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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Niinami or Takano teach ordering light emission based on a received light amount map.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. [0048] of Niinami teaches adjusting light emission based on previously received light amounts. Applicant argued against [0030], not [0048]. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues neither Niinami or Takano teach "cause each set of the light emitting elements having a combination in which mutual interference of the light does not occur to emit light."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takano's invention is centered around reducing unwanted (stray) light, as outlined in [0006]-[0009] (note that although these paragraphs are background, they also serve to outline the technical problem Takano is solving). [0032]-[0038] of Takano further shows how this is achieved by adjusting light amounts based on previously received light amounts. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Further, applicant argues Takano never groups elements into non-interfering sets.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not in the claims. Instead, the claims recite "cause each set of the light- emitting elements having a combination in which mutual interference of light does not occur to emit light." This limitation does not require the light emitting elements to be grouped after the initial scan, as applicant seems to be suggesting, but instead different sets emit light depending on the initial scan. [0038] of Takano teaches setting the light amounts for different regions based on an initial scan. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niinami (US 20200301011 A1) in view of Takano (US 20150241564 A1).
Claim 1: Niinami teaches a detection apparatus comprising:
a light-emitting element array including a plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig 1, light emitting unit 20 and [0025])
a light-receiving element array including a plurality of light-receiving elements configured to receive reflected light of light emitted from the light-emitting element array to an object to be detected (Fig 1, light receiving unit 30 and [0027]);
a drive unit configured to selectively drive the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig 1, light emission control unit 50 and [0025]);
and a detection unit (Fig 1, region light intensity control unit 41 and [0031])
configured to cause a first light emitting element other than a second light-emitting element corresponding to a second light-receiving element that receives light other than direct light directly reflected from the object to be detected to emit light selectively ([0046] – main light emission stage)
and detect the object to be detected based on a received light amount of light received by a first light-receiving element corresponding to the first light emitting element ([0057] – range finding),
cause the plurality of light-emitting elements to emit light individually ([0054] – setting light emission for main light emission stage),
and detect the object to be detected by causing the -plurality of light emitting elements to emit light in accordance with a light emission order of the plurality of light emitting elements set based on a received light amount map of received light amounts received by the plurality of light-receiving elements ([0030] – controlling main light emission stage based on preliminary light emission stage).
Niinami does not teach based on the received light amount map, cause each set of the light- emitting elements having a combination in which mutual interference of light does not occur to emit light.
Takano teaches a measuring device which varies light amounts ([0032] - UG period and [0038] - regions a and c at 100 exposure) based on a preliminary light emission stage ([0032] – g period). This adjustment can be done to mitigate a multipath error ([0006]), which would be understood in the art to cause mutual interference.
It would have been obvious that the method of controlling light exposure, as taught by Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, could be used to mitigate multipath, as taught by Takano. These inventions are in the same field of endeavor, and in said field, multipath is a known source of error, thus mitigating it would be a clear improvement to a system.
Claim 11: Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, teaches the detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting element array is configured to emit light in each of a plurality of light-emitting partitions including at least two or more light-emitting elements, and wherein the detection unit controls light emission in each of the plurality of light-emitting partitions (Niinami [0033] – light emitting regions and [0050]).
Claim 12: Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, teaches the detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a distance to the object to be detected by time of flight (Niinami [0031] – range finding using time difference).
Claim 13: Niinami teaches a detection apparatus comprising:
a light-emitting element array including a plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig 1, light emitting unit 20 and [0025]);
a light-receiving element array including a plurality of light-receiving elements configured to receive light emitted from the light-emitting element array to an object to be detected and reflected on the object to be detected (Fig 1, light receiving unit 30 and [0027]);
a drive unit configured to selectively drive the plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig 1, light emission control unit 50 and [0025]);
and a detection unit (Fig 1, region light intensity control unit 41 and [0031]) configured to cause a first light emitting element other than a second light-emitting element corresponding to a second light-receiving element that receives light other than direct light directly reflected from the object to be detected to emit light selectively ([0046] – main light emission stage)
and detect the object to be detected based on a received light amount of light received by a first light-receiving element corresponding to the first light emitting element ([0057] – range finding),
cause the plurality of light-emitting elements to emit light individually ([0054] – setting light emission for main light emission stage),
and detect the object to be detected by causing the -plurality of light emitting elements to emit light in accordance with a light emission order of the plurality of light emitting elements set based on a received light amount map of received light amounts received by the plurality of light-receiving elements ([0030] – controlling main light emission stage based on preliminary light emission stage).
Niinami does not teach based on the received light amount map, cause each set of the light- emitting elements having a combination in which mutual interference of light does not occur to emit light.
Takano teaches a measuring device which varies light amounts ([0032] - UG period and [0038] - regions a and c at 100 exposure) based on a preliminary light emission stage ([0032] – g period). This adjustment can be done to mitigate a multipath error ([0006]), which would be understood in the art to cause mutual interference.
It would have been obvious that the method of controlling light exposure, as taught by Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, could be used to mitigate multipath, as taught by Takano. These inventions are in the same field of endeavor, and in said field, multipath is a known source of error, thus mitigating it would be a clear improvement to a system.
Claim 18: Niinami teaches a detection apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to control light emission of a plurality of light-emitting elements provided in a light-emitting element array (Fig 1, light emitting unit 20 and [0025]);
detect an object to be detected by causing a first light emitting element other than a second light-emitting element corresponding to a second light-receiving element that receives light other than direct light directly reflected from the object to be detected to emit light selectively ([0046] – main light emission stage)
and detect the object to be detected based on a received light amount of light received by a first light-receiving element corresponding to the first light emitting element ([0057] – range finding),
cause the plurality of light-emitting elements to emit light individually ([0054] – setting light emission for main light emission stage),
and detect the object to be detected by causing the -plurality of light emitting elements to emit light in accordance with a light emission order of the plurality of light emitting elements set based on a received light amount map of received light amounts received by the plurality of light-receiving elements ([0030] – controlling main light emission stage based on preliminary light emission stage).
Niinami does not teach based on the received light amount map, cause each set of the light- emitting elements having a combination in which mutual interference of light does not occur to emit light.
Takano teaches a measuring device which varies light amounts ([0032] - UG period and [0038] - regions a and c at 100 exposure) based on a preliminary light emission stage ([0032] – g period). This adjustment can be done to mitigate a multipath error ([0006]), which would be understood in the art to cause mutual interference.
It would have been obvious that the method of controlling light exposure, as taught by Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, could be used to mitigate multipath, as taught by Takano. These inventions are in the same field of endeavor, and in said field, multipath is a known source of error, thus mitigating it would be a clear improvement to a system.
Claim 19: Niinami teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for detecting an object, the process comprising:
controlling light emission of a plurality of light-emitting elements provided in a light-emitting element array (Fig 1, light emitting unit 20 and [0025]);
detect an object to be detected by causing a first light emitting element other than a second light-emitting element corresponding to a second light-receiving element that receives light other than direct light directly reflected from the object to be detected to emit light selectively ([0046] – main light emission stage)
and detect the object to be detected based on a received light amount of light received by a first light-receiving element corresponding to the first light emitting element ([0057] – range finding),
cause the plurality of light-emitting elements to emit light individually ([0054] – setting light emission for main light emission stage),
and detect the object to be detected by causing the -plurality of light emitting elements to emit light in accordance with a light emission order of the plurality of light emitting elements set based on a received light amount map of received light amounts received by the plurality of light-receiving elements ([0030] – controlling main light emission stage based on preliminary light emission stage).
Niinami does not teach based on the received light amount map, cause each set of the light- emitting elements having a combination in which mutual interference of light does not occur to emit light.
Takano teaches a measuring device which varies light amounts ([0032] - UG period and [0038] - regions a and c at 100 exposure) based on a preliminary light emission stage ([0032] – g period). This adjustment can be done to mitigate a multipath error ([0006]), which would be understood in the art to cause mutual interference.
It would have been obvious that the method of controlling light exposure, as taught by Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, could be used to mitigate multipath, as taught by Takano. These inventions are in the same field of endeavor, and in said field, multipath is a known source of error, thus mitigating it would be a clear improvement to a system.
Claim 20: Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, teaches an optical device comprising:
a light-emitting element array including a plurality of light-emitting elements (Niinami Fig 1, light emitting unit 20 and [0025]);
a light-receiving element array including a plurality of light-receiving elements (Niinami Fig 1, light receiving unit 30 and [0027]);
and the detection unit according to claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niinami (US 20200301011 A1) in view of Takano (US 20150241564 A1) in view of Mandai (US 20180081061 A1).
Claim 17: Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, teaches the detection apparatus according to claim 13,
the detection unit detects the object to be detected by causing the first light-emitting element corresponding to the first light-receiving element to emit light without causing the second light-emitting element corresponding to the second light-receiving element to emit light(Niinami [0030] – controlling main light emission stage based on preliminary light emission stage).
Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, does not teach the first and second light emitting units being determined by when light is received by the second light-receiving element other than the first light-receiving element corresponding to the first light-emitting element that emits light.
Mandai teaches a LiDAR system which detects the number of detectors detecting a given laser pulse ([0032] – comparing number of SPADs activated with predetermined threshold) by detecting a saturation threshold ([0033]),
It would be understood by one skilled in the art that a saturation threshold can be indicative of a number of pixels illuminated by a single emitter, as taught by Mandai. Thus, the detection apparatus as taught by Niinami, as modified in view of Takano, could be used to indicate whether a pixel has been illuminated by a light source other than the emitter assigned to that pixel.
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights