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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 11/29/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Barlett explicitly teaches adjusting the resolution based on detection of object which means prioritizing the object and for that prioritize object increasing resolution. For example Barlett teaches prioritizing humans which are approaching to the robot [0069] hence if there are more than one human (one is entering area and second one is not entering) the one which is entering will be assigned higher priority than the one is not. Also prioritization of the detected object is well known see for example US 20050189503 A1 [0069], US 20050021201 A1[0117]. Using three or more priorities is also obvious as for example static objects may be assigned to 0 priority as they cannot affect the robot, humans which are not in the area assigned to second priority as targets which are not hindering to robot operation and humans in the are of the robot correspond to third priority .
Rejection for claims 46, 47 were added.
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) 24, 38 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett US 20170003392 A1 in view of D2 US 20050189503 A1 or D3 US 20050021201 A1.
Regarding claims 24 and 38 Barlett teaches
24. (New) A system comprising:
a plurality of light-emitter devices;[0037]( combination of the plurality of the sources with dmd mirror array create plurality of the light emitting devices as each individual mirror with source can be considered different light emitting device)
at least one light-detecting device; and(1221-1225)
a lens optically(406) coupled to the plurality of light-emitter devices and the at least one light- detecting device(implicit 406 is projection lens in the same device for example [0077] autonomous vehicle everything is coupled to AV and hence coupled to each other),
wherein the plurality of light-emitter devices includes a first set of light-emitter devices that emit pulses according to a first light pattern(1601) and a second set of light-emitter devices that emit light pulses according to a second light pattern(1603), wherein the first light pattern and the second light pattern have different spatial resolutions(fig. 16) and/or different temporal resolutions, and
wherein the at least one light-detecting device is configured to detect at least a portion of the light pulses emitted according to the first light pattern so as to provide first reflected light data and at least a portion of the light pulses emitted according to the second light pattern so as to provide second reflected light data.[0077](inherent)
a controller configured to adjust the spatial and/or temporal resolution of the second light pattern in a region of interest based on a priority of an object([0069] object approaches robotic arm) in the region of interest.[0071]
wherein the priority of the object is selected from a plurality of priorities, the plurality of priorities including at least a first priority, a second priority[0069](first priority human approaching to robot arm, another object is approaching robot arm)
Barlett also teaches Paragraph [0072] teaches using multiple resolutions at the same time for different objects see(The diffraction patterns are not alternating in time. Instead, multiple scan patterns can be produced at the same time simply by modifying the diffraction patterns displayed using the DMD.) and also teaches that objects can be located at different places [0071]and [0031], Different objects such as pedestrians, trees , buildings. (fig. 2), It is clear from fig. 3 that [0069,0070] that moving objects such as cars can be also present in driving environment
Although Barlett does not explicitly teach
wherein the priority of the object is selected from a plurality of priorities, third priority
D2/D3 teaches different objects having different priorities and hence if more than 2 objects exist more than 2 priorities will be present[0069]+ [0002]/[0117]
And therefore it would be obvious to assign some type of priority to stationary objects another priority to moving objects as described in [0069] and third type of priority to equipment or trees or other potential hazards.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Barlett with teaching by D1 or D2 in order to track most relevant objects in detail, disregard least relevant objects and track objects which can be potential hazard in coarse scenario to save the computation powers.
With respect to claims 46, 47 Barlett teaches
46, 47 (Previously Presented) The system of claim 24, wherein the first priority is associated with pedestrians([0069] person approaching the robot or car), the second priority is associated with other moving objects(other objects which are approaching the robot or car),
Also teaches stationary objects [0031](such as tree)
But does not teach while D2/D3 teach
and the third priority is associated with objects. [0002][0069]+[0028/][0117]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2/D3 in order to adjust operation of the system/vehicle according to the threat level.
44, 45The system of claim 1, wherein the priority of the object is selected from a plurality of priorities based (implicit if more than one ROI will be present it each one will be selected based on plurality ROI’s )on one or more characteristics of the object(0069] object approaches robotic arm), and wherein each respective priority in the plurality of priorities is associated with a particular spatial and/or temporal resolution. (implicit the resolution is increase to desired resolution )
38. (New) A method, comprising:
causing, during a first time period, a first set of light-emitter devices of a plurality of light-emitter devices (407+403)to emit light pulses into an environment according to a first light pattern(1602), wherein a lens(406) is optically coupled to the plurality of light-emitter devices;(fig. 4)
obtaining, with a first set of light-detecting devices of a plurality of light-detecting devices, first reflected light data by detecting at least a portion of the light pulses emitted into the environment according to the first light pattern, wherein the lens is optically coupled to the plurality of light-detecting devices;([0077])
causing, during a second time period, a second set of light-emitter devices of the plurality of light-emitter devices to emit light pulses into the environment according to a second light pattern, wherein the first light pattern and the second light pattern have different spatial resolutions and/or different temporal resolutions;(1603)(fig. 16)
obtaining, with a second set of light-detecting devices of the plurality of light-detecting devices, second reflected light data by detecting at least a portion of the light pulses emitted into the environment according to the second light pattern; and[0077](inherent)
forming point cloud data based on the first reflected light data and the second reflected light data.(fig. 16 implicit)
25. (New) The system of claim 24, wherein the at least one light-detecting device is a plurality of light-detecting devices, and wherein the plurality of light-detecting devices includes a first set of light-detecting devices configured to detect the at least the portion of the light pulses emitted according to the first light pattern so as to provide the first reflected light data and a second set of light-detecting devices configured to detect the at least the portion of the light pulses emitted according to the second light pattern so as to provide the second reflected light data.([0077] implicit)
26. (New) The system of claim 24, wherein the first light pattern has a first spatial resolution, wherein the second light pattern has a second spatial resolution, and wherein the second spatial resolution is higher than the first spatial resolution.[fig. 16]
28. (New) The system of claim 24, further comprising:
a controller operable to form point cloud data based on the first reflected light data and the second reflected light data.([0077] and fig. 16 implicit )
29. (New) The system of claim 28, wherein the controller comprises at least one processor and a memory, wherein the at least one processor executes program instructions stored in the memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising:
causing, during a first time period, the first set of light-emitter devices to emit light pulses into the environment according to the first light pattern;
causing, during a second time period, the second set of light-emitter devices to emit light pulses into the environment according to the second light pattern.(fig. 16 inherent)
34. (New) The system of claim 24, further comprising:
a housing, wherein the first set of light-emitter devices, the first set of light-detecting devices, the second set of light-emitter devices, and the second set of light-detecting devices are housed within the housing.[0077](AV is housing)
36. (New) The system of claim 34, wherein the lens is mounted to the housing.([0077] inherent)
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) 31, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett in view of Wong US 20040120549 A1.
Regarding claims 31, 40 Barlett teaches
Alternating between scans (fig. 15 and then 16)
does not teach but Wong teaches
31, 40 (New) The system of claim 30, wherein the operations comprise at least one of:
interleaving at least one fine scan among a plurality of coarse scans; or
alternating between fine scans and coarse scans.[0013]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Barlett with teaching by Wong in order to obtain desired operational resolution.
Claim(s) 30, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett in view of Rowe US 20050232459 A1
Barlett does not teach but Rowe teaches
30, 39 (New) The system of claim 29, wherein the first set of light-emitter devices includes fewer light-emitter devices than the second set of light-emitter devices, wherein causing the first set of light-emitter devices to emit light pulses into the environment comprises a coarse scan, and
wherein causing the second set of light-emitter devices to emit light pulses into the environment comprises a fine scan.[0081]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Barlett with teaching by Rowe in order to obtain desired resolution in desired region.
Claim(s) 27, 32,41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett in view of Kirmani US 20120075423 A1.
Regarding claim 27 Barlet teaches obtaining part of the image with different resolution
But does not teach while Kirmani teaches
27. (New) The system of claim 24, wherein the first light pattern has a first temporal resolution, wherein the second light pattern has a second temporal resolution, and wherein the second temporal resolution is higher than the first temporal resolution.[0011-0012](obvious modification temporal resolution can be applied to the transmitter or receiver or both together in order to alter the spatial resolution. Meaning if you have 1000 illumination per second per image you will have 1 image with resolution of 1000 points if you provide readout for each point or by decreasing readout to 500 you will have 500 points, now instead you can decrease the number of transmissions to 500 collect 1000 readouts but still effectively have 500 points)
32, 41 (New) The system of claim 29, wherein the operations further comprise:
during the first time period, operating the light-emitter devices and light-detecting devices at a first operating frequency; and
during the second time period, operating the light-emitter devices and light-detecting devices at a second operating frequency, wherein the second operating frequency is higher than the first operating frequency.[0012]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Barlett with teaching by KIrmani in order to modify the resolution of the gathered data as requires by Barlett.
Claim(s) 33, 35, 37, 42, 43is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett US 20170003392 A1 in view of Pennecot US 8836922 B1.
Barlet does no teach but Pennecot teaches
37, 42,43 (New) The system of claim 24, wherein the lens is configured to collimate light emitted by the plurality of light-emitter devices for transmission into an environment of the system, and wherein the lens is configured to focus light reflected from one or more objects in the environment onto the at least one light-detecting device.(abstract)
35. (New) The system of claim 34, wherein the housing is configured to rotate about a rotational axis.(fig. 9)
33. (New) The system of claim 24, further comprising:
a first substrate, wherein the first set of light-emitter devices(320) and the first set of light- detecting devices are coupled to the first substrate; and
a second substrate, wherein the second set of light-emitter devices and the second set of light-detecting devices(330) are coupled to the second substrate.(fig. 3B)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Barlett with teaching by Pennecot in order to provide lidar scanner which scans surrounding of the AV.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645