DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. Patent application amendment filed on November 20, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on August 20, 2025, claims 1, 3, 4, 10-12, 18 and 20 are amended of which claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent claims. Applicant maintained claims 2, 5-9, 13-17, and 19. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as new claim after the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Drawings
3. The drawings submitted on November 20, 2025, has been accepted, therefore the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments in "Remarks" submitted on November 20, 2025, with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendment. However, regarding applicant's argument that DEMIRTAS et al.(US 2018/0081043 A1) is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The Federal Circuit reads KSR as "direct[ing] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly" because "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 127 S. Ct. at 1727).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 8, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis(6,307,622 B1) in view of Koerber et al.(US 2019/0377083 A1)(herein after Koerber).
Regarding claim 10, Lewis teaches a light detection and range (LiDAR) device(an optical detection and ranging system, Col-1, Lines 6-7) for an autonomous driving vehicle(ADV)(automobile 10, fig.1), comprising:
a processor(microcontroller 84, fig.14, Col-9, Line-28);
a light emitter(light emitter 86, fig.14, Col-9, Line-35);
an optical sensor(photo-diodes 92, fig.14, Col-9, Line 42-43); and
a memory(read-only memory, Col-10, Lines 1-2; 66-67) having instructions stored therein, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor(microcontroller 84) to perform operations, the operations including:
emitting, using the light emitter, an optical signal(Col-9, Lines 28-40), as modulated light using a binary code signal (coded transmit signal; Col-3, Lines 18-21), onto an object (Col-9, Lines 38-41: The selected light emitter 86 transmits an optical signal containing the coded transmit signal that will be utilized by the proximity detector 16 to detect and range a target);
receiving, using the optical sensor(photo-diodes 92), at least a portion of the optical signal reflected by the object(Col-3, Lines 24-45);
producing digital signal based on the received portion of the optical signal reflected by the object(Col-3, Lines 47-59)(Col-9, Lines 50-52: The received light signal may include a reflected version of the transmitted optical signal from the selected light emitter 86); and
determining a position of the object(location of the detected target, Col-10, Lines 52-56) based on the digital signal(Col-3, Lines 47-59) and the optical signal(Col-11, Lines 23-31; fig.27, Col-14, Lines 26-64); and
determining a cross-correlation value between the digital and the binary code signal(Col-3, Lines 24-46)(Lewis does not directly determines cross-correlation between the digital signal and binary code signal. However, s/he discloses cross-correlation received electrical signal and binary coded signal).
Nevertheless, Lewis is not found to teach expressly the LIDAR device, wherein a memory having instructions stored therein, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, the operations including: determining a cross-correlation value between the digital and the binary code signal.
However, Koerber teaches a radar sensor for measuring two-dimensional position of objects for an autonomous driving vehicle(ADV)(figs.1a&1b), wherein the measuring operations including:
determining a cross-correlation value between the digital and the binary code signal(fig.8, Para-24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Lewis with the teaching of Koerber to include the feature in order to provide distance measuring device capable of reducing signal to signal-to-noise ratio in an easy manner.
Regarding claim 16, Lewis as modified by Koerber teaches the LiDAR device of claim 10, wherein the digital signal comprises one or more high values that each correspond to a photon detected by the optical sensor that is associated with the optical signal that is reflected off the object(it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that photon corresponds to emission light reflected by the object has high values and the light which are not reflected by the object would go to environment without any reflection part and with no energy) and one or more low values that each correspond to an absence of a detection of a photon by the optical sensor over a period of time(same argument as before).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 10 since both claims 10 and 18 recite identical claim limitations except minor change in wording and terminology.
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 10 since both claims 1 and 10 recite identical claim limitations except in different formats.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 16 since both claims 8 and 16 recite identical claim limitations except in different formats.
9. Claims 2, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis(6,307,622 B1) in view of Koerber et al.(US 2019/0377083 A1) and further in view of SAKAI et al.(US 2019/005 6496 A1) (herein after SAKAI).
Regarding claim 19, Lewis as modified by Koerber is not found to teach expressly the ADV of claim 18, wherein the optical sensor comprises a single-photon avalanche photodiode (SAPD) (Lewis only teaches a plurality of photodiodes but not avalanche photodiode).
However, SAKAI teaches an object detector for an autonomous driving vehicle, wherein the optical sensor comprises a single-photon avalanche photodiode(SAPD)(Para-60).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Lewis further with the teaching of SAKAI to include the feature in order to improve accuracy of the detection or detection distance.
Claim 2 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19 since both claims 2 and 19 recite identical claim limitations except in different formats.
10. Claims 3, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis(6,307,622 B1) in view of Koerber et al.(US 2019/0377083 A1) and further in view of DEMIRTAS et al.(US 2018/00 81043 A1) (herein after DEMIRTAS).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis as modified by Koerber is not found to teach expressly the LiDAR device of claim 10, wherein a photon is emitted at a high value of the binary code signal and no photon is emitted at a low value of the binary code signal.
However, DEMIRTAS teaches a system for interference handling in time of flight depth sensing, wherein the photon is emitted at a high value of the binary code signal and no photon is emitted at a low value of the binary code signal(Para-47, 48).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Lewis further with the teaching of DEMIRTAS to include the feature in order to provide a system that allows cameras to start measuring interference in an order dictated by ordering of the random numbers generated.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 11 since both claims 11 and 20 recite identical claim limitations except minor change in wording in the preamble.
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 11 since both claims 3 and 11 recite identical claim limitations except in different formats.
11. Claims 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis(6,307,622 B1) in view of Koerber et al.(US 2019/0377083 A1) and further in view of Zotti(US 2023/0183038 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lewis as modified by Koerber is not found to teach expressly the LiDAR device of claim 10, wherein the object is a vehicle, wherein the optical signal is a first optical signal, wherein the optical signal comprises an instruction or a command for the vehicle, wherein the memory has further instructions that include receiving, using the optical sensor and from the vehicle, a second optical signal that comprises a response to the instruction or the command.
However, Zotti teaches a light modulation device, wherein the object is a vehicle(elevator car 3, fig.1, Para-22), wherein the optical signal is a first optical signal(first light signal 14, fig.2, Para-26), wherein the optical signal comprises an instruction or a command(readiness or a travel request) for the vehicle(3), wherein the memory has further instructions that include receiving, using the optical sensor and from the vehicle, a second optical signal(second light signal 15, fig.2) that comprises a response to the instruction or the command (destination input).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Lewis further with the teaching of Zotti to include the feature in order to provide a light modulation device that ensures safe and reliable data communication between an elevator and mobile apparatuses, in particular robots, for operating the elevator or before or during the elevator journey.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 17 since both claims 9 and 17 recite identical claim limitations except in different formats.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 4-7, and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4 and 12: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, ”the LiDAR device of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a time-of-flight (ToF) from a time at which the optical signal is emitted to a time at which the at least the portion of the optical signal is received, in response to the cross-correlation value being greater than a threshold value”.
Claims 6 and 14: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, ”the LiDAR device of claim 11, wherein the optical signal is a first optical signal, the binary code signal is a first binary code signal, and the digital signal is a first digital signal, wherein the operations further comprise: emitting, using the light emitter, a second optical signal onto the object as modulated light according to a second binary code signal, wherein a first cross-correlation value between the first and second binary code signals is below a threshold; and receiving, using the optical sensor, at least a portion of the second optical signal reflected by the object”.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 are also objected to because of their dependency on the objected base claims respectively.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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.
Examiner Note
15. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lun-Yi Lao can be reached on (571)272-7671. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621