DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-9 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/17/2025 and 11/03/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a light emitting unit configured to emit irradiation light,” as recited in claim 1.
“a light receiving unit having a light receiving surface for receiving incident light,” as recited in claim 1
“an aperture unit having an opening through which incident light incident on the light receiving unit passes,” as recited in claim 1.
“an optical system … focusing the incident light on the light receiving surface,” as recited in claim 1.
“a scanning unit having a mirror that reflects the irradiation light,” as recited in claim 2.
“a light emitter configured to emit irradiation light,” as recited in claim 9.
“a light receiver having a light receiving surface,” as recited in claim 9.
“an optical system having different refractive powers,” as recited in claim 9.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0109199A1 (hereinafter, Hennecke), in view of Upton et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0096615A1 (hereinafter, Upton).
Regarding Claim 1, Hennecke describes a distance measuring device (a LIDAR system that measures a distance, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0024 and 0049-0051; Figure 1), comprising:
-a light emitting unit configured to emit irradiation light (an illumination unit including a laser array configured to transmit light, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0029-0030; Figure 1);
-a light receiving unit having a light receiving surface for receiving incident light including reflected light of the irradiation light (a receiver receives reflected laser light and directs the reflected light through receiver optics to a photodetector array, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0034-0036; Figure 1), and in which one pixel is composed of a plurality of single-photon avalanche diodes (a SiPM pixel includes an array of SPADs, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0039 and 0056; Figures 2-3);
-an aperture unit having an opening through which incident light incident on the light receiving unit passes and limiting an amount of the incident light passing through (a spatial filter positioned between the receiver lens and SiPM pixel includes an aperture located at the focal point of the receiver lens, wherein only light at the aperture passes through and the aperture limits the amount of light reaching the SiPM pixel, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0056-0059; Figure 3); and
-an optical system (optical system, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0053-0056; Figure 3) ...
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include an optical system having different refractive powers in a longitudinal direction of the opening and a lateral direction of the opening, the optical system focusing the incident light on the light receiving surface in the longitudinal direction and focusing the incident light on the opening in the lateral direction.
Upton discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Upton describes an anamorphic collection lens having different focal lengths in two orthogonal planes (Upton, Paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0030-0032; Figures 1 and 2A-2E). Upton further describes the effective focal length of the collection lens in one plane being different from the effective focal length in the perpendicular plane, thereby providing different refractive powers in the respective directions (Upton, Paragraphs 0032-0033; Figures 2D-2E). Moreover, Upton additionally describes the collection lens receiving reflected light and focusing the reflected light toward a light receiving surface (Upton, Paragraph 0030; Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include an optical system having different refractive powers in a longitudinal direction of the opening and a lateral direction of the opening, the optical system focusing the incident light on the light receiving surface in the longitudinal direction and focusing the incident light on the opening in the lateral direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Upton.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to provide different focal lengths in orthogonal directions to reduce the required detector area and improve signal-to-noise ratio and bandwidth, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification uses known anamorphic optics for their intended purpose (Upton, Paragraphs 0025-0027).
Regarding Claim 2, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1, further comprising a scanning unit having a mirror that reflects the irradiation light and the incident light (a one-dimensional scanning receiver mirror may be the MEMS mirror itself, such that the MEMS mirror both transmits and receives light, Hennecke, Paragraph 0064; Figure 4), and rotating the mirror around a rotation axis (the mirror rotates about a single scanning axis, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0031-0032 and 0064-0065; Figures 1 and 4) ... thereby scanning the irradiation light emitted from the light emitting unit (the mirror scans transmitted light across the field of view, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0031-0032; Figure 1) ... and causing the incident light to enter the optical system (the mirror redirects received reflected light toward the receiver lens, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0064-0065; Figure 4).
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include rotating the mirror around a rotation axis parallel to the longitudinal direction of the opening, thereby scanning the irradiation light emitted from the light emitting unit along the lateral direction.
Upton discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Upton describes a scanning mirror that rotates about a rotation axis perpendicular to the scan direction while reflecting the emitted beam toward the target scene and reflecting the returned optical radiation toward the receiver (Upton, Paragraphs 0007 and 0028-0030; Figure 1).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include rotating the mirror around a rotation axis parallel to the longitudinal direction of the opening, thereby scanning the irradiation light emitted from the light emitting unit along the lateral direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Upton.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to use a scanning mirror that directs both emitted and reflected light to provide coordinated scanning and reception, with a reasonable expectation of success because the mirror is used for its known scanning function (Upton, Paragraphs 0007 and 0028-0030; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1, further comprising one pixel having a one-dimensional array of SPADs including one row and five columns (each SiPM pixel includes a 1×5 SPAD array consisting of one row and five columns, Hennecke, Paragraph 0067; Figure 4) ...
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include wherein a length of one pixel in the lateral direction of the opening is longer than a length of one pixel in the longitudinal direction of the opening.
Upton discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Upton describes a light receiving surface having a first dimension along the scan direction that is greater than a second dimension along the perpendicular direction (Upton, Paragraphs 0006, 0009, and 0025-0027; Figure 5). Upton further describes the receiving surface being elongated along the scan direction to accommodate the angular offset of returned light in the scan direction (Upton, Paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0030; Figures 1 and 5).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include wherein a length of one pixel in the lateral direction of the opening is longer than a length of one pixel in the longitudinal direction of the opening, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Upton.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to provide a longer receiving dimension in the scan direction to accommodate displacement of the returned light while reducing unnecessary detector area, with a reasonable expectation of success because the elongated receiving area is used for its known purpose (Upton, Paragraphs 0023-0027; Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting unit emits a linear irradiation light along the longitudinal direction of the opening (the emitted light is spread perpendicular to the scanning direction to form an oblong light beam extending lengthwise perpendicular to the scanning direction, wherein the field of view is scanned horizontally using a vertical bar of light, Hennecke, Paragraphs 0030-0032; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1.
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include wherein the optical system includes a cylindrical lens having a central axis parallel to the longitudinal direction of the opening, and a cylindrical lens having a central axis parallel to the lateral direction of the opening.
Upton discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Upton describes forming the anamorphic collection lens from two cylindrical lenses having different focal lengths with their respective cylinder axes oriented in orthogonal directions (Upton, Paragraph 0034; Figures 2A-3B).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include wherein the optical system includes a cylindrical lens having a central axis parallel to the longitudinal direction of the opening, and a cylindrical lens having a central axis parallel to the lateral direction of the opening, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Upton.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to use orthogonally oriented cylindrical lenses having different focal lengths to provide different optical powers in the respective directions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the cylindrical lenses are used for their known axis-dependent focusing functions (Upton, Paragraph 0034; Figures 2A-3B).
Regarding Claim 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke in view of Upton, in further view of Donovan U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0081101A1 (hereinafter, Donovan).
Regarding Claim 5, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1.
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include wherein the light emitting unit irradiates the irradiation light in a form of multiple dots aligned along the longitudinal direction of the opening.
Donovan discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Donovan describes a LIDAR transmitter having an array of separate VCSEL emitters that produce respective optical beams (Donovan, Paragraphs 0064 and 0066-0068; Figures 7 and 10). Donovan further describes the VCSEL emitters being arranged in a one-dimensional VCSEL array, thereby providing a plurality of separate optical beams aligned in one direction (Donovan, Claims 40-41 and 52-53).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include wherein the light emitting unit irradiates the irradiation light in a form of multiple dots aligned along the longitudinal direction of the opening, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Donovan.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to use a one-dimensional array of light emitters to provide a plurality of spatially separated irradiation beams along one direction, with a reasonable expectation of success because the emitter array is used for its known purpose (Donovan, Paragraphs 0064 and 0066-0068; Figures 7 and 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke in view of Upton, in further view of Wei U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0146635A1 (hereinafter, Wei).
Regarding Claim 6, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1.
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include wherein the optical system includes a spherical lens and a cylindrical lens.
Wei discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Wei describes a LIDAR receiving optical system including a convex spherical lens and a concave spherical lens for focusing received reflected laser light (Wei, Paragraphs 0013-0014; Figures 1 and 3).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include wherein the optical system includes a spherical lens and a cylindrical lens, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Wei.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to use spherical and cylindrical lenses to focus the reflected light and adjust the light in one direction to better match the photosensitive surface, with a reasonable expectation of success because the lenses are used for their known focusing and beam-shaping functions (Wei, Paragraphs 0010-0016; Figures 1-3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke in view of Upton, in further view of Millischer et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0389426A1 (hereinafter, Millischer).
Regarding Claim 8, Hennecke, as modified, describes the distance measuring device of claim 1.
Hennecke does not specifically disclose the distance measuring device to include wherein the optical system includes a toroidal lens.
Millischer discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Millischer describes a LIDAR receiving optical path having toroidal lenses configured to receive and focus reflected return light (Millischer, Paragraphs 0046 and 0049; Figures 3 and 8).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Hennecke to include wherein the optical system includes a toroidal lens, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Millischer.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references to use a toroidal lens to provide different optical power along orthogonal directions for focusing received return light toward the receiver, with a reasonable expectation of success because the toroidal lens is used for its known axis-dependent focusing function (Millischer, Paragraphs 0046 and 0049; Figures 3 and 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights