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 .
Official Notice
Subject matter of dependent claims 2-9 and therefore also claims 10-18 is well known and predictable and commonly used in order to adjust or control the resolution of the scanned area(As an evidence see International search report and also references in International search report.).
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, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20180275252 in view of D2 JP 2010527024 A.
Regarding claim 1 D1 teaches
1. A lidar device comprising:
a light emitting unit(120) configured to emit at least one light;
a reflection mirror configured to reflect the light and have an asymmetrical polygonal shape of which angles of two or more reflection surfaces differ;(140+ fig. 5)[0081]
a rotation unit configured to rotate the reflection mirror; and(fig. 3 implicit)
a controller configured to control the rotation unit(implicit),
wherein the asymmetrical polygonal shape of the reflection mirror has a structure to scan an interested area of a scanned area with a resolution higher than other area.(fig. 5)
D1 does not teach but D2 teaches
wherein the interested area is changed by varying an operation frequency of the light emitting unit and a rotation speed of the reflection mirror such that a resolution of the changed interested area is higher than a resolution of the other area (page 12)
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 in order to control the resolution and satisfy eye safety.
3. The lidar device of claim 1, wherein reflection surfaces having a length less than a reference length(diameter of the polygon) are sequentially disposed with different angles in the reflection mirror.(fig. 5)
Claim(s) 2, 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Official Notice.
Although D1 Does not explicitly teach all elements of claims 2,4-18 Official Notice teaches any additional elements of the claim and therefore 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 Official Notice in order to Illuminate the FOV with desired resolution.
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 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 at 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