DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 16 Jan 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 10. The Office rejects pending Claims 1-20 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
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.
+_+_+ Claims 1-4, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leppin et al. - U.S. Pub. 20190146067 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Leppin teaches a transmitter configured to generate and transmit light, the light being transmitted at predetermined vertical and horizontal divergence angles (Fig. 3, Transmitter AB, transmitting overlapping fields of light A 110 and B 112); a first receiver configured to receive light reflected from an object within a first detection region of a short range (Fig. 3, RX A 118, receiving reflected light from FOL A, broader, shorter range); and a second receiver configured to receive light reflected from an object within a second detection region of a long range (Fig. 3, RX B 120, receiving reflected light from FOL B, narrower, longer range), wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are arranged such that light transmitted to a part of the first detection region is transmitted to an entire region of the second detection region, thereby enabling the second receiver to detect an object within the second detection region with a higher resolution than the first receiver (Fig. 3, transmitter 300, ¶27|1: “In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, the at least one light transmitter unit 106 is implemented with a single light transmitter unit 300. As such, the single light transmitter unit 300 is configured to produce both the first field of illumination 110 and the second field of illumination 112.” That is, Leppin shows a flash lidar with two overlapping fields of illumination emanating from one transmitter: one short and wide, the other distant and narrow, not unlike Applicant’s own Figs. 4, 5, and 8. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a broader field of light would yield a less intense (lower resolution) reflection than the more focused, narrower field of light. Further, this limitation is prevalent in the prior art, including Russ, previous PTO-892 reference, showing same limitations in ¶s 8, 28-30, and Figs. 2, 3, 4, and Henderson, current PTO-892 reference, Fig. 5A, ¶87, showing overlapping short and long range illumination fields.)
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Leppin teaches wherein, in a non-scanning type, the transmitter (¶16|1: “The flash lidar sensor assembly 100 also includes at least one light transmitter unit 106.”) transmits light in a range of vertical and horizontal divergence angles with respect to a short-range region, the first receiver comprises a two-dimensional detection unit to receive the light transmitted in the range of the vertical and horizontal divergence angles with respect to the short-range region and reflected from an object in a short range, and the second receiver comprises a two-dimensional detection unit to receive light transmitted in a narrower range of vertical and horizontal divergence angles and reflected from an object in a long range, of the light transmitted in the range of the vertical and horizontal divergence angles with respect to the short-range region (¶17|1: “In the exemplary embodiments, the first field of illumination 110 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) near the sensor assembly 100. As such, the first field of illumination 110 may be referred to as a wide-angle illumination or close-range illumination. The second field of illumination 112 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) farther from the sensor assembly 100. As such, the second field of illumination 112 may be referred to as a narrow-angle illumination or long-range illumination.”)
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 2, Leppin teaches wherein the transmitter transmits light having vertical and horizontal divergence angles wider than or equal to vertical and horizontal fields of view (FOV) of the first receiver (¶17|1: “In the exemplary embodiments, the first field of illumination 110 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) near the sensor assembly 100. As such, the first field of illumination 110 may be referred to as a wide-angle illumination or close-range illumination. The second field of illumination 112 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) farther from the sensor assembly 100. As such, the second field of illumination 112 may be referred to as a narrow-angle illumination or long-range illumination.” See also Fig. 3 showing both fields of illumination.)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 2, Leppin teaches wherein the first receiver has wider vertical and horizontal FOV and a lower resolution than the second receiver (¶17|1: “In the exemplary embodiments, the first field of illumination 110 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) near the sensor assembly 100. As such, the first field of illumination 110 may be referred to as a wide-angle illumination or close-range illumination. The second field of illumination 112 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) farther from the sensor assembly 100. As such, the second field of illumination 112 may be referred to as a narrow-angle illumination or long-range illumination.” That is, the broader the FOV the less the resolution.)
Claims 10-13 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1-4, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
As for Claim 20, which depends on Claim 10, Leppin teaches wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle with an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) (¶26|5: “The controller 126 may be in communication with other systems, e.g., systems for control [full or assisting] of a vehicle.”)
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.
Claims 5-9 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. 20210096224).
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Leppin teaches wherein, […], the transmitter transmits light in a range of vertical divergence angle with regard to a region of a short range while performing scanning in a horizontal direction, the first receiver comprises a one-dimensional detection unit to receive the light transmitted in the range of the vertical divergence angle with regard to the region of the short range and reflected from an object in a short range, and the second receiver comprises a one-dimensional detection unit to receive light transmitted in a narrower range of a vertical divergence angle and reflected from an object in a long range, of the light transmitted in the range of the vertical divergence angle with regard to the region of the short range (¶17|1: “In the exemplary embodiments, the first field of illumination 110 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) near the sensor assembly 100. As such, the first field of illumination 110 may be referred to as a wide-angle illumination or close-range illumination. The second field of illumination 112 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) farther from the sensor assembly 100. As such, the second field of illumination 112 may be referred to as a narrow-angle illumination or long-range illumination.”) Leppin does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
But Lee teaches in case of a scanning type (¶281|1: “The lidar system of the present disclosure may be driven in a flash mode and a scan mode that may be selected according to a sensing distance, a vehicle speed, traveling environment information, and the like.”)
It 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 to combine Leppin and Lee because switching between flash and scanning lidar can useful depending on “sensing distance, a vehicle speed, traveling environment information, and the like.”
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 5, Leppin teaches wherein the transmitter transmits light having a vertical divergence angle wider than or equal to a vertical field of view (FOV) of the first receiver (¶17|1: “In the exemplary embodiments, the first field of illumination 110 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) near the sensor assembly 100. As such, the first field of illumination 110 may be referred to as a wide-angle illumination or close-range illumination. The second field of illumination 112 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) farther from the sensor assembly 100. As such, the second field of illumination 112 may be referred to as a narrow-angle illumination or long-range illumination.” See also Fig. 3 showing both fields of illumination.)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 5, Leppin teaches wherein the first receiver has a wider vertical field of view and a lower resolution than the second receiver (¶17|1: “In the exemplary embodiments, the first field of illumination 110 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) near the sensor assembly 100. As such, the first field of illumination 110 may be referred to as a wide-angle illumination or close-range illumination. The second field of illumination 112 is more particularly configured to illuminate objects (not shown) farther from the sensor assembly 100. As such, the second field of illumination 112 may be referred to as a narrow-angle illumination or long-range illumination.” That is, the broader the FOV the less the resolution.)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the second receiver performs detection in a shorter time cycle than the first receiver to increase a horizontal resolution (¶424|1: “According to the present disclosure, by scanning an object in a flash mode or a scan mode using a laser beam generated from a plurality of light sources, the object may be efficiently scanned to improve the problem of limitation in the sensing distance and angle of view.”)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 1, Leppin does not explicitly teach all the limitations.
But Lee teaches wherein the second receiver is adjustable in position or angle of a lens thereof to change the second detection region (¶323|1: “In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the distance between the light source and the lens may be individually adjusted in the flash mode and/or the scan mode to change the angle of view.”)
It 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 to combine Leppin and Lee because an adjustable setting allows for optimal tuning of the system.
Claims 14-18 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 5-9, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
As for Claim 19, which depends on Claim 10, Leppin does not explicitly teach all the limitations.
But Lee teaches wherein the lidar is configured to detect an object located in front, back or lateral sides of the vehicle (¶151|18: “The lidar may be disposed at an appropriate position outside the vehicle in order to detect objects positioned in front of, behind or on the side of the vehicle.”)
It 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 to combine Leppin and Lee because an autonomous vehicle would need to be able to detect objects in all directions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 Jan 2026 relate to newly amended claims and are not addressed in this section; the rejections above, however, address the latest version of the claims in detail.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Applicants should direct any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications to CLINT THATCHER at phone 571.270.3588. Examiner is normally available Mon-Fri, 9am to 5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645