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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response and claim amendments, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 19, 20 and 22 under either 35 USC 102 or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Droz et al (United States Patent No. 10,379,540).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vets (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0096254) in view of Droz et al (United States Patent No. 10,379,540).
With respect to claim 14, Vets discloses: A ranging method for a laser radar, comprising: emitting a first laser beam toward outside of the laser radar by a first laser of a laser array of the laser radar, the first laser corresponding to a first detection channel [ taught by emitting and receiving from one of the N channels in the device of figure 1; the abstract states, “…The LIDAR system has N channels, with each channel being a light emitter/light detector pair…” ]; receiving an echo of the first laser beam reflected by a target object [ met by the operation of the detector in the emitter detector pair ]; reading a first electrical signal of a first detector of the first detection channel [ a detector produces and electrical signal ] and a second electrical signal of a second detector of a second detection channel in response to the first laser beam emitted from first laser of the laser array; and determining target object information corresponding to the first detection channel [ with regard to the computing system (102), the abstract states, “…The computing system transmits a command signal to the LIDAR system, and the LIDAR system performs a scan with the M channels being active (and N-M channels being inactive). The LIDAR system constructs a point cloud based upon the scan, and the computing system controls the autonomous vehicle based upon the point cloud..."] according to the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal.
Vets does not disclose a second electrical signal of a second detector of a second detection channel in response to the first laser beam emitted from first laser of the laser array wherein target information is determined according to the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal.
Droz et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have combined a first detection channel (receiver 110) and a second detection channel (receiver (112) to be responsive the emitted light from a first laser source (106). The first receiver (110) and the second receiver having different vertical angular resolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the N emitter/detector devices of Vets to each include two detection channels corresponding to one emitter, when seeking to provide different angular resolution over the scanned volumes.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vets (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0096254) in view of Droz et al (United States Patent No. 10,379,540), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gassend et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0132851).
Claim 15 differs from Vets and Droz et al, as applied to claim 14, by reciting wherein the processor is configured to calculate a first distance between the target object and the laser radar and to generate point cloud data according to the first electrical signal when the first electrical signal is greater than or equal to a first preset threshold.
Paragraph [0134] of Gassend et al states, " Hence, in some situations where the primary signal 824 and the ghost beam 822 are reflected from retroreflective objects (e.g., depending on whether an associated controller is determining distance based on the highest intensity detected), intensity return detected or based on the first return above a erroneous distance detections might not occur...", thus, establishing that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used signals above a threshold to discern valid returns in LIDAR systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting the device of the combination of Vets and Droz et al to use threshold detection, as taught by Gassend et al, when seeking to improve target detection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vets (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0096254) in view of Droz et al (United States Patent No. 10,379,540), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Butler (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0223396).
Claim 20 differs from Vets and Droz et al, as applied to claim 14, by adding a rotating mirror downstream of the emitter array.
Figure 2 of Butler teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a rotating mirror element (233) to redirect in input scanned beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a scanning mirror downstream of the spindle (108), when adapting the device to application wherein a redirection of the beams would have been required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Droz et al, newly cited, when taken in combination with the other cited prior art , does not produce claim 1.
Therefore, claim 1 is allowable for the arguments presented in applicant’s response of 12/23/2025.
Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1.
Claims 16-19, 21 and 22 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.
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 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 should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645