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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claim 16 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the currently applied prior art does not disclose the limitation “calculate an amount of change in a deflection angle of the light deflector from a distribution of the amount of light received by the multiple light receiving pixels of the light receiving element.” Specifically, applicant argues that Furuyama teaches the calculated deflection angle θ’ is to indicate a value that is more accurate than the deflection angle θ and the difference between them is attributable to an irradiation accuracy issue. However, Furuyama teaches the deflection angle detection unit 14 calculates the deflection angle using the detected intensity of the laser light (¶0018), the deflection angle control unit 15 controls the operation of the deflection element 13 (¶0019), and the distance calculation unit 18 receives information on the deflection angle of the laser light from the deflection angle detection unit 14 among other information and uses the information to calculate the distance from the vehicle to the object (¶0022). Since the deflection angle detection unit is performing this calculation repeatedly, this is functionally equivalent to calculating the change in the deflection angle. Further, it is implicit from ¶0018-¶0022 that the device is calculating whatever is necessary to perform this control and distance calculation, including calculating the change in deflection angle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the amount of change in the deflection angle is caused by a change in an angle of the light deflector during a round trip time of the light beam” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what the further limitation is. The claim appears to be defining terms, saying that the amount of change in the deflection angle is caused by a change in angle of the light deflector. Although the claim specifies “during a round trip time of the light beam” it is unclear if this is a further limitation or just a definition of the change in deflection angle. There are no ranges included or any metes and bounds to further limit the claimed invention, therefore this claim is just stating a definition and/or fact, which is inherent.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes that since this is just stating a definition and/or fact, that this claim limitation is 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) 1-4, 6, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al. (US 20200249324 A1), hereinafter Steinberg, in view of Furuyama (JP 2019020208 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Steinberg discloses an object detector comprising:
an optical scanner (100; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) including:
a light source unit (102; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) configured to emit a light beam (Fig. 1A); and
a light deflector (114; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) configured to deflect the light beam emitted from the light source unit (102) to scan an object (1707; Fig. 17F; ¶0362) in a detection region (120; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) with the deflected light beam (Fig. 1A; ¶0112),
a light receiving optical element (124; Figs. 1A, 2F; ¶0112) configured to collect the light beam returned from the object (1707) through at least one of reflection or scatter on the object (1707) in the detection region (120) in response to scanning with the light beam deflected by the light deflector (114) (Fig. 1A; ¶0112); and
a light receiving element (106; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) configured to receive the light beam collected by the light receiving optical element (124) (Fig. 1A; ¶0112), the light receiving element (106) including multiple light receiving pixels (410; Fig. 4A, 4B, 4C; ¶0157) arranged in a first direction (Fig. 4C) at different positions on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 4B, 4C; ¶0157),
the object detector further includes a processing circuitry (408; Fig. 4A; ¶0111, ¶0156) configured to: generate a detection signal based on an amount of light received by the light receiving element (106) (¶0014, ¶0156, ¶0162).
Steinberg does not disclose the processing circuitry is configured to calculate an amount of change in a deflection angle of the light deflector from a distribution of the amount of light received by the multiple light receiving pixels of the light receiving element. Steinberg further does not explicitly disclose the light deflector satisfies mathematical expressions below:
2
tan
-
1
d
2
f
r
<
θ
t
≤
2
tan
-
1
N
d
+
N
-
1
p
2
f
r
-
8
A
sin
L
c
ω
s
when N is an even number equal to 2m where m is a natural number; and
2
tan
-
1
d
+
2
p
2
f
r
<
θ
t
≤
2
tan
-
1
N
d
+
N
-
1
p
2
f
r
-
8
A
sin
L
c
ω
s
when N is an odd number equal to 2m + 1 where m is a natural number where
ωs is a sinusoidal angular velocity of scanning,
A is a maximum mechanical deflection angle,
L is a maximum detection distance,
fr is a focal length of the light receiving optical element (124),
d is a width of each of the light receiving pixels (410) in the first direction,
p is a pitch between the light receiving pixels (410),
c is the speed of light,
θt is a spread angle of projecting light, and
N is the number of pixel arrays (Figs. 4A, 4C) arranged along a direction in which horizontal deviation occurs in the light receiving element (106).
However, Furuyama teaches a similar object detector comprising a light source unit (11; ¶0014), a light deflector (13; ¶0014), a light receiving element (16; ¶0014), and a processing circuitry (14; ¶0014), wherein the processing circuitry (14) is configured to calculate an amount of change in a deflection angle of the light deflector (13) from a distribution of the amount of light received by the multiple light receiving pixels of the light receiving element (106) (¶0018).
Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses all of the claimed elements of an object detector, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to set the spread angle to satisfy the above mathematical expressions for the purpose of ensuring that the entire area of interest is being scanned so that all relevant objects have been detected, while additionally ensuring that the range is not so wide that the scanner is detecting objects that are unnecessary for functioning, as well as for the purpose of scanning accurately.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Steinberg to incorporate calculating the change in a deflection angle of the light deflector from a distribution of the amount of light received as taught by Furuyama for the purpose of accurately calculating the distance to the detected object (¶0022 of Furuyama). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the spread angle of the light deflector of Steinberg to satisfy the above mathematical expressions, for the purpose of ensuring that the entire area of interest is being scanned so that all relevant objects have been detected, while additionally ensuring that the range is not so wide that the scanner is detecting objects that are unnecessary for functioning, as well as for the purpose of scanning accurately.
Regarding claim 2, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the object detector according to claim 1, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses the multiple light receiving pixels (410) are further arranged in a second direction (Fig. 4A; ¶0157) intersecting the first direction to form a pixel array (Fig. 4A; ¶0157) or linear pixel extending along the second direction (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 3, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the object detector according to claim 2, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction on the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 4A; ¶0157).
Regarding claim 4, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the object detector according to claim 1, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses a minimum beam width (Db) of the light beam collected by the light receiving optical element (124) satisfies a conditional expression below:
Db < d1 + d2 = p (¶0437)
where d1 is a size in the first direction of a first light receiving pixel among the multiple light receiving pixels (410), d2 is a size in the first direction of a second light receiving pixel among the multiple light receiving pixels (410), p is a pitch in the first direction between the first light receiving pixel and the second light receiving pixel (402), and the first light receiving pixel and the second light receiving pixel are adjacent to each other in the first direction (Figs. 4A, 4B, 4C).
Regarding claim 6, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the object detector according to claim 1, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses the light deflector (114) has a sinusoidal angular velocity of scanning (Fig. 1A), and a focal length fr of the light receiving optical element (124) satisfies a mathematical expression below (inherent given structure, function, and intended use, in order for light to be focused onto the light receiving element):
f
r
≥
P
l
i
m
i
t
W
1
h
tan
θ
t
2
+
4
A
sin
L
+
∆
Z
c
ω
s
-
tan
θ
t
2
+
4
A
sin
L
c
ω
s
where ΔZ is a distance resolution,
W is a power density of the light beam on the light receiving element (106),
h is a height of the light receiving pixel (402),
Plimit is a detection limit of the light receiving element (106),
ωs is a sinusoidal angular velocity of scanning,
A is a maximum mechanical deflection angle,
L is a maximum detection distance,
fr is a focal length of the light receiving optical element (124),
c is the speed of light, and
θt is a spread angle of projecting light.
Regarding claim 9, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the object detector according to claim 1, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses the light receiving element (106) has a two-dimensional array structure (116; Fig. 4A; ¶0112) in which the multiple light receiving pixels (410) are two-dimensionally arranged in the first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction (Fig. 4A; ¶0157), and wherein a position or a combination of the light receiving pixels (410) to be driven are selectable (¶0397).
Regarding claim 12, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses a sensing apparatus comprising: the object detector according to claim 1 as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses a deflector angle detector configured to constantly or periodically detect an angle change of the light deflector (114) based on an output of the object detector and input feedback to the object detector (inherent, required for proper operation).
Regarding claim 13, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses a sensing apparatus comprising: the object detector (100; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) according to claim 1 as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses a monitor configured to obtain information of the object (1707) (¶0362 - ¶0363) based on an output of the object detector (100), the information including at least one of presence or absence of the object (1707), a movement direction of the object (1707), and a movement speed of the object (1707) (Fig. 17F; ¶0362 - ¶0363).
Regarding claim 14, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the sensing apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses the sensing apparatus (100; Fig. 1A; ¶0112) is mounted on a vehicle (110; Fig. 1A; ¶0113), and the monitor is further configured to control a traveling of the vehicle (110) based on at least one of position information or movement information (¶0362) of the object (1707) (¶0113).
Regarding claim 15, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses a mobile object (110; Fig. 1A; ¶0113) comprising the object detector (100) according to claim 1 (Fig. 1A; ¶0113).
Regarding claim 16, Steinberg in view of Furuyama discloses the object detector according to claim 1, as set forth above. Steinberg further discloses the amount of change in the deflection angle is caused by a change in an angle of the light deflector during a round trip time of the light beam (inherent, this is a definition, see 112(b) rejection above).
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 28th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights