Detailed Action
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted/amended claims 22-31 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The examiner sent a restriction by original presentation on the claims 22-31 in previous action filed on 09/03/2025. In response to the restriction by original presentation, the applicant did not properly withdraw/amended the non-elected inventions.
As shown below the amended claims 22-31 are subjected to different inventions.
Inventions II (Claims 22-23 and 25-27) and I (claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-14) are related as process and apparatus for its practice.
The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, since the process of claim 22 does not require the wide FOV detector and the narrow FOV detector to be located in a single detection plane relative to the lens and the narrow FOV detector is positioned to the detect the incident light passed through the window.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, newly amended or added claims 22-23, and 25-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
As a result, claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-14 are examined in this action.
Response to the argument
Response to the argument on Restriction
AS to claim 1, applicant argues as below.
The applicant argues that since the claim 22 has been amended to reads along with the invention I, the invention II (claims 22023 and 25-27) should be rejoined with the invention I. However, as addressed in the above restriction/election, still invention II is distinct from the product claims of the invention I.
Therefore, the restriction deemed proper and still maintained.
Response to the argument on 112
Based upon amendment on claim 6, previous 112b rejection on claim 6 has been withdrawn. However, the applicant has not addressed/amended claim 7 regarding “the narrow FOV detector of the optical detection system is configured to detect a location of the modulated light source”. As a result, the 112b rejection regarding claim 7 has been maintained.
Response to the argument on 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Prior art of Ockerse et al. (US 20050024729) has been used for the newly amended limitation.
For the claims 3, 5-9, 11-12 and 14, the claims are argued based upon their dependencies on the claim 1. As a result, the reason provided above applies the same.
As to the claims 22 and 28-31, the claims have been withdrawn from the consideration as reason provided in above restriction by original presentation.
Response to the argument on claim 103
As to the claim 13, the claim has been argued based on its dependency on the claim 1. Therefore, the reason provided for the claim1 applies the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 7, claim recites “the narrow FOV detector of the optical detection system is configured to detect a location of the modulated light source”.
However, it is not clear what kind of structural component/modification of the narrow FOV detector would make the narrow FOV detector possible to detect a location of the modulated light source (ex. on the contrary to the wide FOV detector couldn’t).
Or it is not any structural component/modification/arrangement but rather it is an intent of use of the narrow FOV detector (so any types of FOV detector is capable of detecting the location of the modulated light source if they are in the position of receiving modulated light source)?
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret it as any types of FOV detector is capable of detection location of the modulated light source if they are arranged to receive a modulated light source such as Chen et al. (US 20240053444 A1).
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(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2022227609 A1, for citation purposes, the examiner will use US 20240053444) in view of Ockerse et al. (US 20050024729 hereinafter Ockerse).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an optical detection system (Fig 4c, LIDAR sensor), comprising: a lens having a focal plane; an [0058] and [0060], receiving lens ‘107’ or lens ‘108’);
a wide field of view (FOV) detector configured to detect incident light at the focal plane corresponding to a wide FOV, wherein the wide FOV detector includes a window (Fig. 4c, and [0058], a part of receiving unit ‘106’ which covers lager area with 108s and the middle of the 106 has window to pass the beam through it to another detector 105) to allow incident light to pass through (as shown in Fig. 4c);
a narrow FOV detector configured to detect incident light at the focal plane corresponding to a narrow FOV (smaller area along the center of 106, which is in the same focal plane and since it covers smaller area of 106, it has narrow FOV) wherein the narrow FOV detector is positioned to incident light passed through the window (near the center including openings could be considered as the window and sensor arranged along the rim of openings can be considered as detecting light incident to the window), wherein the narrow FOV is smaller than the wide FOV (a smaller portion of detector 106 could be took and considered as the narrow FOV and larger portion of detector 106 as wide FOV detector); and
wherein the wide FOV detector and the narrow FOV detector are located in a single focal plane relative to the lens (Fig 4c, As seen in figure 4c, 106 is in a single focal plane).
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose the wide FOV detector includes a first type of optical detector element and wherein the narrow FOV detector includes a second type of optical detector element, wherein the second type of optical detector element is more sensitive than the first type of optical detector element.
Ockerse teaches the wide FOV detector includes a first type of optical detector element and wherein the narrow FOV detector includes a second type of optical detector element, wherein the second type of optical detector element is more sensitive than the first type of optical detector element ([0189]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Chen by having the wide FOV detector includes a first type of optical detector element and wherein the narrow FOV detector includes a second type of optical detector element, wherein the second type of optical detector element is more sensitive than the first type of optical detector element for the benefit including higher optical gain which is required for specific purpose such as glare sensor as taught by Ockerse.
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 2, wherein the optical detection system is configured to receive the incident light corresponding to the wide FOV and the incident light corresponding to the narrow FOV through a single optical path (Fig 4c, As seen in Fig.4c, light received from the two optical detectors are light through the same receiving lens).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 1, wherein the wide FOV detector has a first surface area and the narrow FOV detector has a second surface area, wherein the first surface area is greater than the second surface area (Fig 4c, As seen in Fig 4c, the first receiving unit detects a greater surface area then the second receiving unit).
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 1, wherein the wide FOV detector of the optical detection system is configured to detect a presence of a modulated light source ([0056] L2 is modulated light and received by outer portion of 106 (i.e., wide FOV detector) not originating from the optical detection system (Fig. 4c, light is not originating from the optical detection system).
Regarding claim 7, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 6, wherein the narrow FOV detector of the optical detection system is configured to detect a location of the modulated light source (Fig. 4c and [0034], it is a LIDAR sensor, so it is capable of detecting a location of the modulated light source [0067], detection laser beams are detected to have a small angle difference in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al disclose the optical detection system of claim 7, wherein the wide FOV detector includes a plurality of photodiodes, each of the plurality of photodiodes defining a detector segment (Fig 4c, [0058], First detector array may contain various types of photodetectors, such as avalanche photodiode.).
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of detector segments corresponds to a sub-FOV, wherein a sum of all of the sub-FOVs is equal to the wide FOV (Fig 4c, as seen in figure 4c, adding all the detectors FOV will equal the wide FOV).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 1, wherein the window includes a window area, wherein the window area is smaller than a narrow FOV detector area (Fig 4c, depending on how to take certain area as a narrow FOV detection area, and also, since the narrow FOV is surrounding the window area, it could be understood as a larger area).
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 1, wherein the narrow FOV detector includes an avalanche photodiode (APD) (Fig 4c, [0058], First and second detector array may contain various types of photodetectors, such as avalanche photodiode).
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al discloses the optical detection system of claim 1, wherein the lens consists of a single optical lens (Fig 4c, lens in the optical system is a single lens).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (WO 2022227609 A1) in view of Ockerse and in further view of Finkelstein et al (WO 20220887384 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Chen when modified by Ockerse discloses the optical detection system of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising an optical filter, wherein the optical filter is configured to remove a background light.
However, Finkelstein et al teaches an optical detection system further comprising
an optical filter, wherein the optical filter is configured to remove a background light ([ 0059], Filter ‘111’ prevents passage of background or non-signal light.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Chen and Ockerse to include an optical filter, wherein the optical filter is configured to remove a background light, as taught by Finkelstein et al, such as to reduce light of wavelengths different that the optical signals outputs ([0059]).
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. 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.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877