CTFR 17/820,146 CTFR 100148 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 30 January 2026. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, were amended. Claim 3 was cancelled. New claims 9-14 were added. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-14 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the Remarks, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Nonaka, WO 2019138964 A1 in view of Pei et al., US 20170307759 A1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 7-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, WO 2019138964 A1 ("Nonaka") in view of Pei et al., US 20170307759 A1 (“Pei”) . Regarding claim 1, Nonaka discloses a measurement device unit mounted on a vehicle (Fig. 3) comprising a data processing device including: a plurality of detector input units, each of which being connected to a corresponding one of a plurality of detectors having respective predetermined detection areas (Fig. 2, lidar unit 7, scanners L1-L4, scanners connected to signal processing unit SP, Paragraph [0028]-[0029]) ; an output unit configured to be connected to a control device arranged in a vehicle (Fig. 1, sensor unit 2, lidar unit 7, control unit 6, sensor unit 2 connected to control unit 6, Paragraph [0024], [0027]) ; an overlapping detection area setting unit configured to dynamically set an overlapping detection area between a plurality of arbitrary detectors among the plurality of detectors (Fig. 7A-D, control unit 6 moves mechanical adjustment 8 and electronic adjustment to determine overlap range OR, Paragraph [0052]) , for use during measurement and during non-measurement, or for use under normal conditions and under abnormal conditions (Fig. 7A-D, Paragraph [0054]: misalignment can be due to accident; Fig. 8, step 102, Paragraph [0060]: can be adjusted in normal scanning) ; and an integrated data generation unit configured to, in accordance with the set overlap detection area, generate integrated data using detection data corresponding to the detection areas input from the plurality of detectors via the plurality of detector input units and output the integrated data via the output unit (Fig. 2, signal processing unit SP, Paragraph [0029]-[0030]), wherein the overlapping detection area setting unit is configured to: set a measurement-time overlapping detection area for use during measurement (Fig. 7A, overlap range OR, Paragraph [0054 ]) ; and […]. Nonaka does not teach: set a non-measurement-time overlapping detection area that is larger than the measurement-time overlapping detection area for use during diagnosis or calibration, wherein the integrated data generation unit is configured to: during diagnosis or calibration, achieve the non-measurement-time overlapping detection area by expanding a physical detection area of at least one of the plurality of arbitrary detectors so as to be larger than the detection area during measurement, wherein the non-measurement-time overlapping detection area comprises an expanded detection area, and the expanded detection area is generated by expanding the physical detection area of the at least one of the plurality of arbitrary detectors on a side of the physical detection area that overlaps a physical detection area of an adjacent detector. However, Pei teaches a three-dimensional imaging system that includes three lidar sensors. Pei teaches one measurement detection configuration of the lidar sensors where the detection areas do not overlap (Fig. 3, first lidar sensor 310, second lidar sensor 320, third lidar sensor 330, first angular field of view 314, second angular field of view 324, third angular field of view 334, Paragraph [0034]). Pei also teaches another configuration of the lidar sensors, where the lidar sensors have overlapping detection areas to perform calibration between the lidar sensors (Fig. 4, first lidar sensor 310, second lidar sensor 320, third lidar sensor 330, first angular field of view 314, second angular field of view 324, third angular field of view 334, Paragraph [0038]). During the non-measurement, calibration time, the detection areas of the second and third lidar sensors are expanded to overlap the detection area of the first lidar sensor (Fig. 3-4, first lidar sensor 310, second lidar sensor 320, third lidar sensor 330, first angular field of view 314, second angular field of view 324, third angular field of view 334; Note: second angular field of view 324 and third angular field of view 334 expanded to be larger in Fig. 4 than Fig. 3). 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 Nonaka’s control unit by setting a larger overlap region during a calibration mode, which is disclosed by Pei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase reliability of the system, as suggested by Pei (Paragraph [0038]). Regarding claim 4, Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei, discloses the measurement device unit according to claim 1, wherein a size of the overlapping detection area is specified by a communication band between the integrated data generation unit and the control device (Nonaka, Fig. 7A-D, overlap region OR, Paragraph [0047] and [0049]: mechanical and electronic adjustment performed through control unit 6 sending signal through signal processing unit SP) , and the integrated data generation unit is configured to dynamically change a proportion of detection data from each of the plurality of arbitrary detectors in the integrated data, in accordance with the dynamically changed overlapping detection area (Nonaka, Fig. 8, Step S103, S105, S106, and S107, Paragraph [0061]-[0063]: light received in second scanner changes with adjustment) . Regarding claim 7, Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei, discloses the measurement device unit according to claim 1, further comprising the plurality of detectors having respective predetermined detection areas (Fig. 3, scanners L1 – L12 of the lidar unit 7, scanning area, Paragraph [0031]-[0032]) . Claim 8 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claims 9, 11, and 14, Nonaka discloses a measurement device mounted on a vehicle (Fig. 3) comprising a data processing device comprising: at least one of (i) a circuit or (ii) a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a set of computer-executable instructions that is stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and executed by the processor (Paragraph [0010]) , the at least one of (i) a circuit or (ii) a processor connected to a corresponding one of a plurality of detectors having respective predetermined detection areas and connected to a control device arranged in a vehicle (Paragraph [0010]) , wherein the at least one of (i) the circuit or (ii) the processor, the non-transitory computer- readable storage medium, and the set of computer-executable instructions is configured to: […execute the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 7…]. In addition, claims 9, 11, and 14 include the claims limitations of claims 1, 4, and 7 and are rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Pei in further view of Johnson, US 20210141551 A1 (“Johnson”) . Regarding claim 2, Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei, discloses the measurement device unit according to claim 1, wherein the integrated data generation unit is configured to:[…]; and achieve the non-measurement-time overlapping detection area by maintaining detection data corresponding to the overlapping detection area in the detection data from the plurality of arbitrary detectors (Nonaka , Fig. 7B-D, overlap range OR, Paragraph [0057]; During alignment no data is deleted in SR1, SR2, FOV1, FOV2) . Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei, does not teach: achieve the measurement-time overlapping detection area by deleting detection data corresponding to at least part of the overlapping detection area from the detection data of at least one of the plurality of arbitrary adjacent detectors. However, Johnson teaches a method for limiting redundant data from different sources by deleting or not storing the redundant data (Fig. 5, operation 432 – 436, Paragraph [0058]-[0059]). 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 Nonaka’s signal processing unit by implementing a method of eliminating redundant data during measurement taking, which is disclosed by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save on data communications bandwidth, as suggested by Johnson (Paragraph [0046]). Regarding claim 5, Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei and Johnson, discloses the measurement device unit according to claim 2, wherein detection data corresponding to the non-measurement-time overlapping detection area among the detection data from the arbitrary detectors is used to execute diagnosis or calibration (Nonaka, Fig. 8, Step S103, S105, S106, and S107, Paragraph [0061]-[0063]) . Claims 10 and 12 include the same claim limitations as claims 2 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Pei in further view of Johnson and Mahajan, US 20200333439 A1 (“Mahajan”) . Regarding claim 6, Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei, discloses the measurement device unit according to claim 1, wherein the overlapping detection area setting unit is configured to: set a measurement-time overlapping detection area under normal conditions (Nonaka, Fig. 7A, overlap range OR, Paragraph [0054]) , […], and the integrated data generation unit is configured to: […], and achieve the failing-time overlapping detection area by maintaining the normal-time clipping data in detection data from the plurality of arbitrary detectors (Fig. 7D, overlap range OR, Paragraph [0057]) . Nonaka, as modified in view of Pei, does not teach: (1) set, under fault conditions where any one of the plurality of arbitrary detectors fails, a failing-time overlapping detection area by expanding the detection area of another detector among the plurality of arbitrary detectors to compensate for detection area of the determined failing detector and (2) achieve the measurement-time overlapping detection area under normal conditions by deleting normal-time clipping data from detection data from the plurality of arbitrary detectors. (1) However, Mahajan teaches two overlapping lidar systems where if one lidar is malfunctioning, the other lidar acts as a backup for the malfunctioning lidar (Fig. 4A, operation 403 and 405, Paragraph [0031]; See also Fig. 1A, lidar system 107 and 109). 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 Nonaka’s control unit by controlling one sensor to compensate for the other sensor’s FOV during a malfunctioning event, which is disclosed by Mahajan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for “the remaining LIDAR system [to have] a sufficient field-of-view for the vehicle to still operate and provide assisted driving or autonomous driving functionality for the safe operation of the vehicle”, as suggested by Mahajan (Paragraph [0031]). (2) In addition, Johnson teaches a method for limiting redundant data from different sources by deleting or not storing the redundant data (Fig. 5, operation 432 – 436, Paragraph [0058]-[0059]). 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 Nonaka’s signal processing unit by implementing a method of eliminating redundant data during measurement taking, which is disclosed by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save on data communications bandwidth, as suggested by Johnson (Paragraph [0046]). Claim 13 contains the same claims limitations as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steinberg et al., US 20190212450 A1 teaches a LIDAR system that dynamically allocates the optical budget to individual LIDAR sensors which can increase the LIDAR sensor FOV. 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 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 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 17/820,146 Page 11 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights