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 26 January 2026.
No claims were amended. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-31 were cancelled. New claims 32-59 were added. Therefore, claims 32-59 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32, 35, 38, 40, 42-44, 47, 49, 51-55, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al., EP 3165946 A1, (“Sakai”).
Regarding claim 32, Sakai discloses an electrooptical system, comprising:
at least one light source (Fig. 3, light emission system 201, Paragraph [0018]); and
at least one processor programmed to:
control the at least one light source to enable light flux to vary over a scan of a field of view (Fig. 3, object information acquisition unit 203, Paragraph [0018]),
wherein the field of view is divided into a plurality of non-overlapping segments (Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12, Paragraph [0056]), each of the segments has a size sufficiently covering the size of a unit light directed to the field of view (Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12, Paragraph [0056]), wherein the plurality of segments includes a first set of non-contiguous segments and a second set of non-contiguous segments different from the non-contiguous segments of the first set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]), wherein each of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set is separated from other non-contiguous segments in the first set by at least one segment and each of the non-contiguous segments included in the second set is separated from other non-contiguous segments in the second set by at least one segment (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]), and
wherein scanning of the field of view comprises:
sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments, wherein sequential illumination of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments proceeds such that, during illumination of a particular non-contiguous segment in the first set of non-contiguous segments, other segments in the plurality of segments not included in the first set of non-contiguous segments are not illuminated (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]), and
wherein, other segments in the plurality of segments not included in the first set of non-contiguous segments are not illuminated between the illuminations of the non-contiguous segments in the first set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); and
after the sequential illumination of the first set of non-contiguous segments, sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 35, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of Claim 32, wherein: the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments comprises a segment adjacent to a first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 38, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35, wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have the same size (Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12; Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 40, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35, wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have the same shape (Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12; Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 42, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35, wherein: the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non- contiguous segments is illuminated during a first scanning cycle (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments is illuminated during a second scanning cycle (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 43, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein: the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments are illuminated during a first scanning cycle (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); and the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments are illuminated during a second scanning cycle (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 44, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to detect an object within the field of view based on reflections from the field of view received by at least one sensor (Fig. 2, light detection system 202, Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 47, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 1, further comprising a light deflector configured to deflect the light from the at least one light source to the field of view (Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 49, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47, wherein the light deflector includes a spinning polygon (Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 51, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47, wherein the light deflector includes a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) array controller (Fig. 4, light source 21, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 52, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 57, wherein the light deflector includes a scanning mirror (Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 53, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, further comprising a light emission assembly including the at least one light source (Fig. 4, light source 21, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 54, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 53, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to cause the light emission assembly to scan the field of view a plurality of times during a frame (Fig. 41A, detection sequence c-1-1, light is sequentially emitted to detection field G-1 a plurality of times during time period, Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 55, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 54, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to cause the light emission assembly to scan the field of view more than 10 times during a frame (Fig. 41A, detection sequence c-1-1, light is sequentially emitted to detection field G-1 a plurality of times during time period, Paragraph [0077]).
Claim 59 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 32 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 33-34, 36-37, 50, and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Goodwill, WO 2018176115 A1 ("Goodwill").
Regarding claim 33, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein: sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of noncontiguous segments comprises sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments in each of a plurality of scans (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai does not teach: and the at least one processor is further programmed to construct a point cloud output based, in part, on reflections summed from the plurality of scans of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments.
However, Goodwill teaches a digital signal processor that can determine the time of flight and construct a point cloud from that information (Fig. 1A, Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 126, Paragraph [0026]-[0027]).
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 Sakai’s object information acquisition unit by adding point cloud construction, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to infer more characteristics about the illuminated objects, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 34, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein: sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments comprises sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments in each of a plurality of scans (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments comprises repeatedly sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments in each of a plurality of scans (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai does not teach: and the at least one processor is further programmed to construct a point cloud output based, in part, on reflections summed from the plurality of scans of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and reflections summed from the plurality of scans of the non- contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments.
However, Goodwill teaches a digital signal processor that can determine the time of flight and construct a point cloud from that information (Fig. 1A, Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 126, Paragraph [0026]-[0027]).
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 Sakai’s object information acquisition unit by adding point cloud construction, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to infer more characteristics about the illuminated objects, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 36, Sakai, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35.
Sakai does not teach: wherein each of the illuminations directed to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments is less than an illumination level associated with a predetermined threshold.
However, Goodwill teaches calculating the energy of each pulse according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds. (Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
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 Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 37, Sakai, as modified in view of Goodwill, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 36, wherein a total illumination of the illuminations directed to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments is greater than the illumination level associated with the predetermined threshold (Goodwill, Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
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 Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 50, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47.
Sakai does not teach: wherein the light deflector includes an optical phased array controller.
However, Goodwill teaches a steering device that may include an Optical Waveguide Phased Array (Fig. 1C, Optical Waveguide Phased Array steering device, optical phase shifter 136, Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s rotating mirror with Goodwill’s optical phased array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known deflector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 56, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 53.
Sakai does not teach: wherein the light emission assembly includes a spatial light modulator configured to modulate the light flux to vary over the scan of the field of view.
However, Goodwill teaches a system that may include a spatial light modulator(Fig. 1A, beam steerer 114 can include spatial light modulator, Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s light source with Goodwill’s laser and spatial light modulator. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known deflector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 57, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein the scanning of the field of view further comprises: illuminating at least one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments during a plurality of scanning cycles in a frame (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai does not teach: wherein the illumination directed to the at least one of the non- contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments during each of the plurality of scanning cycles is less than an illumination level associated with a predetermined threshold.
However, Goodwill teaches calculating the energy of each pulse according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds. (Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
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 Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 58, Sakai, as modified in view of Goodwill, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 57, wherein a total illumination of the illuminations directed to the at least one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments during each of the plurality of scanning cycles is greater than the illumination level associated with the predetermined threshold (Goodwill, Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
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 Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Wyrwas et al., US 20180348344 A1 ("Wyrwas ").
Regarding claim 39, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35.
Sakai does not teach: wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have different sizes.
However, Wyrwas teaches separating an entire field of view into many small fields of view which may correspond to the field of view of detector elements in an array. Each field of view may be illuminated sequentially with a scanning beam. Fig. 2 illustrates each small FOV as being a different size and shape. (Fig. 2, FOV 1 (230-1) – FOV N (230-N), scanning beams 210, Paragraph [0037]).
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 Sakai’s detection fields by adding varying the size of some fields, which is disclosed by Wyrwas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve a scan speed and/or possibly reduce a cost of the optical scanning system, possibly without compromising resolution of the system” as suggested by Wyrwas (Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 41, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35.
Sakai does not teach: wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have different shapes.
However, Wyrwas teaches separating an entire field of view into many small fields of view which may correspond to the field of view of detector elements in an array. Each field of view may be illuminated sequentially with a scanning beam. Fig. 2 illustrates each small FOV as being a different size and shape. (Fig. 2, FOV 1 (230-1) – FOV N (230-N), scanning beams 210, Paragraph [0037]).
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 Sakai’s detection fields by varying the size of some segments, which is disclosed by Wyrwas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve a scan speed and/or possibly reduce a cost of the optical scanning system, possibly without compromising resolution of the system” as suggested by Wyrwas (Paragraph [0036]).
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Campbell et al., US 20170131388 A1 ("Campbell").
Regarding claim 45, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 44.
Sakai does not teach: wherein the at least one sensor includes a detector array.
However, Campbell teaches a lidar system where the return light is collected by a detector focal plane array (Fig. 1, detector focal plane array 128, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s detector with Campbell’s detector focal plane array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 46, Sakai, as modified in view of Campbell, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 45, wherein the detector array includes a focal plane detector array (Campbell, Fig. 1, detector focal plane array 128, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s detector with Campbell’s detector focal plane array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Roger et al., DE 102017127582 A1 (“Roger”).
Regarding claim 48, Sakai discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47.
Sakai does not teach: wherein the light deflector includes a Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) mirror.
However, Roger teaches a reflective surface that emits beams into the environment. The reflective surface may be implemented as a MEMS mirror (Fig 1, reflective surface 110, Paragraphs [0014], [0020]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s rotating mirror with Roger’s MEMS mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known deflector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
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