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 amendment filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claim 1 have been considered, but are not persuasive. The new ground of rejection cites Fiess EP 2204672 A2 as teaching the amended claim limitations in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, line 2, missing the word “the” for replacing the deleted “said”;
Claim 13 should be “The optical scanning module according to claim 4, further comprising: another first static mirror, wherein the another first static mirror is a field splitting mirror and the scanning mirror is arranged to direct at least one third light signal coming from the single light source to a third telescope objective via the another first static mirror and another second static mirror, wherein an aperture of the third telescope objective is different than an aperture of the first telescope objective and the aperture of the second telescope objective to scan at different distances with different angular resolutions; and the optical scanning module is arranged to receive a reflected version of the at least one third light signal via the third telescope objective”; and
Claim 20, line 2, the phase “a second telescope objective” should be “the second telescope objective”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo US 20190041524 in view of Fiess EP 2204672 A2 (see document of 18721891_2026-07-31_EP_2204672_A2_M.pdf and translation_of_EP-2204672-A2.pdf (for citation)).
Regarding claim 1, Rodrigo discloses an optical scanning module, in at least figs.1 and 5, comprising:
a first static mirror (a single element combined by elements 10 and 11, para.62), wherein the first static mirror is a field splitting mirror (para.62 and fig.5 disclose a single element combined by elements 10 and 11 and responsible for redirecting the beam from the MEMS into the two desired directions 5, 9, so that this single element act as a field splitting mirror);
a scanning mirror (4), wherein the scanning mirror is arranged to direct a first light signal coming from a single light source (laser) to a first telescope objective (3) via a first optical path (5), and at least one second light signal coming from the single light source to a second telescope objective (8) via the first static mirror and at least one second optical path (9), wherein the first optical path is different than the second optical path (see fig.5); and
the optical scanning module is arranged to receive a reflected version of the first light signal via the first telescope objective and the first optical path (para.58 and fig.1), and a reflected version of the at least one second light signal via the second telescope objective and the at least one second optical path (para.58 and fig.1).
Rodrigo does not explicitly disclose an aperture of the first telescope objective is different than an aperture of the second telescope objective to scan at different distances with different angular resolutions.
Fiess discloses an optical scanning module, in figs.1-9, an aperture of the first telescope objective (L1 or L3; or L2) is different than an aperture of the second telescope objective (L2; or L1 or L3) to scan at different distances with different angular resolutions (para.10 and 15 and figs.7-9) for the purpose of achieving a desired beam shaping of the laser beam scanning the vehicle environment (para.10) and sequentially controlling fields of view (para.15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an aperture of the first telescope objective is different than an aperture of the second telescope objective to scan at different distances with different angular resolutions as taught by Fiess in the optical scanning module of Rodrigo for the purpose of achieving a desired beam shaping of the laser beam scanning the vehicle environment and sequentially controlling fields of view.
Regarding claim 2, Rodrigo discloses the scanning mirror is arranged to direct the first light signal to the first telescope objective via the first optical path and the at least one second light signal to the second telescope objective via the at least one second optical path, to scan in the desired direction (see fig.5).
Regarding claim 5, Rodrigo discloses the scanning mirror is arranged to generate angular scanning fields for the first telescope objective and the second telescope objective (see figs.1 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Fiess discloses the aperture of the first telescope objective (L1 or L3) is smaller than the aperture of the second telescope objective (L2) to scan at a short distance (para.15) with a low angular resolution using the first telescope objective and to scan at a long distance (para.15) with a high angular resolution using the second telescope objective (see figs.7-9 and para.15) for the purpose of achieving a desired beam shaping of the laser beam scanning the vehicle environment (para.10) and sequentially controlling fields of view (para.15). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Fiess discloses an angular range of the first telescope objective (L2) is larger than an angular range of the second telescope objective (L1 or L3)(see figs.7-9) for the purpose of achieving a desired beam shaping of the laser beam scanning the vehicle environment (para.10) and sequentially controlling fields of view (para.15). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Fiess discloses the first telescope objective and the second telescope objective are decentered to minimize optical aberrations (see figs.7-9) for the purpose of achieving a desired beam shaping of the laser beam scanning the vehicle environment (para.10) and sequentially controlling fields of view (para.15). The reason for combining is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Rodrigo discloses the optical scanning module is arranged to compensate a defocus of the first telescope objective and/or the second telescope objective by moving lenses of the first telescope objective and/or lenses of the second telescope objective with respect to each other (see para.22 and fig.5).
Regarding claim 14, Rodrigo discloses the optical scanning module comprises the first telescope objective (see fig.5).
Regarding claim 17, Rodrigo discloses the scanning mirror is a Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS) mirror, a gimbal mirror, or a transparent beam steering device or other two-axis scanning system (see fig.1 and para.48).
Regarding claim 20, Rodrigo discloses the optical scanning module comprises the second telescope objective.
Claim(s) 4, 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo US 20190041524 in view of Fiess EP 2204672 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satyan US 20190025426.
Regarding claim 4, Rodrigo in view of Fiess does not explicitly disclose the at least one second optical path further comprises a second static mirror.
Satyan discloses an optical scanning module, in at least fig.12, the at least one second optical path further comprises a second static mirror (1250D) for the purpose of folding the second optical path and redirecting the at least one second light signal (see fig.12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one second optical path further comprises a second static mirror as taught by Satyan in the optical scanning module of Rodrigo in view of Fiess for the purpose of folding the second optical path and redirecting the at least one second light signal.
Regarding claim 7, Rodrigo in view of Fiess does not explicitly disclose an image lens package between the scanning mirror and the first static mirror, wherein the image lens package is arranged to collimate and/or focus light signals directed by the scanning mirror to the first static mirror or vice versa.
Satyan discloses an optical scanning module, in at least figs.10 and 12, an image lens package (1060 or 1220) between the scanning mirror (1015 or 1215) and the first static mirror (1020, 1250B, 1250C or combination of 1250B and 1250C), wherein the image lens package is arranged to collimate and/or focus light signals directed by the scanning mirror to the first static mirror or vice versa (see figs.10 and 12) for the purpose of focusing light signals directed by the scanning mirror to the first static mirror (see figs.10 and 12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an image lens package between the scanning mirror and the first static mirror, wherein the image lens package is arranged to collimate and/or focus light signals directed by the scanning mirror to the first static mirror or vice versa as taught by Satyan in the optical scanning module of Rodrigo in view of Fiess for the purpose of focusing light signals directed by the scanning mirror to the first static mirror.
Regarding claim 15, Rodrigo in view of Fiess does not explicitly disclose static mirrors arranged to fold the first and the second optical paths and redirect the first and the at least one second light signal to scan overlapping segments or scan completely disjoint regions of space.
Satyan discloses an optical scanning module, in at least fig.12, static mirrors (1250A and 1250D) arranged to fold the first and the second optical paths and redirect the first and the at least one second light signal to scan overlapping segments or scan completely disjoint regions of space (see fig.12) for the purpose of folding the first and the second optical paths and redirecting the first and the at least one second light signal to scan overlapping segments or scan completely disjoint regions of space (see fig.12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have static mirrors arranged to fold the first and the second optical paths and redirect the first and the at least one second light signal to scan overlapping segments or scan completely disjoint regions of space as taught by Satyan in the optical scanning module of Rodrigo in view of Fiess for the purpose of folding the first and the second optical paths and redirecting the first and the at least one second light signal to scan overlapping segments or scan completely disjoint regions of space.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo US 20190041524 in view of Fiess EP 2204672 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinberg US 20180113200.
Regarding claim 10, Rodrigo discloses the first telescope objective and the second telescope objective are directed to a same direction (see fig.5).
Rodrigo in view of Fiess does not explicitly disclose a field of view of the second telescope objective is within a field of view of the first telescope objective.
Steinberg discloses an optical scanning module, in at least figs.35A-35D, a field of view (sector III) of the second telescope objective is within a field of view (Sector I or Sector II) of the first telescope objective (see fig.35C) for the purpose of having different detection ranges in different sectors (para.75)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a field of view of the second telescope objective is within a field of view of the first telescope objective as taught by Steinberg in the optical scanning module of Rodrigo in view of Fiess for the purpose of having different detection ranges in different sectors.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigo US 20190041524 in view of Fiess EP 2204672 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Steinberg US 2018/0113200.
Regarding claim 18, Rodrigo discloses an optical scanning device, in at least figs.1-3 and 5, comprising: the optical scanning module according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1);
the single light source (laser), such as a semiconductor laser, a solid state laser, a fiber laser with a semiconductor or a fiber amplifier (see fig.1 and para.33);
a detector (see fig.1), and
a lens (2).
Rodrigo in view of Fiess does not explicitly disclose the optical scanning device comprising the detector such as an avalanche photodiode or a single photon avalanche detector; a beam splitter; and a band pass filter.
Steinberg discloses an optical scanning device (100), in at least figs.1-3D and 22-36, comprising the detector (106) such as an avalanche photodiode or a single photon avalanche detector (para.119); a beam splitter (216, para.140); and a band pass filter (para.503) for the purpose of forming a LIDAR system (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical scanning device comprising the detector such as an avalanche photodiode or a single photon avalanche detector; a beam splitter; and a band pass filter as taught by Steinberg in the optical scanning device of Rodrigo in view of Fiess for the purpose of forming a LIDAR system.
Regarding claim 19, Rodrigo the optical scanning module according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Rodrigo in view of Fiess does not explicitly disclose a vehicle comprising the optical scanning module.
Steinberg discloses a vehicle (110), in at least figs.1-3D and 22-36, comprising the optical scanning module (104)(see figs.22-36) for the purpose of having a vehicle with a LIDAR system (see fig.1A and 22 and para.121).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a vehicle comprising the optical scanning module as taught by Steinberg in the vehicle of Rodrigo in view of Fiess for the purpose of forming a LIDAR system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the first static mirror is tilted such that the at least one of the at least one second light signal is directed by the first static mirror to the second static mirror and the second static mirror is tilted such that the second light signal is further directed to the second telescope objective”, along with other claim limitations.
Rodrigo US 20190041524, Fiess EP 2204672, Steinberg US 2018/0113200, Satyan US 20190025426 and Qin CN 112526531A either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the first static mirror is tilted such that the at least one of the at least one second light signal is directed by the first static mirror to the second static mirror and the second static mirror is tilted such that the second light signal is further directed to the second telescope objective”, along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “further comprising: another first static mirror, wherein the another first static mirror is a field splitting mirror and the scanning mirror is arranged to direct at least one third light signal coming from the single light source to a third telescope objective via the another first static mirror and another second static mirror, wherein an aperture of the third telescope objective is different than an aperture of the first telescope objective and the aperture of the second telescope objective to scan at different distances with different angular resolutions; and the optical scanning module is arranged to receive a reflected version of the at least one third light signal via the third telescope objective”, along with other claim limitations.
Rodrigo US 20190041524, Fiess EP 2204672, Steinberg US 2018/0113200, Satyan US 20190025426 and Qin CN 112526531A either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “further comprising: another first static mirror, wherein the another first static mirror is a field splitting mirror and the scanning mirror is arranged to direct at least one third light signal coming from the single light source to a third telescope objective via the another first static mirror and another second static mirror, wherein an aperture of the third telescope objective is different than an aperture of the first telescope objective and the aperture of the second telescope objective to scan at different distances with different angular resolutions; and the optical scanning module is arranged to receive a reflected version of the at least one third light signal via the third telescope objective”, along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “further comprising: a directing static mirror, wherein the directing static mirror is arranged to direct the first light signal and the at least one second light signal coming from the single light source to the scanning mirror, wherein the directing static mirror is a third static mirror, and the directing static mirror and the scanning mirror are approximately aligned”, along with other claim limitations.
Rodrigo US 20190041524, Fiess EP 2204672, Steinberg US 2018/0113200, Satyan US 20190025426 and Qin CN 112526531A either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “further comprising: a directing static mirror, wherein the directing static mirror is arranged to direct the first light signal and the at least one second light signal coming from the single light source to the scanning mirror, wherein the directing static mirror is a third static mirror, and the directing static mirror and the scanning mirror are approximately aligned”, along with other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Satyan US 20190025426 (fig.12) and Qin CN 112526531A (figs.1-7) can be a primary reference as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights