DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 12 Mar 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 2, and 18; and cancelled Claims 3-4 and 19-20. The Office rejects pending Claims 1-2 and 5-18 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 18, and any corresponding dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite “when a current emission power or energy of the detection laser beam is higher than a safety threshold for a human eye that is calculated based on internal emission parameters of the detection laser beam….” This limitation is not found in the Spec. or original claims. The Spec. (¶70|6) mentions “an emission characteristic” of lasers such as a laser classification class ranging from “Class I to Class IV,” with Class I encompassing eye-safe lasers and higher classes indicating unsafe ranges, but the claim language implies this is some dynamic internal calculation based on some readable laser parameters, which is not supported.
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 1-2 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf et al. - U.S. Pub. 20190271767 - in view of Pohl et al. - U.S. Pub. 20130128261 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Keilaf teaches a ranging module, comprising: a laser emitting unit, configured to emit a detection laser beam for detecting a target object (Fig. 2C, laser emitting unit 102, ¶81|1: “FIG. 2C illustrates an example of LIDAR system 100 [for detecting a target object] in which projecting unit 102 includes a primary light source 112A and a secondary light source 112B.”); a light sensor unit, configured to receive an echo of the detection laser beam reflected by the target object and convert the echo into an electrical signal (Fig. 2C, light sensor 116, ¶74|27: “In this example, scanning unit 104 also include a pivotable return deflector 114B that direct photons (reflected light 206) reflected back from an object 208 within field of view 120 toward sensor 116.”); and a processor (¶76|6: “In the example of FIG. 2A, processing unit 108 includes two processors 118 to regulate the operation of projecting unit 102, scanning unit 104, and sensing unit 106 in a coordinated manner based, at least partially, on information received from internal feedback of LIDAR system 100.”), connected to the light sensor unit to receive the electrical signal, and calculate a distance and/or reflectivity of the target object according to the electrical signal (¶77|10 “Scanning the environment around LIDAR system 100 may also include detecting and characterizing various aspects of the reflected light. Characteristics of the reflected light may include, for example: time-of-flight (i.e., time from emission until detection), instantaneous power (e.g., power signature), average power across entire return pulse, and photon distribution/signal over return pulse period. By comparing characteristics of a light pulse with characteristics of corresponding reflections, a distance and possibly a physical characteristic, such as reflected intensity of object 212 may be estimated.”) Keilaf does not explicitly teach the claim limitations.
But Pohl teaches a visible light emitting module, configured to emit a visible light to an outside of the lidar; and a control circuit, coupled to the visible light emitting module, and configured to control the visible light emitting module to emit the visible light (Fig. 4, Second Optical Source 440, ¶40|1: “In one example, such as illustrated schematically in FIG. 4, a detector 400 comprises a first optical source 410, such as a primary laser, the first optical source having an optical hazard zone C, E, such as illustrated in FI GS. 6 and 7. The detector 400 comprises a sensor 420 for interrogating a signal from a substance stimulated by the first optical source 410, such as illustrated schematically in FIG. 4, for example. The detector 400 comprises a second optical source 440, such as a secondary laser beam 140, which may be emitted by a secondary laser. For example, the secondary laser beam 140 comprises a visible beam with an optical intensity selected for stimulating at least one physiological aversion or avoidance response in a human. The detector 400 comprises an optical system 140, 149 for directing the visible beam such that the visible beam is superimposed over a beam 142 emitted by the primary optical source 410 in at least a portion of the nominal hazard zone C,E of the primary optical source 410.”) when a current emission power or energy of the detection laser beam is higher than a safety threshold for a human eye that is calculated based on internal emission parameters of the detection laser beam (¶29|18: “For example, FIG. 5 illustrates an intensity of a first optical source [i.e., detection laser beam] and a second optical source [visible light], which shows that the second optical source beam width is wider than the first optical beam width. In one example, the intensity of the second optical source is greater than the minimum radiation level required to stimulate a physiological response across a width A greater than the width B of the portion of the first optical source that exceeds the maximum permissible exposure for the first optical source. For example, the intensity of the second optical source may be greater than the critical response threshold over a particular range. The particular range may include all ranges over which the first optical source is hazardous or may include only a portion of the range over which the first optical source is hazardous. In one example, the particular range limits the optical hazard associated with the first optical source to a range very near first optical source, which limits the exclusion area required for firing of the first optical source. ”), or when an intensity of ambient light is lower than a preset light intensity (the use of the conjunction “or” between the final two claim limitations obviates the need for a reference to also teach the second limitation.)
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 Keilaf and Pohl because including a visible light with a Lidar that operates at range harmful, but otherwise undetectable, to the human eye will cause the eye to dilate in response to the visible light, which limits the exposure of the inner eye to the harmful laser.
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Pohl teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to control the visible light emitting module to continuously emit the visible light while the current emission power or energy of the detection laser beam is higher than the safety threshold (¶14|26: “For a continuous operation of an optical hazard, the optical hazard avoidance device may be operated continuously or in a pulsed mode, stimulating rapid blinking and/or averting a gaze of any viewer down range within the hazard zone.”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Pohl teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to control the visible light emitting module to emit the visible light when a distance between the target object and the lidar is less than a predetermined distance (¶14|11: “In one example, the visible LED light source causes an avoidance response within zero to ten meters from the optical hazard, while the visible laser light source causes an aversion of gaze or a blink response at a much greater distance.”)
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 5, Pohl teaches wherein the predetermined distance is determined according to a comparison between laser energy or power received by human eyes and the safety threshold for the human eye (¶37|6: “In this example, the critical level for the OHAD is the level required to cause a nominal blink response, which might vary depending on ambient lighting conditions and to some degree on characteristics of the observer including medical conditions and use of legal and illegal drugs. This critical level for a blink response may be determined by characterizing the blink response to a secondary optical source emitting light in the visible spectrum.”)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 5, Pohl teaches wherein the control circuit communicates with the ranging module to obtain the distance between the target object and the lidar, and controls the visible light emitting module to emit the visible light when the distance is less than the predetermined distance (¶14|11: “In one example, the visible LED light source causes an avoidance response within zero to ten meters from the optical hazard, while the visible laser light source causes an aversion of gaze or a blink response at a much greater distance.”)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 5, Pohl teaches wherein the lidar further comprises a distance sensor, the distance sensor is configured to measure the distance between the target object and the lidar, and the control circuit communicates with the distance sensor to obtain the distance, and controls the visible light emitting module to emit the visible light when the distance is less than the predetermined distance (¶14|11: “In one example, the visible LED light source causes an avoidance response within zero to ten meters from the optical hazard, while the visible laser light source causes an aversion of gaze or a blink response at a much greater distance.”)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 5, Pohl teaches wherein the control circuit obtains the distance from a sensing system external to the lidar, and controls the visible light emitting module to emit the visible light when the distance is less than the predetermined distance (¶14|11: “In one example, the visible LED light source causes an avoidance response within zero to ten meters from the optical hazard, while the visible laser light source causes an aversion of gaze or a blink response at a much greater distance.”)
As for Claim 10, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches further comprising a scanning module, configured to deflect the detection laser beam and the visible light to an outside of the lidar, wherein the visible light emitted by the visible light emitting module and the detection laser beam emitted by the laser emitting unit of the ranging module are emitted along a same optical path (¶81|8: “In contrast, secondary light source 112B may project light with a wavelength visible to the human eye. For example, secondary light source 112B may project light with a wavelength between about 400 nm and 700 nm. In one embodiment, secondary light source 112B may project light along substantially the same optical path the as light projected by primary light source 112A.”)
As for Claim 11, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches further comprising a first scanning module, configured to deflect the detection laser beam to an outside of the lidar for detecting the target object, wherein the visible light emitted by the visible light emitting module and the detection laser beam emitted by the laser emitting unit of the ranging module are emitted along different optical paths (¶81|8: “In contrast, secondary light source 112B may project light with a wavelength visible to the human eye. For example, secondary light source 112B may project light with a wavelength between about 400 nm and 700 nm. In one embodiment, secondary light source 112B may project light along substantially the same optical path the as light projected by primary light source 112A.” That is, if it may emit along the same optical path, it also may emit on a different path. )
As for Claim 12, which depends on Claim 11, Keilaf teaches wherein the lidar comprises a plurality of visible light emitting modules including the visible light emitting module, and light beams emitted by the plurality of visible light emitting modules are directed to different vertical fields of view (¶79|1: “FIG. 2B illustrates an example of a monostatic configuration of LIDAR system 100 including a plurality projecting units 102.” Further (¶80|3), “In one embodiment, the plurality of light sources 112 (including two or more light sources) may project light with substantially the same wavelength and each light source 112 is generally associated with a differing area of the field of view (denoted in the figure as 120A, 120B, and 120C).”)
As for Claim 13, which depends on Claim 11, Keilaf teaches further comprising a second scanning module, configured to deflect the visible light to the outside of the lidar and scan the light within a range of a vertical field of view (¶83|1: “Secondary light source 112B may also have a non-visible element that can double as a backup system in case primary light source 112A fails. This feature may be useful for fail-safe devices with elevated functional safety ratings.”)
As for Claim 14, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the visible light emitting module and the ranging module are configured to synchronously rotate around a rotary shaft of the lidar (¶99|5: “Alternatively, the motor (or other mechanism) may mechanically rotate a rigid structure of LID AR system 100 on which one or more light sources 112 and one or more sensors 116 are installed, thereby scanning the environment.”)
As for Claim 15, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the lidar comprises a plurality of visible light emitting modules including the visible light emitting module that are non-rotatably fixed on the lidar, the ranging module is configured to rotate around a rotary shaft of the lidar, the plurality of visible light emitting modules correspond to different horizontal angle ranges of the lidar respectively, and the control circuit is configured to control the visible light emitting modules to emit visible light when the ranging module rotates (¶99|5: “Alternatively, the motor (or other mechanism) may mechanically rotate a rigid structure of LID AR system 100 on which one or more light sources 112 and one or more sensors 116 are installed, thereby scanning the environment.”)
As for Claim 16, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the visible light emitting module is located outside a window or an optical housing of the lidar (¶70|3: “In this example, scanning unit 104 is incorporated into a right headlight assembly of vehicle 110. Every gray dot in the image corresponds to a location in the environment around vehicle 110 determined from reflections detected by sensing unit 106.”)
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the visible light emitting module is located inside the lidar, and emits the visible light to the outside of the lidar through a window or an optical housing (¶81|8: “In contrast, secondary light source 112B may project light with a wavelength visible to the human eye. For example, secondary light source 112B may project light with a wavelength between about 400 nm and 700 nm. In one embodiment, secondary light source 112B may project light along substantially the same optical path the as light projected by primary light source 112A.”)
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and stands rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Mar 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
Prosecution Insights