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 filed 10/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 5/31/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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)(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, 2, 4, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142).
With respect to claim 1, Spector et al disclose: A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor for sensing one or more objects [ taught by figure 2 and figure 6 ], comprising a transmitter configured to emit laser radiation along an axis of the LiDAR sensor [ taught by optical signal source (120) ]; a scanner comprising a first lens array and a second lens array, wherein the first and the second lens array are configured to emit the laser radiation received from the transmitter and to receive reflected laser radiation from the one or more objects at a steering angle relative to the axis of the LiDAR sensor [ taught by coarse steering system (200-1 and 200-2); lens arrays (240 and 236) in figure 6 ]; and a receiver comprising an imager and a detector [ taught by lens array (230) and detection element (168) in figure 6 ], wherein the imager is configured to direct the reflected laser radiation received from the scanner onto the detector [ paragraph [ 0064 ] states, “…The first lens array 230 the focuses the light onto the corresponding detection element 168…” ]; wherein the scanner is configured to adjust a relative position between the first and second lens array for adjusting the steering angle [ taught by x, y stage (250); paragraph [ 0063 ] states, “…The x, y stage 250 moves the second lens array 240 and the third lens array 236 in unison to steer the beam…” ].
Claim 2 is taught by paragraph [ 0040 ].
Claim 4 is taught by the lens elements (238 and 242) in figure 6.
The lens (236) collimates light, thus meeting a telescope, as set forth by claim 6.
Claim 14 is met by the combination of lens arrays (230 and 240) vs the lens array (236).
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.
Claims 3, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142) in view of Lipson et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0058923).
With regard to claim 3, Spector et al taught using a stage (250) to move the lens arrays (236 and 240) in the x, y directions.
Paragraph [ 0018 ] of Lipson et al taught that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used actuators (42) and control structure (30) to move a lens-based control element in the x, y direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using actuators in the device of Spector et al because Lipson et al taught they were known structure for enabling x, y movement.
With regard to the position encoding, closed and open loop control, as set forth by claims 12 and 13; these elements would have been a reasonable expectation of an artisan skilled in electrical engineering controls, thus being motivated by the need to determine x and y position of the lens arrays (236 and 240) of Spector et al.
With regard to claim 16, Lipson et al discloses it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a primary lens (26) arranged in front of a lens array (30) functioning to spread the plurality of output beams across a field of view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a primary lens to the device of Spector et al, as shown by Lipson et al, when seeking to expand field of view.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Joseph et al (CN 105874662 A).
Claim 5 further recites, “…wherein each of the plurality of refractive lens elements comprises at least one optical surface with an acylindrical, aspheric, or freeform shape…”.
Page 13 of the translation of Joseph et al states, “…The outline of the lenses manufactured by the described herein can be simple, as shown in FIG. 10 and shown in FIG. 11 of the hemispherical lens, or can be complex, such as for extending depth of field application of aspheric contour…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have has a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Spector et al to have used aspheric lens shapes because Joseph et al taught before the effective filing date of the present application that aspheric lens shapes extended the depth of field.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142) in view of McManamon et al (United States Patent No. 12,248,139).
Figure 3 of McManamon et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a device (304) to collimate a source (302) before the light is input to a beam steering device (306).
Therefore, it would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan to have inputted the light of the device of Spector et al via a collimating device because McManamon et al taught this was a conventional practice – thus producing claim 8.
Figure 6 of Spector et al teaches a plurality of source beams being input to lens array (232), thus rendering claim 9 met by the combination of Spector et al and McManamon et al, as applied to claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142) in view of Hanasaka et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0053443).
Figure 5B and paragraph [ 0076 ] of Hanasaka et al teach it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have provided a bandpass filter on one of the layers (903) of a light detection element wherein paragraph [ 0186 ] states, “…By providing high-sensitivity pixels H and low-sensitivity pixels L for each type of bandpass filter, the dynamic range of the light-receiving part 121 can be increased for each wavelength of light that is used for range finding…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a bandpass filter to intercept received light in the device of Spector et al, when seeking to improve the dynamic range of detected signals, as taught by Hanasaka et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142) in view of Qiu et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0219528).
Figure 5A of Qiu et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used an aperture diaphragm (1223) to block stray light from entering a LIDAR receiver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding an aperture diaphragm to the reception optics of the device of Spector et al, when seeking to block stray light, as shown by Qiu et al.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142) in view of Han et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0041288).
With respect to claim 1, Spector et al disclose: A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor for sensing one or more objects [ taught by figure 2 and figure 6 ], comprising a transmitter configured to emit laser radiation along an axis of the LiDAR sensor [ taught by optical signal source (120) ]; a scanner comprising a first lens array and a second lens array, wherein the first and the second lens array are configured to emit the laser radiation received from the transmitter and to receive reflected laser radiation from the one or more objects at a steering angle relative to the axis of the LiDAR sensor [ taught by coarse steering system (200-1 and 200-2); lens arrays (240 and 236) in figure 6 ]; and a receiver comprising an imager and a detector [ taught by lens array (230) and detection element (168) in figure 6 ], wherein the imager is configured to direct the reflected laser radiation received from the scanner onto the detector [ paragraph [ 0064 ] states, “…The first lens array 230 the focuses the light onto the corresponding detection element 168…” ]; wherein the scanner is configured to adjust a relative position between the first and second lens array for adjusting the steering angle [ taught by x, y stage (250); paragraph [ 0063 ] states, “…The x, y stage 250 moves the second lens array 240 and the third lens array 236 in unison to steer the beam…” ].
Claim 17 differs from Spector et al by using their device in an ADAS system.
Paragraph [ 0062 ] of Han et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used LIDAR devices in ADAS systems.
Therefore , it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the device of Spector et al to ADAS, as suggested by Han et al.
Claim 18 is taught by paragraph [ 0040 ] of Spector et al.
Claim 20 is taught by the lens elements (238 and 242) in figure 6 of Spector et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357142) in view of Han et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0041288), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lipson et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0058923).
Paragraph [ 0018 ] of Lipson et al taught that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used actuators (42) and control structure (30) to move a lens-based control element in the x, y direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using actuators in the combination of Spector et al and Han et al because Lipson et al taught they were known structure for enabling x, y movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights