective facets has two or more different tilt angles to expand a vertical field of view.
However, Wang teaches a polygon mirror with a plurality of reflective facets has two or more different tilt angles to expand a vertical field of view (Fig. 5A-B, multi-facet polygon 504, Paragraph [0068]-[0069]).
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 Li’s polygon mirror by adding facets of different tilt angles, which is disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to illuminate different vertical fields of view, as suggested by Wang (Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Li, as modified in view of Wang, discloses The system of claim 8, wherein two or more of the plurality of reflective facets have tilt angles substantially similar to each other to form a region of interest (ROI) in the vertical field of view (Wang, Fig. 5B, multi-facet polygon 504 facets can differ by as little as 1/8 radians if φ = 1, vertical FOVs 514a-514d, Paragraph [0069]).
Claims 11, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Eichenholz et al., US 20200076152 A1 (“Eichenholz”).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses The system of claim 10.
Li does not teach: wherein the one or more lenses comprise one or more of the following: a Fast-Axis Collimating (FAC) lens or a Slow-Axis Collimating (SAC) lens.
However, Eichenholz teaches a cylindrical lens that collimates emitted light. The cylindrical lens may be a fast-axis collimating lens (Fig. 9, lens 375, Paragraph [0093]).
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 Li’s LIDAR system by replacing Li’s lens with Eichenholz’s fast-axis collimating lens. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known lens with the other and yielded the predictable result of collimated light (MPEP 2141 I KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: wherein the laser transmitter comprises one or more of the following: an Edge-Emitting Laser (EEL) or a Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Laser (VCSEL).
However, Eichenholz teaches a LIDAR system with a light emitter that may be a VCSEL (Fig. 1, light source 110, 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 Li’s LIDAR system by replacing Li’s light source with Eichenholz’s VCSEL. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known light source with the other and yielded predictable results (MPEP 2141 I KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses The system of claim 17.
Li does not teach: wherein the one or more light detectors comprise one or more of the following: a Silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) or a Single Photon Avalanche Detector (SPAD).
However, Eichenholz teaches a LIDAR system with a light receiver that may be a SPAD (Fig. 1, light source 140, Paragraph [0038]).
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 Li’s LIDAR system by replacing Li’s light detector with Eichenholz’s SPAD. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known light detector with the other and yielded predictable results (MPEP 2141 I KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: wherein the receiver comprises a narrow bandpass filter to remove light interference.
However, Eichenholz teaches a LIDAR system with a light receiver that may have a narrow bandpass filter to remove background light before it reaches the receiver (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0086]).
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 Li’s LIDAR detectors by adding a bandpass filter before the detector, which is disclosed by Eichenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the noise in the electrical signal produced by the detector, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0086]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhu et al., US 9255790 B2 (“Zhu”).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: further comprising a prism reflector reflecting the one or more channels of laser transmitter light pulses toward the rotating polygon mirror.
However, Zhu teaches sensor that directs light to an object using a polygon mirror. An additional mirror, which may be a prism, directs light from a laser transmitter to a rotating polygon mirror (Fig. 11, mirror element 38, Col. 4 lines 47-49).
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 Li’s LIDAR system by a prism reflector to direct light from the laser to the polygon mirror, which is taught by Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the height profile of the sensor, as suggested by Zhu (Col. 14 lines 1-8).
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Cameron et al., US 5006721 A (“Cameron”).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: further comprising a collection lens with asymmetric dimensions to bend the reflected light into a direction that further reduces a thickness of the system in a direction perpendicular to the top surface.
However, Cameron teaches a transmit telescope that collimates a laser output beam. The telescope includes a pair of brewster prisms that collects and bends the light in a direction that could be used to reduce the thickness by bending the light towards the top surface (Fig. 5, telescope 30, brewster prisms 36, Col. 4 lines 43-54).
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 Li’s LIDAR by adding a telescope with asymmetric prisms, which is disclosed by Cameron. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the energy collection efficiency of emitted light, as suggested by Cameron (Col. 4 lines 54-62).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses The system of claim 1.
Li does not teach: further comprising a wedge-shaped prism to bend the reflected light into a direction that further reduces a thickness of the system in a direction perpendicular to the top surface.
However, Cameron teaches a transmit telescope that collimates a laser output beam. The telescope includes a pair of brewster prisms that bend the light in a direction that could be used to reduce the thickness by bending the light towards the top surface (Fig. 5, telescope 30, brewster prisms 36, Col. 4 lines 43-54).
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 Li’s LIDAR by adding a telescope with asymmetric prisms, which is disclosed by Cameron. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the energy collection efficiency of emitted light, as suggested by Cameron (Col. 4 lines 54-62).
Conclusion
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