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 3-14 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second direction" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. From claim 1, it is clear that the “first direction” is defined as the dimension in which the light receiving module and light emitting module are spaced apart. However, claim 3 defines the second direction only as “orthogonal to the first direction”. If, for example, the first direction is taken to be along the X-axis, then it is unclear if the second direction is meant to be along the Y-axis or the Z-axis. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that, if the “first direction” is taken to be horizontal in the plane of the page, then the “second direction” is taken to be vertical in the plane of the page.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2022/0003842), hereinafter Wang.
Claim 1: Wang discloses a lidar device (4800, Fig. 48), comprising:
a case (inherent in “hermetically sealed LIDAR module 4800” [0151]);
a light receiving module (4816) disposed inside the case [0151];
a light emitting module (4804) disposed inside the case and spaced apart from the light receiving module (4816) in a first direction [0151];
a main substrate (“heat sink/substrate platform 4802”) disposed below the light receiving module (4816) and the light emitting module (4804) and electrically connected to the light receiving module (4816) and the light emitting module (4804) [0151]; and
a heatsink (“heat sink/substrate platform 4802”) disposed between the light receiving module (4816) and the main substrate (4802) and between the light emitting module (4804) and the main substrate (4802) (evident that the heat sink is adjacent to the light receiving and light emitting modules without the substrate platform intervening so that the heat sink can effectively pull heat away from the optical components) [0151].
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isogai et al. (US 2003/0090647), hereinafter Isogai.
Claim 2: Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the light emitting and receiving modules each comprise a respective substrate.
Isogai, however, in the same field of endeavor of LiDAR, discloses a lidar device (Fig. 1(a)), comprising:
a case (apparent in Fig. 1(a));
a light receiving module (21/22/23) disposed inside the case [0057];
a light emitting module (11/12/13/14) disposed inside the case and spaced apart from the light receiving module (21/22/23) in a first direction [0052];
a main substrate (30) disposed below the light receiving module (21/22/23) and the light emitting module (11/12/13/14) and electrically connected to the light receiving module (21/22/23) and the light emitting module (11/12/13/14) [0053];
wherein the light receiving module (21/22/23) comprises a first substrate (21) on which an image sensor (22) is placed in upper part [0057], and
wherein the light emitting module (11/12/13/14) comprises a second substrate (11) on which a light source (12) is placed in upper part [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s lidar device with first and second substrates for the light receiving and emitting modules, respectively, for the purpose of creating complete modules that may be removed and used in other devices.
In Wang’s modified device, it is thus evident that the heatsink is disposed between the first substrate and the main substrate and between the second substrate and the main substrate (pulling heat away from the optical components).
Claim 3: Wang further discloses wherein the heatsink (4802) comprises:
a first surface (top) where the first substrate and the second substrate face each other;
a second surface (bottom) opposite to the first surface and facing the main substrate; and
a third surface (front) and a fourth surface (back) on both sides of the first direction, a fifth surface (left) and a sixth surface (right) on both sides of a second direction orthogonal to the first direction,
wherein a length of the heatsink (4802) in the first direction (horizontally in the plane of the page) is longer than a length in the second direction (vertically in the plane of the page) (evident from annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
annotated Fig. 48 of Wang to show the first-sixth surfaces
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is 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:
Claim 15: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the lidar device according to claim 1, wherein the case comprises
a first case in which the light receiving module and the light emitting module are disposed in an internal space,
a second case where the main substrate and the heatsink are disposed, and
a coupling groove formed in at least one of the first case or the second case,
wherein a shielding member for dust prevention and waterproofing is placed in the coupling groove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights