Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/981,124

LIDAR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 04, 2022
Examiner
CONLON, MARISA V
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sos Lab Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
39%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 39% of cases
39%
Career Allow Rate
139 granted / 355 resolved
-12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 355 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-16 are currently pending. 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. 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. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0260688 to Won et al. (“Won”). Regarding claim 1, Won teaches a LiDAR device for measuring distance using a laser comprising: a laser emitter configured to output the laser (claims 1-21); a scanner configured to rotate around an axis of rotation, and be located at a reference measurement position and a scan position; a detector configured to detect the laser (claims 1-21); and a controller configured to control the laser emitter and the detector (claims 1-21), wherein the controller comprises: a laser output controller configured to generate a trigger signal for controlling the laser emitter; and a detector controller configured to process a signal acquired from the detector and control the detector, wherein the detector controller comprises: a correction signal calculator configured to calculate a correction signal to control a voltage applied to the detector; a distance offset calculator configured to calculate a distance offset; and a distance calculator configured to calculate a distance from an object; wherein the correction signal calculator is configured to calculate the correction signal based on a first detecting signal acquired from the detector and outputted from the laser emitter and a reference signal when the scanner locates on the reference measurement position, wherein the distance offset calculator is configured to calculate offset information based on the first detecting signal acquired from the detector and outputted from the laser emitter and reference information when the scanner locates on the reference measurement position, wherein the distance calculator is configured to calculate the distance from the object based on a second detecting signal acquired in the detector and output from the laser emitter and the offset information when the scanner locates on the scan position (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 2, Won teaches wherein the correction signal calculator is configured to calculate the correction signal based on a difference between a width of the first detecting signal and a width of the reference signal acquired from the detector (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 3, Won teaches wherein the correction signal calculator is configured to calculate the correction signal based on a half of the difference between the width of the first detecting signal and the width of the reference signal acquired from the detector (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 4, Won teaches wherein the distance offset calculator is configured to calculate the offset information based on a reference time interval which the reference information comprises and a time point of detection of the first detecting signal acquired from the detector (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 5, Won teaches wherein the time point of detection of the first detecting signal acquired from the detector is obtained using a preset threshold and the signal acquired from the detector (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 6, Won teaches wherein the reference time interval is a pre-stored time interval based on a reference light path (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 7, Won teaches wherein the offset information includes at least one of the offset distance and the offset time (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 8, Won teaches wherein the distance calculator is configured to calculate the distance from the object based on the offset information and the time point of detection of the second detecting signal and the time point of generation of the trigger signal (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 9, Won teaches wherein the distance calculator is configured to calculate the distance from the object by correcting the time interval between the time point of detection of the second detecting signal and the time point of generation of the trigger signal using the offset information (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 10, Won teaches a method for operating a Light Detecting and Ranging (LiDAR) device for measuring distance using the laser, comprising: positioning a scanner in a first reference measurement position; acquiring a first detecting signal for an outputted laser when the scanner is located on the first reference measurement position; acquiring a first compensation signal and first offset information based on the first detecting signal; changing a voltage applied to the detector to a first voltage based on the first compensation signal; positioning the scanner in a first scan position; acquiring a second detecting signal for the outputted laser when the scanner is located on the first scan position; acquiring first distance information based on first offset information and the second detecting signal; positioning the scanner in a second reference measurement position; acquiring a third detecting signal for the outputted laser when the scanner is located on the second reference measurement position; acquiring second offset information and a second compensation signal based on the third detecting signal; changing the voltage applied to the detector to a second voltage based on the second compensation signal; positioning the scanner in the second scan position; acquiring a fourth detecting signal for the outputted laser when the scanner is located on the second scan position; and acquiring the second distance information based on the fourth detecting signal and the second offset information (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 11, Won teaches wherein the first reference measurement position is identical to the second reference measurement position (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 12, Won teaches wherein when the first scan position is identical to the second scan position and the first offset information is different from the second offset information, a time point of detection of the second detecting signal and a time point of detection of the fourth detecting signal are not same (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 13, Won teaches wherein the first compensation signal is acquired based on a width of a pre-stored reference signal and a width of the first detecting signal, and the second compensation signal is acquired based on the width of the pre-stored reference signal and a width of the third detecting signal (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 14, Won teaches wherein the first compensation signal is acquired based on a difference between the width of the pre-stored reference signal and the width of the first detecting signal, and the second compensation signal is acquired based on a difference between the width of pre-stored reference signal and the width of the third detecting signal (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 15, Won teaches wherein the first distance information is acquired based on a difference between a width of a pre-stored reference signal and a width of the first detecting signal, the first offset information and the second detecting signal (claims 1-21). Regarding claim 16, Won teaches wherein the second distance information is acquired based on a difference between the width of the pre-stored reference signal and the width of the third detecting signal, the second offset information and the fourth detecting signal (claims 1-21). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00. 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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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. /MARISA V CONLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 04, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599107
MATTRESS FOR LIVESTOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12568896
Stackable Modular Planter
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565303
UAV Having Lower Cargo Bay Door(s)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559231
TANDEM TILTROTOR AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557782
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING FEED TO PRESELECTED RECIPIENTS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
39%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 355 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month