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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed May 26, 2026. Claims 31-53 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 41-43, 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bao et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0188355).
Regarding claim 41-43, 45-47, Bao et al. disclose (Figs. 1C, 3) a scanning device, comprising: a galvanometer mirror (112A); a polygon mirror (102) optically coupled to the galvanometer mirror to receive multiple light beams (Fig. 3), 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 ([0040] rhombohedron), wherein at least one angle of the parallelogram-shaped facet is a non-90 degree angle (rhombohedron), wherein the polygon mirror is controllable to rotate and the galvanometer mirror is controllable to oscillate, and a combination of the galvanometer 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 ([0047] vertical and horizontal), receive return light formed based on the steered multiple light beams, and redirect the return light to an optical receiver (230) 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 the same structure is disclosed by Bao et al., the horizontal FOV is no less than 120 degrees as claimed. A rhombus having first, second third edges, first, second and third lines having an acute and obtuse angle as claimed. Bao et al. also disclose (Fig. 6A) multiple parts (sub-frames) as claimed.
Claim(s) 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0212446).
Regarding claim 51-53, Jeong et al. disclose (Figs.) a scanning device, comprising: a galvanometer mirror (122); a polygon mirror (127; 1110 Fig. 28) optically coupled to the galvanometer mirror to receive multiple light beams (from 110; [0130]), the polygon mirror comprising a top non-reflective surface and a plurality of reflective facets (1120; [0481]) configured to scan at least a horizontal field-of- view (FOV), wherein the top non-reflective surface is a parallelogram-shaped facet (rectangular or square is a parallelogram), wherein at least one of the plurality of reflective facets is a trapezoidal-shaped facet ([0482]), wherein the polygon mirror is controllable to rotate and the galvanometer mirror is controllable to oscillate (nod), and a combination of the galvanometer 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 ([0192]), receive return light formed based on the steered multiple light beams, and redirect the return light to an optical receiver (130) 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. A trapezoid by definition has one edge being longer than the other edge. The top/bottom edges are relative terms which can be switched to read on the claimed invention.
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 Bao et al.
Regarding claim 48, Bao et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Bao et al. further disclose (Fig. 6A) a vertical angle of 60 degrees. Bao et al. do not disclose the galvanometer oscillates within a predetermined range of approximately 40 degrees. However, choosing a particular value is a matter of design choice. 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 40 degrees in the apparatus of Bao et al. to obtain detection in a desired detection zone as 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, 44 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights