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
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 24 March 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-8 were amended. Claims 4 and 10-12 were cancelled. New claims 13-26 were added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-8, and 13-26 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Shirai nor Droz alone or in combination teach the limitations of claim 1, particularly “upon determining an obstacle is present within the preset distance, not emitting the second pulse in the first emission direction of the first pulse and not emitting the second pulse in another direction within a range of predetermined angles that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse.” However, Shirai teaches emitting a low powered light and, upon determining that an obstacle exists in short distance, not emitting a second light in that direction (Fig. 5-6, Paragraph [0068], [0074]). Shirai repeats the process outlined in Fig. 5 for the angular directions D1-DN (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0073]). Shirai illustrates the angular directions D1-DN in Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0044], which specifies that an object would exist in one of the angular directions D1-DN. Therefore, Shirai also teaches “not emitting the second pulse in another direction within a range of predetermined angles that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse.”
However, the Examiner agrees with Applicant’s second argument that Droz frustrates the intended purpose of Shirai. Therefore, a rejection over only Shirai will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirai et al., US 20020071126 A1 ("Shirai").
Regarding claim 7, Shirai discloses a lidar system, comprising an emitting unit (Fig. 1, light emitting element 11, Paragraph [0036]), a receiving unit (Fig. 1, light receiving element 21, Paragraph [0039]), a signal processing unit (Fig. 1, amplifier 31, comparator 35, time measurement circuit 50, Paragraph [0039]-[0040]), and a control unit (Fig. 1, microcomputer 90, Paragraph [0035]), wherein the control unit is configured to control the emitting unit to emit a first pulse having a first energy in a first emission direction (Fig. 5, step 110 – 120, Paragraph [0064]-[0065]; Fig 6, preliminary light emission; See also Paragraph [0073]); the receiving unit is configured to receive an echo signal corresponding to the first pulse (Fig. 5, step 125, Paragraph [0067]; see also Fig. 1, light receiving element 21, Paragraph [0040]); the signal processing unit is configured to determine, according to the echo signal, whether an obstacle is present within a preset distance (Fig. 5, step 131, Paragraph [0068]; See also: Fig. 1, comparator 35, time measurement circuit 50, Paragraph [0040]); and when the signal processing unit determines that no obstacle is present within the preset distance, the control unit controls the emitting unit to emit a second pulse having a second energy in the first emission direction of the first pulse (Fig. 5, Step 131-150, Paragraph [0068]-[0070]; Fig. 6, main light emission), the second energy being greater than the first energy (Fig. 5, Step 140, Fig. 6, main light emission, Paragraph [0069]), and when the signal processing unit determines that an obstacle is present within the preset distance, the control unit controls the emitting unit not to emit the second pulse in the first emission direction of the first pulse (Fig. 5, Step 131 to END, Paragraph [0068], Fig. 6, Absence of main light emission) and not to emit the second pulse in another direction within a range of predetermined angles that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse (Fig. 5, Step 131 to END, Paragraph [0068], Fig. 6, Absence of main light emission; See also: Fig. 2, angular directions D1-DN, Paragraph [0044], [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Shirai discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein the signal processing unit determines, according to the echo signal, whether the preset distance has an obstacle comprises: calculating a time difference between a receiving time of the echo signal and an emitting time of the corresponding first pulse (Fig. 1, time measurement circuit 50, Paragraph [0045]); and determining whether the time difference is greater than a first preset time difference (Fig. 5, Step 131, Paragraph [0068]), wherein the obstacle within the preset distance is determined when the time difference is greater than the first preset time difference (Paragraph [0068]), and the obstacle within the preset distance is not determined when the time difference is less than or equal to the first preset time difference (Paragraph [0068]).
Claims 1 and 2 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 7 and 8. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Shirai discloses the system according to claim 7, comprising emitting the first pulse in a second emission direction and emitting the second pulse in the second emission direction upon determining no obstacle is present (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0073]).
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Wyrwas et al., US 9791557 B1 ("Wyrwas").
Regarding claim 5, Shirai discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein when the first pulse is a first single pulse, energy of the first single pulse is a first energy (Fig. 6, preliminary light emission, Paragraph [0073]-[0074]); when the second pulse is a second single pulse, energy of the second single pulse is a second energy (Fig. 6, main light emission, Paragraph [0070], [0074]).
Shirai does not teach: when the first pulse is the first pulse sequence, a sum of energy of all single pulses in the first pulse sequence is the first energy and when the second pulse is the second pulse sequence, a sum of energy of all single pulses in the second pulse sequence is the second energy.
However, Wyrwas teaches two light sources that emit light at two different powers. One low power which is safer for a person’s eyes and one higher power which is damaging to a person’s eyes (Fig. 3A, light source A 120 and light source B 125, Col. 7 line 55 – Col. 8 line 4). The system emits a series of low power beams to classifies safe and unsafe zones (Fig. 3A, light beams 370, Col 8, lines 5-28). Then the system emits a series of high power beams in the safe zone (Fig. 5, light beams 510, Col. 10 lines 16-30). Wyrwas also teaches that the amount of light that the LIDAR system may safely emit is based on the maximum energy per pulse in a chain of pulses entering a human eye (Col. 11 lines 47-52).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applied the known technique of emitting a series of light beams, taught by Wyrwas, to Shirai method of emitting preliminary and main light. Wyrwas’ technique accounts for the total energy in a pulse chain. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique in the same way, and the results, specifically multiple low and high power pulses, would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Shirai, as modified in view of Wyrwas, discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein when the first pulse is the first single pulse, and the second pulse is the second single pulse, the energy of the first single pulse is less than or equal to a threshold of laser safety for human eyes (Shirai, Fig. 6, preliminary light emission, Paragraph [0058]), and the energy of the second single pulse is greater than the energy of the first single pulse (Shirai, Fig. 6, main light emission); when the first pulse is the first pulse sequence, and the second pulse is the second pulse sequence, the sum of the energy of all the single pulses in the first pulse sequence is less than or equal to the threshold of laser safety for human eyes (Wyrwas, Fig. 3A, light beams 370, Col. 8 lines 5-24, Fig. 5, light beams 510, Col. 10 lines 16-30, Col. 11 lines 47-52), and the sum of the energy of all the single pulses in the second pulse sequence is greater than the sum of the energy of all the single pulses in the first pulse sequence (Wyrwas, Fig. 5, light beams 510, Col. 10 lines 16-30);
Shirai, as modified in view of Wyrwas, does not teach: when the first pulse is the first single pulse, and the second pulse is the second pulse sequence, the energy of the first single pulse is less than or equal to the threshold of laser safety for human eyes, and the sum of the energy of all the single pulses in the second pulse sequence is greater than the energy of the first single pulse; and when the first pulse is the first pulse sequence, and the second pulse is the second single pulse, the sum of the energy of all the single pulses in the first pulse sequence is less than or equal to the threshold of laser safety for human eyes, and the energy of the second single pulse is greater than the sum of the energy of all the single pulses in the first pulse sequence.
However, the sixth embodiment of Shirai teaches a light emission sequence with a single preliminary light emission and plural main light emissions (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0091]-[0092]). A first pulse sequence and a single second pulse would be an obvious modification over the emission patterns taught by Shirai, as modified in view of Wyrwas, and the sixth embodiment of Shirai.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light emission pattern, disclosed by Shirai as modified in view of Wyrwas, by using any finite combination of single and sequences of pulses as the first emission and second emission. This is an obvious variation that is taught in part by Shirai’s sixth embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these light emission patterns with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-14, 17, 19-21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of O'Keeffe et al., US 20180088214 A1 ("O'Keeffe").
Regarding claim 20, Shirai discloses the system according to claim 7.
Shirai does not teach: wherein the range of predetermined angles that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse correspond to a range of angles covering human eyes.
However, O’Keeffe teaches laser pulses in a field of view, where the range covered by the laser pulse covers a person’s eyes. (Fig. 9A, laser pulses 850, 860, person 930, Paragraph [0080])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shirai’s pulse widths by controlling the width to cover a person’s eyes in the field of view, which is disclosed by O’Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide improved accuracy and timeliness of detecting future intrusion into the path of high-intensity laser pulses”, as suggested by O’Keeffe (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 21, Shirai discloses the system according to claim 7, […], wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive two echo signals corresponding to the two first pulses (Fig. 5, step 125, Paragraph [0067]; see also Fig. 1, light receiving element 21, Paragraph [0040]), and wherein the signal processing unit is configured to determine, according to the two echo signals, whether the preset distance has the obstacle (Fig. 5, step 131, Paragraph [0068]; See also: Fig. 1, comparator 35, time measurement circuit 50, Paragraph [0040]).
Shirai does not teach: wherein the first pulse comprises two first pulses in two different vertical angle directions.
However, O’Keeffe teaches simultaneously emitting guard laser pulses that precede the path of high-intensity laser generators. The guard laser pulses are emitted in the vertical direction simultaneously (Fig. 6B, guard laser pulses 655a, 655b, 655c, Paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shirai’s method by emitting multiple low powered pulses vertically, which is disclosed by O’Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide improved accuracy and timeliness of detecting future intrusion into the path of high-intensity laser pulses”, as suggested by O’Keeffe (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 24, Shirai discloses the system according to claim 7.
Shirai does not teach: wherein the range of predetermined angles that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse comprise a plurality of ranges of predetermined angles.
However, O’Keeffe teaches laser pulses in a field of view, where the range covered by the laser pulse covers a range of angles. (Fig. 9A, laser pulses 850, 860, Paragraph [0080])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shirai’s pulse widths by controlling the width to cover a predetermined angular range in the field of view, which is disclosed by O’Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide improved accuracy and timeliness of detecting future intrusion into the path of high-intensity laser pulses”, as suggested by O’Keeffe (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 26, Shirai discloses the system according to claim 7.
Shirai does not teach: wherein the range of predetermined angles are provided along a vertical and horizontal direction that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse.
However, O’Keeffe teaches laser pulses in a field of view, where the range covered by the laser pulse covers a range of angles in the vertical and horizontal direction. (Fig. 9A, laser pulses 850, 860, Paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shirai’s pulse widths by controlling the width to cover a predetermined angular range in the field of view, which is disclosed by O’Keeffe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide improved accuracy and timeliness of detecting future intrusion into the path of high-intensity laser pulses”, as suggested by O’Keeffe (Paragraph [0012]).
Claims 13-14, 17, and 19 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 20-21, 24, and 26. Claims 13-14, 17, and 19 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16, 18, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Blase et al., US 20200384912 A1 ("Blase").
Regarding claim 23, Shirai teaches the system according to claim 7.
Shirai does not teach: wherein the range of the predetermined angles that deviate from the first emission direction of the first pulse comprise a half angle of a cone of predetermined angles, and wherein the first emission direction of the first pulse is the cone axis.
However, Blase teaches a light source which is configured to emit a light cone that is guided across a predefined area. (Fig. 1, light cone 120, Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shirai’s pulses by configuring the light emitting element to emit a light cone, which is disclosed by Blase. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide an improved technique for controlling a directed light source”, as suggested by Blase (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 25, Shirai, as modified in view of Blase, discloses the system according to claim 23, wherein one or more directions within the cone of predetermined angles are in the same vertical plane as an emission direction of the first pulse (Blase, Fig. 1, light cone 120, Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shirai’s pulses by configuring the light emitting element to emit a light cone, which is disclosed by Blase. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide an improved technique for controlling a directed light source”, as suggested by Blase (Paragraph [0005]).
Claims 16 and 18 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 23 and 25. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights