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 6 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 14 recite the limitation “each sub-aperture of the plurality of lenslets focus provides a sufficient area to collect light.” The term “focus provides” is indefinite in that it is unclear whether the recitation is intended to mean that the each sub-aperture of the plurality of lenslets (A) focus a sufficient area to collect light, or alternatively (B) provides a sufficient area to collect light. For purposes of examination the term “focus” will be considered removed and the claims will be understood as interpretation (B), i.e., provides a sufficient area to collect light.
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.
(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, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johannes et al. (DE 102021108096- English translation provided by Applicant).
With respect to independent claim 1, Johannes discloses an optical light detection and ranging (“lidar”) dynamic control device ([0036] and Fig. 1), the device comprising:
a receiving lens configured to receive a returning beam from a target object and focus the returning beam from the target object to a detector ([0037] and Fig. 1; microlens 40, light beam 34, and light receiver 16); and
an optical lidar dynamic control lens placed on a section of the receiving lens, wherein a part of the returning beam from the target object traverses through the optical lidar dynamic control lens, and the optical lidar dynamic control lens is configured to focus the returning beam from the target object to the detector ([0037]-[0039] and Fig. 1; microlenses 40a-n , light beams 34a-c , and light receiver 16).
With respect to independent claim 9, Johannes discloses a light detection and ranging ("lidar") sensor system ([0036] and Fig. 1), the sensor system comprising:
a laser transmitter, configured to transmit a laser beam to a target object ([0036] and Fig. 1; transmitter 14);
a receiving optics apparatus, comprising:
a receiving lens configured to receive a returning beam from a target object and focus the returning beam from the target object to a detector ([0037] and Fig. 1; microlens 40, light beam 34, and light receiver 16); and
an optical lidar dynamic control lens placed on a section of the receiving lens, wherein a part of the returning beam from the target object traverses through the optical lidar dynamic control lens, and the optical lidar dynamic control lens is configured to focus the returning beam from the target object to the detector ([0037]-[0039] and Fig. 1; microlenses 40a-n , light beams 34a-c , and light receiver 16); and
the detector, configured to receive the returning beam from the receiving optics apparatus to measure a range between the lidar sensor system and the target object ([0037]-[0039] and Fig. 1; light receiver 16).
With respect to depending claims 3 and 10, Johannes discloses wherein the optical lidar dynamic control lens includes a continuous contour of optical surface (Fig. 1).
With respect to depending claims 5, 6, 13, and 14, Johannes discloses wherein the optical lidar dynamic control lens includes a lens array of a plurality of lenslets, wherein each of the plurality of
lenslets focus a point source along the returning beam to the detector, and wherein each sub-aperture of the plurality of lenslets provides a sufficient area to collect light ([0039] and Fig. 1).
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 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannes et al. (DE 102021108096- cited above).
With respect to depending claims 2 and 10, Johannes discloses an optical light detection and ranging dynamic control device comprising lenses (Fig. 1). However, Johannes fails to expressly disclose wherein the lenses are configured “as a freeform optics,” as instantly claimed. The Office considers it well known and standard in the art of lenses and mirrors to employ freeform optics. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the lenses discloses by Johannes to be configured as freeform optics since they provide smaller and lighter system designs, better optical performance, and a wider field of view.
With respect to depending claims 4 and 12, Johannes discloses wherein the optical lidar dynamic control lens comprises a separation between receiving aperture and laser beam, receiving aperture size, and laser beam size (Fig. 1). Although silent to wherein the “design… is based on a plurality of parameters including any two or more of required minimum range…” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the parameter amounts as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to depending claims 7 and 15, Johannes discloses wherein the optical lidar dynamic control lens is present with the receiving lens ([0037]-[0040]) and Fig. 1). Although silent to the specific placement of the lenses as the optical lidar dynamic control lens within a hole of the receiving lens, as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the position of the lenses as claimed since shifting the position of lenses amounts to nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
With respect to depending claims 8 and 16, Johannes discloses wherein the optical lidar dynamic control lens is present with the receiving lens ([0037]-[0040]) and Fig. 1). Although silent to the specific placement of the lenses as “overlaps,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider the position of the lenses as claimed since shifting the position of lenses amounts to nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albelo (US 2020/0081449) teaches an optical light detection and ranging dynamic control device comprising lenses, freeform optics, and receivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVI T. SKAIST whose telephone number is (571)272-9348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/AVI T SKAIST/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
