Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/019,549

DISTANCE MEASUREMENT HEAD AND MULTI-TARGET DISTANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 03, 2023
Examiner
TRIVEDI, ATUL
Art Unit
3661
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Korea Institute Of Machinery & Materials
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
765 granted / 841 resolved
+39.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
877
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§103
65.1%
+25.1% vs TC avg
§102
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§112
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 841 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roustaei, US 2001/0055422 A1, in view of Steinberg, et al., US 2019/0227175 A1. As per Claim 1, Roustaei teaches a measurement head (¶ 125; “scanning head”) comprising: a reflection surface configured to reflect a part of a laser pulse transmitted from a laser light source unit toward the laser light source unit and generate a reference pulse (¶¶ 39-40; “lens assembly 212 that filters and focuses light reflected from the two-dimensional image 108 (in FIG. 3) onto the detector 206” of Figures 2 and 3); and a beam splitter configured to distribute a measurement pulse received from a measurement target (¶ 135; beam splitter 1802 of Figure 18). Roustaei does not expressly teach: a position sensor configured to receive the measurement pulse distributed by the beam splitter, wherein the measurement pulse is the laser pulse reflected from the measurement target, and a distance between the reflection surface and the measurement target is measured based on a time difference between time at which the measurement pulse passing through the beam splitter reaches the laser light source unit and time at which the reference pulse reaches the laser light source unit. Steinberg teaches: a position sensor configured to receive the measurement pulse distributed by the beam splitter (¶ 52), wherein the measurement pulse is the laser pulse reflected from the measurement target, and a distance between the reflection surface and the measurement target is measured based on a time difference between time at which the measurement pulse passing through the beam splitter reaches the laser light source unit and time at which the reference pulse reaches the laser light source unit (¶¶ 29-30, 53). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the reflector and beam splitter of Roustaei with the position sensor of Steinberg, in order to enable a larger three-dimensional depiction of a working environment. As per Claim 2, Roustaei teaches: that an optical axis of the laser pulse emitted toward the measurement target and an optical axis of the measurement pulse are aligned to coincide with each other (¶ 135; beam 1808 and detector 1803 of Figure 18) on the basis of a detection result of the position sensor (¶ 113; “as a function of object position”). As per Claim 3, Roustaei teaches that: the position sensor comprises any one of a quadrant photodiode (QPD), a lateral effect photodiode, a CCD sensor, and a CMOS sensor (¶¶ 48-50). As per Claim 4, Roustaei does not expressly teach: a holder configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a vertical direction; and a mount configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a horizontal direction. Steinberg teaches: a holder configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a vertical direction; and a mount configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a horizontal direction. Steinberg teaches: a holder configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a vertical direction; and a mount configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a horizontal direction. Steinberg teaches: a holder configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a vertical direction (¶ 81; “LIDAR system 100 may include a motor or other mechanisms for rotating housing 200 about the axis of the LIDAR system 100” as in Figure 3D); and a mount configured to rotatably support the measurement head in a horizontal direction (¶ 83; “the LIDAR system 100 (or part thereof, including at least one light source 112 and at least one sensor 116) may be rotated about at least one axis to determine a three-dimensional map of the surroundings of the LIDAR system 100” as in Figure 3D). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 5 Roustaei teaches a multi-target distance measurement system comprising: one or more optical dividers configured to divide a laser pulse into a plurality of optical paths (¶ 135; beam splitter 1802 of Figure 18); and measurement heads optically connected one by one to an end of each of the plurality of optical paths, wherein each of the measurement heads is the measurement head of claim 1 (¶¶ 115-116; “scanner head” or scanning head”). As per Claim 6, Roustaei teaches: that lengths of the optical paths from the one or more optical dividers to the measurement heads are configured to be different from each other (¶ 46; as “two or more distinct wavelengths of light are selected”). As per Claim 7, Roustaei does not expressly teach that each of the plurality of optical paths is composed of an optical fiber. Steinberg teaches that each of the plurality of optical paths is composed of an optical fiber (¶¶ 28, 88). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 8, Roustaei does not expressly teach that a gradient of the measurement target is calculated based on the detection result of the position sensor of the measurement head. Steinberg teaches that a gradient of the measurement target is calculated based on the detection result of the position sensor of the measurement head (¶ 82; after “comparing several properties of reflected light 206 with projected light 204, at least one aspect of object 208 may be determined”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 9, Roustaei further teaches a laser generation unit configured to generate the laser pulse (¶ 134; lasers 1701 and 1702 of Figure 17). Roustaei does not expressly teach: a range finder configured to receive a reference pulse and measurement pulse from each of the measurement heads and calculate a distance between the reflection surface and the measurement target based on a reception time difference between the reference pulse and the measurement pulse. Steinberg teach a range finder configured to receive a reference pulse and measurement pulse from each of the measurement heads and calculate a distance between the reflection surface and the measurement target based on a reception time difference between the reference pulse and the measurement pulse (¶¶ 29-30, 53). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 10, Roustaei does not expressly teach: a measurable distance of each of the measurement heads is determined based on a time interval between a reception time at which the range finder receives a reference pulse of the measurement head and a reception time of the next reference pulse received thereafter. Steinberg teaches: that a measurable distance of each of the measurement heads is determined based on a time interval between a reception time at which the range finder receives a reference pulse of the measurement head and a reception time of the next reference pulse received thereafter (¶¶ 29-30 (“the light signal may be a short pulse, whose rise and/or fall time may be detected in reception”), ¶ 53). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 11, Roustaei teaches that the one or more optical dividers comprise: a first optical divider configured to divide the laser pulse into a plurality of first optical paths (¶ 133; “a binary optic is located in the beam path of the laser diode 1601 to divide the beam into a plurality of beamlets”). Roustaei does not expressly teach second optical dividers 30, 40 and 50 configured to be optically connected to each of the first optical paths divided by the first optical divider and divide the first optical path into at least one or more second optical paths, wherein each of the measurement heads is optically connected to the second optical path one by one. Steinberg divide the beam into a plurality of beamlets”). Roustaei does not expressly teach second optical dividers 30, 40 and 50 configured to be optically connected to each of the first optical paths divided by the first optical divider and divide the first optical path into at least one or more second optical paths, wherein each of the measurement heads is optically connected to the second optical path one by one (¶¶ 65-66; polarized beam splitter 216 of Figure 2B). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST. 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 Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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. ATUL TRIVEDI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3661 /ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600207
VEHICULAR VISION SYSTEM WITH GLARE REDUCING WINDSHIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594807
FUNCTIONAL SAFETY PROTECTION MECHANISM SELF-TEST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590825
CROP CONTAINER MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576835
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING PARKING OF VEHICLE USING LIDAR SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576837
Object Perception Method For Vehicle And Object Perception Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 841 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