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 § 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 41-48 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.
Regarding claim 41, line 8, “the first mirror” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 47, it is dependent from a later claim and “the middle part” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 48, “is controller to moving back and forth…” does not make sense.
The other claims are indefinite based on their dependencies.
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.
Claim(s) 41, 42, 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Mohr et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0405161).
Regarding claims 41, 42, 44-46, Mohr et al. disclose (Figs.) a scanning device, comprising: a galvanometer mirror (104); a polygon mirror (102) optically coupled to the galvanometer mirror to receive multiple light beams ([0028] multi-emitter), the polygon mirror comprising a top non-reflective surface and a plurality of reflective facets configured to scan at least a horizontal field-of-view (FOV) wherein the top non-reflective surface is a parallelogram-shaped facet ([0019], 4-sided polygonal mirror), wherein the polygon mirror is controllable to rotate and the galvanometer mirror is controllable to oscillate, and a combination of the first mirror and the polygon mirror is configured to: steer the multiple light beams both vertically and horizontally to scan the horizontal FOV and a vertical FOV, receive return light formed based on the steered multiple light beams, and redirect the return light to an optical receiver (112) disposed in the scanning device, wherein scan lines are generated based on the return light, the scan lines corresponding to multiple parts of the vertical FOV. Since Mohr et al. disclose the same structure, the horizontal FOV is no less than 120 degrees as claimed. Mohr et al. further disclose (Fig. 7) rectangular shaped facets; and multiple parts of the vertical FOV. The multiple parts may designated as upper, middle and lower parts as claimed.
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) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al.
Regarding claim 48, Mohr et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. The galvanometer of Mohr et al. moves within a range of (Fig. 7) 14.2 degrees. Mohr et al. do not disclose a 40 degree range. However, choosing a particular range is a matter of design choice and is predictable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a 40 degree range in the apparatus of Mohr et al. to obtain a wider vertical FOV as known and predictable.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr et al. in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0383911).
Regarding claim 43, Mohr et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Mohr et al. do not disclose at least two facets, wherein each facet has a first edge, second edge and third edge formed by such claimed acute and obtuse angles as claimed. Zhang et al. teach (Fig. 22; [0099]) a polygonal mirror having facets that are trapezoidal in shape, meeting the claimed language. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such trapezoidal facets in the apparatus of Mohr et al. in view of Zhang et al. improve detection by flattening the curved data points as taught, known and predictable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 31-36, 49, 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 14, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,447. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the ‘447 claims.
Regarding claim 31, the ‘447 patent claims (claim 1) a scanning device, comprising: a first mirror (“a first mirror”) disposed to receive multiple light beams (“one or more light beams”); a polygon mirror (“polygon mirror”) optically coupled to the first mirror to receive the multiple light beams, the polygon mirror comprising a plurality of reflective facets (“a plurality of reflective facets”) configured to scan at least a horizontal field-of-view (“horizontally… within a field-of-view”), the horizontal FOV being no less than 120 degrees (a rotating polygon has a horizontal FOV of 360 degrees, which is > 120 degrees), wherein at least two of the plurality of reflective facets have non- 90 degree tilt angles (“tilt angles… an absolute value of at least 10 degrees”), the tilt angles of reflective facets being respective angles between normal directions of respective reflective facets and an axis about which the polygon mirror is rotatable, wherein for at least two of the plurality of reflective facets, each reflective facet is arranged such that: a first edge (“a first edge”), a second edge (“a second edge”), and a third edge (“a third edge”) of the reflective facet correspond to a first line (“a first line”), a second line (“a second line”), and a third line (“a third line”), the first line and the second line intersect to form a first internal angle (“a first internal angle”) of a plane comprising the reflective facet, the first internal angle being an acute angle (“an acute angle”), the first line and the third line intersect to form a second internal angle (“a second internal angle”) of the plane comprising the reflective facet, the second internal angle being an obtuse angle (“an obtuse angle”); wherein the polygon mirror is controllable to rotate and the first mirror is controllable to oscillate (“oscillate about an axis of the first mirror”), and a combination of the first mirror and the polygon mirror is configured to: steer the multiple light beams both vertically and horizontally to scan the horizontal FOV (“horizontally”) and a vertical FOV (“veritical field-of-view”), receive return light formed based on the steered multiple light beams,and redirect the return light to an optical receiver (“an optical receiver”) disposed in the scanning device, wherein scan lines are generated based on the return light (“the return light”), the scan lines corresponding to multiple parts of the vertical FOV, and wherein oscillation of the first mirror is controlled to increase the vertical FOV and a resolution of the scan lines compared to if scanning of the vertical FOV uses the polygon mirror without the first mirror (inherent, if the first mirror were absent, the first mirror would not oscillate and not increase the vertical FOV).
Claims 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 are similar to the claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 of the ‘447 patent, respectively.
Regarding claim 49, the limitations set forth above with respect to claim 31 are also claimed in claim 14 of the ‘447 patent. Claim 14 of the ‘447 patent also claims a plurality of scanning devices (“a plurality of LIDAR devices”) mountable to at least two of a left side (“a left side”), a right side (“a right side”), a front side (“a front side”), and a back side (“a back side”) of a vehicle (“a vehicle”).
Claim 50 is similar to claim 19 of the ‘447 similarly interpreted as with respect to claim 31 as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-40, 39, 49, 50 would be allowed once the double patenting rejections are overcome.
Claims 37-40 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878