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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Prior objections to the specification in relation to minor informalities have been overcome by applicant’s amendments received 2 December 2025 and are therefore withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 2 December 2025. No new matter is introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of remarks, applicant indicates that Keilaf et al. (hereinafter Keilaf, US 20190271767 A1) does not disclose a system where a plurality of light reception pixel groups correspond to a portion of a field of view (FOV), where the FOV is defined by a total angular scanning range which is divided into a plurality of angles, which is a limitation introduced in the amendments filed 2 December 2025. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and has cited references within Keilaf below, found in the rejections under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102. Additionally, Applicant claims that the rejection of the limitation “the reflected light reception pixel groups and the visible light reception pixel groups are arranged adjacently to a direction corresponding to a scanning direction”, previously presented as part of claim 3, is not taught by Keilaf but does not include further explanation of how the previously referenced portions of Keilaf either do not teach, or teach away from, the cited limitation. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, line 3: “corresponding to a scanning direction” should read “corresponding to the scanning direction”, as a scanning direction is now introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, line 3: “adjacently to a direction” and “corresponding to a scanning direction” should read “adjacently to the direction” and “corresponding to the scanning direction”, respectively, as both a direction corresponding to a scanning direction are now introduced in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Due to amendments to claim 1, claim 1 now includes the limitation “wherein the reflected light reception pixel group and the one or more visible light reception pixel groups are arranged adjacently to a direction corresponding to a scanning direction.” As it is understood that the pixel groups are arranged adjacent to one another, and this arrangement is corresponding to a scanning direction, the previously presented limitation within claim 2 where “the plurality of visible light reception pixel groups are arranged in a direction corresponding to a scanning direction” now fails to further limit claim 1, which claim 2 is dependent upon.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Keilaf et al. (hereinafter Keilaf, US 20190271767 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keilaf anticipates an object detection apparatus that scans a detection range to detect an object, the object detection apparatus comprising:
a light emission unit that emits a pulse detection light ([0077], [0108]; Fig. 4B emitter (112) may emit pulses of light in a predefined scanning pattern);
and a light reception unit having a plurality of light reception pixel groups ([0108] - [0110]; Fig. 4B sensor (116) includes an array of individual detection elements grouped into pixels (410)),
wherein the plurality of light reception pixel groups include, corresponding to a scanning angle unit in which a scanning angle range is divided into a plurality of angles ([0054] - [0058], [0067], [0108] - [0114]; Fig. 4B where scanning mirror (114) directs emitted light (204) to environment/ first FOV (412), where emitted light for each scan segment covers a smaller angular portion, the second FOV (414), where second FOV may be between .05 and 1 degree, which is a fraction of first FOV),
a reflected light reception pixel group that receives, at each scanning unit in a scanning operation, reflected light in response to an emission of the pulse detection light, and one or more visible light reception pixel groups corresponding to visible light components, receiving a visible light at each scanning unit in a scanning operation ([0073], [0111], [0114], where during each scanning cycle, a different portion of the FOV may be associated to a subset of detectors which receive incident light, the incident light including reflected emitted light and ambient light),
wherein the reflected light reception pixel group and the one or more visible light reception pixel groups are arranged adjacently to a direction corresponding to a scanning direction ([0111] - [0114], [0188], [0196]; Figs. 4B, 7M, where pixel allocation may be scanning direction dependent, groups (792) and (794) are allocated at subsequent times in a scan and the reflections from a single portion of field of view (120) collected by one or more detectors within the sensor may reference a single portion of field of view (120)).
Regarding claim 2, Keilaf anticipates the object detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of visible light reception pixel groups are arranged in a direction corresponding to a scanning direction ([0188], [0196]; Fig. 7M, where pixel allocation may be scanning direction dependent, and pixels (792) and (794) are allocated at subsequent times in a scan).
Regarding claim 3, Keilaf anticipates the object detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the reflected light reception pixel groups and the visible light reception pixel groups are arranged adjacently to a direction corresponding to a scanning direction to form a column group ([0188], [0196]; Fig. 7M, where pixel allocation may be scanning direction dependent, and pixels (792) and (794), grouped into columns, are allocated at subsequent times in a scan);
and the light reception unit is configured to execute a light reception process of the reflected light reception pixel group and a light reception process of the visible light reception pixel group ([0201], Fig. 9A where system initiates a process of collection and allocation).
Regarding claim 4, Keilaf anticipates the object detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the reflected light reception pixel groups and the visible light reception pixel groups have corresponding light reception area depending on a light reception sensitivity ([0159], where more or less pixels and/or detection elements may be allocated based on sensitivity to reflected light).
Regarding claim 5, Keilaf anticipates the object detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the light reception unit is configured to control a light reception time of the reflected light reception pixel groups and the visible light reception pixel groups, depending on a light reception sensitivity ([0244], where differing ToF/object distance time windows may have different amplification due to sensitivity levels, to avoid overloading sensors or lowering signal-to-noise ratios).
Regarding claim 6, Keilaf anticipates the object detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the light reception unit is configured to control a voltage applied to the reflected light reception pixel groups and the visible light reception pixel groups, depending on a light reception sensitivity ([0252]; Fig. 11 (1104) detector bias may be changed for pixel groups depending on signals, the pixel group or returned light intensity).
Regarding claim 10, Keilaf anticipates a method for controlling an object detection apparatus that scans a detection range to detect an object, the method comprising steps of:
emitting pulse detection light to scan the detection range ([0077], [0207]; Fig. 9B where method (910) for imaging includes activation of at least one source (911), where the source may be a pulsed source);
receiving, at each scanning unit in a scanning operation ([0111], [0114]), a reflected light in response to an emission of the pulse detection light, with a reflected light reception pixel group included in a light reception unit ([0073], [0207]; Fig. 9B where method (910) for imaging includes detection of reflection signals from the field of view (912), where the incident light includes reflected emitted light);
and receiving, at each scanning unit in the scanning operation ([0111], [0114]), a visible light, with one or more visible light reception pixel groups corresponding to visible light components included in the light reception unit ([0073], [0207]; Fig. 9B where method (910) for imaging includes detection of reflection signals from the field of view (912), where the incident light includes ambient light),
wherein the reflected light reception pixel group and the one or more visible light reception pixel groups correspond to a scanning angle unit in which a scanning angle range is divided into a plurality of angles ([0054] - [0058], [0067], [0108] - [0114]; Fig. 4B where scanning mirror (114) directs emitted light (204) to environment/ first FOV (412), where emitted light for each scan segment covers a smaller angular portion, the second FOV (414), where second FOV may be between .05 and 1 degree, which is a fraction of first FOV) and are arranged adjacently to a direction corresponding to a scanning direction ([0111] - [0114], [0188], [0196]; Figs. 4B, 7M, where pixel allocation may be scanning direction dependent, groups (792) and (794) are allocated at subsequent times in a scan and the reflections from a single portion of field of view (120) collected by one or more detectors within the sensor may reference a single portion of field of view (120)).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf et al. (hereinafter Keilaf, US 20190271767 A1), and in view of Price et al. (hereinafter Price, US 20180164156 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Keilaf teaches the object detection apparatus according to claim 1.
Keilaf does not explicitly teach pixel groups where specific detector elements receive a red, green, and/or blue component.
Price teaches a detector where visible light reception pixel groups receive at least one of visible light components of a R component, a G component and a B component ([0029], [0058] - [0060]; Fig. 7. where hybrid sensor (102) has red (R), green (G), blue (B) and IR photoreceptive elements).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Keilaf to incorporate the teachings of Price to utilize an array of detector elements where specific groups of detector elements within the array are specialized for detection of red, green, blue, and/or infrared light with a reasonable expectation of success. The camera system of Price employees an infrared laser, that emits pulsed light for time-of-flight measurements ([0049]) where a hybrid sensor detects incident light which may have multiple wavelength components. Integration of the detector array of Price into the system of Keilaf would be a simple substitution of elements (the detector arrays) with a predictable result of utilizing an array of detector elements with specific wavelength responses (red, green, blue) grouped in the system of dynamic pixel group allocation of Keilaf.
Regarding claim 8, Keilaf as modified above teaches the object detection apparatus according to claim 7.
Keilaf does not explicitly teach pixel groups where specific detector elements receive a red component.
Price teaches a detector where visible light reception pixel groups receive the visible light component of the R component ([0029], [0058] - [0060]; Fig. 7. where hybrid sensor (102) has red (R), green (G), blue (B) and IR photoreceptive elements).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Keilaf to incorporate the teachings of Price to utilize an array of detector elements where specific groups of detector elements within the array are specialized for detection of red and/or infrared light with a reasonable expectation of success. The camera system of Price employees an infrared laser, that emits pulsed light for time-of-flight measurements ([0049]) where a hybrid sensor detects incident light which may have multiple wavelength components. Integration of the detector array of Price into the system of Keilaf would be a simple substitution of elements (the detector arrays) with a predictable result of utilizing an array of detector elements with specific wavelength responses (red, green, blue) grouped in the system of dynamic pixel group allocation of Keilaf.
Regarding claim 9, Keilaf teaches the object detection apparatus according to claim 1.
Keilaf does not explicitly teach pixel groups having filters over detection elements, specifically filters for different visible light wavelength ranges.
Price teaches a detector where visible light reception pixel groups have filters on light reception pixels ([0031] - [0032]; Fig. 1. where hybrid sensor (102) is a photoreceptive sensor array (106) overlaid by a color filter array (108)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Keilaf to incorporate the teachings of Price to utilize a filter array over a photoreceptive sensor array with a reasonable expectation of success. Use of filters with detectors or detector arrays within object detection systems is well-known in the art, as noted by Keilaf where filters or filtering windows may allow specific wavelength ranges to enter sensing units while attenuating other wavelengths ([0100]). Integration of the filter array of Price into the system of Keilaf would have a predictable result of utilizing an array of filters over detector elements which allows for controlled wavelength responses (red, green, blue) of specific detection elements within pixel groups.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Curatu (US 20180284285 A1) teaches a lidar system which generates images utilizing multiple sensors, each of which includes a scanner configured to scan an environmental (field of view) FoV, where specific areas of the environmental FoV map to specific, relative receiver FoVs, and can align with the scan direction of the scanner.
Okamoto (US 20200344405 A1) teaches a time-of-flight distance imaging apparatus which includes a receiver where neighboring pixels/detector elements have different specific spectral sensitivity in wavelength bands.
Kirillov (US 20200150209 A1) teaches a lidar system where the detector may have differing sensitivities, may employ specific filters on detectors, where the sensitivity of the detector may correlate to range of objects and strength of reflected signal.
Ishii et al. (US 20180246214 A1) teaches a light receiving circuit includes a light receiving element which performs photoelectric conversion and can adjust exposure time based on background light detection periods within the distance measurement periods as well as background detection periods.
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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 730A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights