DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made. See below for detail.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 03/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings fail to disclose claimed subject matters as indicated in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Specifically, the spec, as originally submitted, fails to provide sufficient written description support as indicated in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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 ), first & second paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how a common light source can emit both the first light and second light. The specification has not provided any guidance. The specification in [0017] briefly mentions “one light source that is capable of emitting both the first light and the second light.” However, in all the detail disclosed embodiments, two light sources were used. See Figs. 2, 14, and 23. See also corresponding text at [0020] (“first light source 110 and a second light source 120”), [0035] (“a flash light source 111, a scan light source 121”), [0097-0098] (“the flash light source 111” “the scan light source 121”).
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear how the light emitting apparatus can “simultaneously emit the first light and the second light” given claim 1 (on which claim 12 depends) is amended to require only one light source being responsible for the first light and the second light.
Claims 15 and 16 have the same issue as claim 1. They are rejected for the same reason.
All other claims are rejected due to claim dependency.
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a common light source that emits both the first light and second light” lacks written description support. While the specification in [0017] briefly mentions “one light source that is capable of emitting both the first light and the second light,” in all the detail disclosed embodiments, two light sources were disclosed. See Figs. 2, 14, and 23. See also corresponding text at [0020] (“first light source 110 and a second light source 120”), [0035] (“a flash light source 111, a scan light source 121”), [0097-0098] (“the flash light source 111” “the scan light source 121”). Even though the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification, the specification fails to convey with reasonable clarity that the inventor was in possession of the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2163.03.V.
Claims 15 and 16 have the same issue as claim 1. They are rejected for the same reason.
All other claims are rejected due to claim dependency.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin et al., US 20190146067 A1 (“Lepping”) and Steinberg, US 20220206114 A1 (“Steinberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Leppin teaches a ranging apparatus (Figs. 1, 3, 4, [0016], flash lidar sensor assembly 100) comprising:
a light emitting apparatus that is configured to emit multiple types of light having different extents of divergence (Figs. 1, 3, 4, [0017], [0027], light 110, light 112);
a light receiving apparatus that detects reflected light based on the light emitted by the light emitting apparatus (Fig. 1, [0021], RX HEAD); and
a processing circuit that controls the light emitting apparatus and the light receiving apparatus and that processes a signal from the light receiving apparatus (Fig. 1, [0025], CPU 126),
wherein
the processing circuit causes the light emitting apparatus to emit first light that illuminates a first range in a scene (Fig. 4, [0017]),
the processing circuit causes the light receiving apparatus to detect first reflected light produced by illumination with the first light and output first detection data (Fig. 1, [0023], [0025], receive light 122),
the processing circuit causes the light emitting apparatus to emit second light that illuminates the one or more second ranges, a beam spread angle of a single optical pulse of the second light being smaller than a beam spread angle of a single optical pulse of the first light ([0017-0018], spread of 112 smaller than spread of 110),
the processing circuit causes the light receiving apparatus to detect second reflected light produced by illumination with the second light and output second detection data (Fig. 1, [0023]),
the processing circuit generates and outputs distance data on the one or more second ranges on the basis of the second detection data (Fig. 1, [0023], [0025], receive light 124), and
the light emitting apparatus has a common light source that emits both the first light and second light (Fig. 4, [0028], a singer laser light source 400 for both light 110 and 112).
However, Leppin fails to teach the processing circuit determines, on the basis of the first detection data, one or more second ranges that are narrower than the first range.
On the other hand, Steinberg teaches adjusting light intensity and field of view based on previous lidar sensing result. Emit low intensity wide FOV sensing light for preliminary detection and follow with high intensity narrow FOV sensing light to a high interest segment of FOV if it is of high interest and low risk to human (Figs. 8, 12, [0204-0205]; see also, Figs. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have modified Leppin’s apparatus, in view of Steinburg, to first use the wide FOV light 110 to perform a preliminary detection, and follow with a narrow FOV light 112 for a more accurate sensing for a segment of high interest target. The advantage for doing so is to improve sensing accuracy, reduce power consumption, and reduce risk to human eye. (Steinberg, Figs. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150], [0205])
Therefore, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the processing circuit determines, on the basis of the first detection data, one or more second ranges that are narrower than the first range.
Regarding claim 2, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first light is flash light that is illuminated without beam scanning (Leppin, Fig. 4, [0029], rotate mirror 410 to produce 412), and
the second light is an optical scan beam that illuminates a range included in a range of illumination with the flash light (Leppin, Fig. 4, [0029], rotate mirror 410 to produce 414, scan 414 so that 112 can scan FOL B through the FOL A; see also Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving apparatus includes an image sensor that generates at least either distance image data on the first range or luminance image data on the first range as the first detection data (Leppin, [0021], [0023]; Steinberg, Fig. 1B, [0050], [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the image sensor generates the distance image data on the first range (Leppin, [0021], [0023]), and the processing circuit determines the one or more second ranges on the basis of the distance image data on the first range (Steinberg, Figs. 8, 12, [0204-0205]; see also, Fig. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 5, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuit integrates the distance image data on the first range as acquired by using the first light and the distance image data on the one or more second ranges as acquired by using the second light into one frame of distance image data and outputs the one frame of distance image data (Steinberg, Fig. 8, [0175], for each frame, produce depth map with both preliminary and segmented detection).
Regarding claim 6, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the image sensor generates the luminance image data on the first range (Steinberg, Fig. 1B, [0050], [0092]), and the processing circuit determines one or more the second ranges on the basis of the luminance image data on the first range (Steinberg, Figs. 8, 12, [0204-0205]; see also, Fig. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 7, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the image sensor generates both the distance image data on the first range and the luminance image data on the first range (Leppin, [0021], [0023]; Steinberg, Fig. 1B, [0050], [0092]), and
the processing circuit determines the one or more second ranges on the basis of the distance image data on the first range and the luminance image data on the first range (Steinberg, Figs. 8, 12, [0204-0205]; see also, Fig. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 8, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processing circuit identifies, on the basis of the luminance image data on the first range (Steinberg, Fig. 1B, [0050], [0092]), one or more physical objects that are present in the first range (Steinberg, , Fig. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150]) and determines the one or more second ranges so that the second light is shone on the one or more physical objects (Steinberg, Figs. 8, 12, [0204-0205]; see also, Fig. 5B,C, [0119-0210], [0144]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 10, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit causes the light emitting apparatus and the light receiving apparatus to repeatedly execute an operation of emitting the first light at least once and detecting the first reflected light and an operation of emitting the second light at least once and detecting the second reflected light (Fig. 8, [0175], perform the same flow through multiple frames).
Regarding claim 11, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the operation of emitting the second light includes an operation of emitting the second light more than once in different directions (Fig. 8, [0175], scanning across different segments).
Regarding claim 12, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit causes the light emitting apparatus to simultaneously emit the first light and the second light more than once (Steinberg, Figs. 10A, 10B, [0216], non-uniform light modulation is considered to be a simultaneous wide angle first light and narrow angle second light), and
the one or more second ranges are determined on the basis of the first detection data acquired by earlier illumination with the first light (Figs. 11, 12, [0230], step 1103 provides the preliminary first detection).
Regarding claim 17, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuit determines the one or more second ranges on the basis of a signal-to-noise (SN) ratio of the first detection data (Steinberg, [0140], preliminary detection-information may include noise; [0145] improving signal-to-noise ratio and detection range is a goal for adjustment power; based on this consideration, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the second range on the basis of a signal-to-noise ratio of the first detection data).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 17. They are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, they are medium claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 17. They are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin and Steinberg as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shinzo et al., WO 2018173818 (“Shinzo”).
Regarding claim 9, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the ranging apparatus according to claim 3.
However, the combination of Leppin and Steinberg, fails to teach the image sensor includes an electronic shutter of a global shutter mode.
On the other hand, Shinzo teaches using an electronic shutter of a global shutter mode to selective control detection of a specific distance (Machine translation on page 2; combined attached page at page 29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Leppin’s device, to include an electronic shutter of a global shutter mode to the receiving unit to selective control detection of a specific distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would apply known technique to a known device to produce a predictable result.
Therefore, Leppin, as modified in view of Steinberg and Shinzo, teaches the image sensor includes an electronic shutter of a global shutter mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights