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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 7/20/2026. Claims 27 and 55 are amended and claims 27-56 are currently pending.
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)(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 27 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2018/0284241 to Campbell, et al. (hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding claim 27, Campbell teaches light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Figs. 1-2) for use with a vehicle, comprising: a transmitter (light source 110, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of semiconductor based light emitters (“one or more light sources 110 contained within enclosure 155” and “light source 110 may include a laser diode, such as a Fabry-Perot laser diode, a quantum well laser, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)”; [0064]-[0066],[0070) configured to generate light, wherein the transmitter is configured to direct the generated light along a plurality of different angles, the combination of the plurality of different angles forming at least a part of a vertical angle range and a horizontal angle range of a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Figs. 1-2; [0094]-[0096]); a receiver (receiver 140 of Fig. 1 and receiving 164 of Fig. 2) configured to receive light reflected from an object within the FOV of the LiDAR system (Figs. 1-2; [0075],[0098]-[0101]); a first mirror (mirror 180-1, Fig. 2) and a second mirror (mirror 180-2, Fig. 2), wherein the first mirror is positioned between the transmitter and the second mirror in a transmission optical path to change a direction of the light passing between the transmitter and the second mirror (“mirror 180-1 may scan the output beam 170 along a substantially horizontal direction”; [0094]-[0096]), such that incident light to the first mirror and outgoing light from the first mirror are non-parallel ([0094]-[0096]), and the first mirror is positioned in a receiving optical path to redirect light passing between the second mirror and the receiver (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 55, Campbell teaches a vehicle (Figs. 1, 2, 9) comprising a plurality of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) devices ([0128]-[0132]), wherein at least one of the plurality of LiDAR devices comprises: a transmitter (light source 110, Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of semiconductor based light emitters (“one or more light sources 110 contained within enclosure 155” and “light source 110 may include a laser diode, such as a Fabry-Perot laser diode, a quantum well laser, a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser, a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)”; [0064]-[0066],[0070) configured to generate light wherein the transmitter is configured to direct the generated light along a plurality of different angles, the combination of the plurality of different angles forming at least a part of a vertical angle range and a horizontal angle range of a field-of-view (FOV) of the each LiDAR device (Figs. 1-2; [0094]-[0096]); a receiver (receiver 140 of Fig. 1 and receiving 164 of Fig. 2) configured to receive light reflected from an object within the FOV of the each LiDAR device (Figs. 1-2; [0075],[0098]-[0101]); a first mirror (mirror 180-1, Fig. 2) and a second mirror (mirror 180-2, Fig. 2), wherein the first mirror is positioned between the transmitter and the second mirror in a transmission optical path to change a direction of the light passing between the transmitter and the second mirror (“mirror 180-1 may scan the output beam 170 along a substantially horizontal direction”; [0094]-[0096]), such that incident light to the first mirror and outgoing light from the first mirror are non-parallel ([0094]-[0096]), and the first mirror is positioned in a receiving optical path to redirect light passing between the second mirror and the receiver (Fig. 2).
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 27-35 and 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 4,871,904 to Metlitsky et al. (hereinafter Metlitsky) in view of US Pat. 10,031,214 to Rosenzweig et al. (hereinafter Rosenzweig).
Regarding claim 27, Rosenzweig discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Figs. 2C-2D) for use with a vehicle, comprising: a transmitter (Fig. 2C-2D) comprising: a plurality of semiconductor based light emitters (“a primary light source 112A and a secondary light source 112B” & ““light source” broadly refers to any device configured to emit light… may be a laser such as a solid-state laser, laser diode”; col. 14, ll. 41-65 & col. 22, ln. 47-67) configured to generate light, wherein the transmitter is configured to direct the generated light along a plurality of different angles (Figs. 1A-1C & 2C), the combination of the plurality of different angles forming at least a part of a vertical angle range and a horizontal angle range of a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 2C); a receiver (sensing unit 106 with sensor 116, Figs. 2C-2D) configured to receive light reflected from an object within the FOV of the LiDAR system (Figs. 2C-2D); a second mirror (scanning unit 104 with deflector 114, Figs. 2C-2D).
Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a first mirror and a second mirror, wherein the first mirror is positioned between the transmitter and the second mirror in a transmission optical path to change a direction of the light passing between the transmitter and the second mirror.
Metlitsky discloses a light detection system (Fig. 1) for use with a vehicle, comprising: a transmitter (“Laser/detector” 14, Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 53-66) comprising: a semiconductor based light emitter (Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 53-66) configured to generate light, wherein the transmitter is configured to direct the generated light along a plurality of different angles (Fig. 1), the combination of the plurality of different angles forming at least a part of a vertical angle range and a horizontal angle range of a field-of-view (FOV) of the system (Fig. 1); a receiver (“Laser/detector” 14, Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 53-66) configured to receive light reflected from an object within the FOV of the system (Fig. 1); a first mirror (first mirror 16, Fig. 1) and a second mirror (second mirror 18, Fig. 1), wherein the first mirror is positioned between the transmitter and the second mirror in a transmission optical path to change a direction of the light passing between the transmitter and the second mirror (“light is directed along an optical path to a first planar front surface mirror 16 from which the light is reflected along a first path portion of length Z1 to a second planar front surface mirror 18 from which the light is again reflected along a second path portion of length Z2 to a reference plane located away from the second mirror 18”), such that incident light to the first mirror and outgoing light from the first mirror are non-parallel (Fig. 1), and the first mirror is positioned in a receiving optical path to redirect light passing between the second mirror and the receiver (Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed first and second mirrors as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to provide a size of scanning system that is dimensioned under the design requirements while not sacrificing a degree to which a field of view may be illuminated and imaged (col. 6, ll. 49-55). In Metlitsky, a second tilting reflector amplifies the illumination and imaging field of view relative to the degree to which respective mirrors tilt, allowing for a larger field of view for a particular tilt amplitude. Small amplitudes of mirror tilt reduces the energy requirements for scanning and the time required to cycle through tilt motion (col. 7, ll. 12-66).
Regarding claim 28, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: at least one of the first mirror or the second mirror is configured to move about a respective axis that does not overlap with a respective normal axis of the first mirror or the second mirror.
Metlitsky discloses: at least one of the first mirror or the second mirror is configured to move about a respective axis that does not overlap with a respective normal axis of the first mirror or the second mirror (Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mirror axes as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 29, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the first mirror is a rotatable mirror or an oscillation mirror.
Metlitsky discloses: the first mirror is a rotatable mirror or an oscillation mirror (mirror 16, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed mirror as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Rosenzweig discloses the second mirror is a rotatable mirror or an oscillation mirror (deflector 114, Fig. 2C-2D).
Regarding claim 31, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the first mirror is configured to rotate or oscillate about a first axis at a first rate, and wherein the second mirror is configured to rotate or oscillate about a second axis at a second rate.
Metlitsky discloses: the first mirror is configured to rotate or oscillate about a first axis at a first rate, and wherein the second mirror is configured to rotate or oscillate about a second axis at a second rate (“speed controllers 24, 32 are conventional speed control systems” & “V1 and V2 are the linear spot speeds provided by first mirror 16 and second mirror 18, respectively”, Figs. 2-11; col. 7, ln. 1-col. 8, ln. 14).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed mirror as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 32, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the first axis and the normal axis of the first mirror form a first angle, and wherein the second axis and the normal axis of the second mirror form a second angle, the first angle being different from the second angle.
Metlitsky discloses: the first axis and the normal axis of the first mirror form a first angle, and wherein the second axis and the normal axis of the second mirror form a second angle, the first angle being different from the second angle (“the tilt angles A,B”, Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 24-64).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed mirror as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 33, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: both the first angle and the second angle are greater than 0 degrees and no greater than 90 degrees.
Metlitsky discloses: both the first angle and the second angle are greater than 0 degrees and no greater than 90 degrees (“the tilt angles A,B” and “For example, if A=B=4⁰ (0.07 radians)”, Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 24-64).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed mirror as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 34, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the first rate and the second rate are the same.
Metlitsky discloses: the first rate and the second rate are the same (“speed controllers 24, 32 are conventional speed control systems” & “V1 and V2 are the linear spot speeds provided by first mirror 16 and second mirror 18, respectively”; col. 7, ln. 1-col. 8, ln. 14).
This limitation does not correspond to a structural configuration of a controller causing the mirrors to rotate but to the use and operation of the mirrors. Accordingly, the Metlitsky mirrors anticipate the claimed mirrors as they are capable of being run at the same speed.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed mirror as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 35, Rosenzweig discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the first rate and the second rate are different.
Metlitsky discloses: the first rate and the second rate are different (“speed controllers 24, 32 are conventional speed control systems” & “V1 and V2 are the linear spot speeds provided by first mirror 16 and second mirror 18, respectively” and N≠1, Figs. 2-11; col. 7, ln. 1-col. 8, ln. 14).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed mirror as taught by Metlitsky with the system as disclosed by Rosenzweig. The motivation would have been to control scan size and shape (Abstract).
Regarding claim 55, Rosenzweig discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1A; col. 1, ll. 42-67) comprising a plurality of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) devices a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Figs. 2C-2D) for use with a vehicle, comprising: a transmitter (Fig. 2C-2D) comprising: a plurality of semiconductor based light emitters (“a primary light source 112A and a secondary light source 112B” & ““light source” broadly refers to any device configured to emit light… may be a laser such as a solid-state laser, laser diode”; col. 14, ll. 41-65 & col. 22, ln. 47-67) configured to generate light, wherein the transmitter is configured to direct the generated light along a plurality of different angles (Figs. 1A-1C & 2C), the combination of the plurality of different angles forming at least a part of a vertical angle range and a horizontal angle range of a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 2C); a receiver (sensing unit 106 with sensor 116, Figs. 2C-2D) configured to receive light reflected from an object within the FOV of the LiDAR system (Figs. 2C-2D); a first mirror (asymmetrical deflector 216, Figs. 2C-2D) and a second mirror (scanning unit 104 with deflector 114, Figs. 2C-2D), wherein the first mirror is configured to redirect light passing between the transmitter and the second mirror (redirection from angled refraction during transmission; col. 23, ln. 34-col. 24, ln. 55), and to redirect light passing between the second mirror and the receiver (Fig. 2C-2D).
Note: The redirection of light by the first mirror between the transmitter and the second mirror is acknowledged to not be by reflection.
Regarding claim 56, Rosenzweig discloses the FOVs of the plurality of LiDAR devices overlap with each other (Fig. 2C-2D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references, teachings, and modifications applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the July 15, 2026 Interview, Applicant’s representatives presented a brief argument against the combination of Rosenzweig and Metlitsky used in the rejections above. The basis of the argument seemed to stem from a hypothetical modification of the Rosenzweig’s transreflector substituted for the purely reflective mirror in Metlitsky. The above rejections are not based on such a modification, but rather using a second movable mirror in reflection in order to amplify the degree to which a beam angle is controlled with small amplitude oscillations.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights