DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 2 Jul 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 7, 8, and 12; and cancelled Claims 2 and 9. The Office rejects pending Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
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, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim - U.S. Pub. 20150006070 - in view of Bao et al. - U.S. Pub. 20180188371 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Kim teaches a first light-emitting element generating a first emitting signal with wavelengths distributed within a first wavelength range (Fig.1, light emitting unit 111, ¶26|1: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, an object recognition system 100 according to the exemplary embodiment may include a transmitting unit 110 which includes a first light emitting unit 111 …to transmit multi-wavelength laser light [i.e. a first wavelength range]”); a second light-emitting element, generating a second emitting signal with wavelengths distributed within a second wavelength range, said first wavelength range differing from the second wavelength range; and a light-sensing element (Fig.1, light emitting unit 112, ¶26|1: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, an object recognition system 100 according to the exemplary embodiment may include a transmitting unit 110 which includes …a second light emitting unit 112 to transmit multi-wavelength laser light [i.e. a second wavelength range]”); …and when said first emitting signal and said second emitting signal are reflected by an object and received by said light-sensing element, said control circuit judges the type of said object according to the signal sensed by said light-sensing element (¶29|1: “The receiving unit 120 may acquire information on reflected light of an object, that is, information on a size of an object, a speed of an object, the number of reflectors which may be obtained based on a radiance of light reflected from an object, whether a number plate is present, and a material of an object, and information on a distance value which is distance information between objects and a coordinate value which indicates a position of an object, based on the reflected light received.”), wherein said first emitting signal is reflected by said object and forming a first reflection signal to be received by said light-sensing element, said second emitting signal is reflected by said object and forming a second reflection signal to be received by said light-sensing element (Fig. 1 shows two emitted lasers 111 and 112 with wavelengths of 950 and 1550nm, hitting a target and being received by two detectors), and said control circuit senses distance according to said first reflection signal sensed by said light-sensing element (Applicant claims Kim combines the signals to determine distance, which still teaches this limitation. The Office notes that between two lasers of the disclosed wavelengths, the 1550 would best be able to determine reflectance, and the 950 would be best for distance [see included instructional PTO-892 reference “Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) Imaging for Robust Material Classification” for more information], and either one could be used for both purposes.) Kim does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
But Bao teaches where a control circuit controls sequentially said first light-emitting element and said second light-emitting element to emit said first emitting signal and said second emitting signal (¶54|13: “LiDAR system 600 may then repeat this sequence of light pulses ( e.g., along a new scan direction) or use a different sequence of light pulses ( e.g., based on new anticipated ranges to objects in a new scan direction).” That is, the LiDAR system uses multiple signals at multiple wavelengths and transmits the signal pulses sequentially.)
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 Kim and Bao because sequentially transmitting signals saves energy and can prevent oversaturating the detectors.
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1, Kim teaches wherein the peak wavelength of said first wavelength range is lower or higher than the peak wavelength of said second wavelength range (¶27|1: “The transmitting unit 110 includes the first and second light emitting units 111 and 112 to transmit the multi wavelength laser light to an object ahead of a vehicle, in which the first light emitting unit 111 and the second light emitting unit 112 may emit laser light having different wave lengths.”)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 1, Kim teaches wherein said light-sensing element includes a plurality of light-sensing units; and the light-sensing characteristics of said plurality of light-sensing units correspond to said first wavelength range and said second wavelength range (¶26|5: “a receiving unit 120 which includes two avalanche photo diodes (APDs) to receive information on light reflected from an object, and a processing unit 130 which recognizes the object from the information on the reflected light received through the receiving unit 120.”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Kim teaches wherein said control circuit is coupled to said first light-emitting element, said second light-emitting element, and said light-sensing element, respectively (Fig. 1, Receiving unit and transmitting units with ECU controller.)
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 1, Kim teaches wherein said light-sensing element and said control circuit are integrated on an integrated-circuit chip (Fig. 1, Receiving unit and controlling ECU shown on a single chip)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 1, Kim teaches wherein said control circuit produces an identification rate according to said first reflection signal and said second reflection signal sensed by said light-sensing element for judging the type of said object (¶41|1: “Therefore, in the actual application environment of the vehicle recognition system, the G values between other objects are substantially similar and therefore the difference in the radiance is represented by the difference in the material of the object. Therefore, the albedo depending on a kind of object having different material types may be simplified based on the simple comparison of the radiance.”)
Claims 8, 10, and 12 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1, 3, and 7, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
As for Claim 11, which depends on Claim 8, Bao teaches wherein said control circuit controls said first light-emitting element and said second light-emitting element to emit light sequentially or said second light-emitting element and said first light-emitting element to emit light sequentially (¶54|13: “LiDAR system 600 may then repeat this sequence of light pulses ( e.g., along a new scan direction) or use a different sequence of light pulses ( e.g., based on new anticipated ranges to objects in a new scan direction).” That is, the LiDAR system uses multiple signals at multiple wavelengths and transmits the signal pulses sequentially.)
Response to Arguments
The Office has fully considered Applicant's arguments filed 2 Jul 2026 and finds them unpersuasive.
Applicant Argument:
First, Applicant argues that the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Amended claim 1 thus recites a specific functional division that Kim does not disclose: the first reflection signal serves as the basis for distance sensing, and the sensed signal serves as the basis for judging the type of the object. Kim, by contrast, treats the multi-wavelength returns collectively for its radiance-based material determination and provides no teaching that any single reflection signal is used, distinctly, as the basis for distance sensing. Kim therefore does not teach or suggest the amended limitation.
Examiner Response:
The Office finds this argument unpersuasive. Kim Fig. 1 shows a system emitting both a 950nm and a 1550nm laser at a target including two people. Fig. 3 shows the resulting properties detected by the system including reflectance. Though Applicant argues this data is determined by the “collective” returned wavelengths, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the 1550nm laser would far outperform a 950nm at determining material composition. See included instructional reference “Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) Imaging [which includes 1550nm and not 950nm] for Robust Material Classification” for more information. Further, the amended claim limitation recites that “said control circuit senses distance according to said first reflection signal sensed by said light-sensing element,” which, counter to Applicant’s argument, would still be taught by a “collective” of wavelengths. That is, if all the wavelengths were combined into a collective signal, and that signal was used to determine the distance, then all the wavelengths would be logically considered to have calculated the distance, including the first one. Thus, even if the Office accepted Applicant’s premise regarding Kim, the reference would still teach the limitations as claimed and not force the Office to change the rejection.
Applicant Argument:
Next, Applicant argues (P7/9) the following in regard to the use of Bao in the independent claim rejection:
At most, the proposed combination of Kim and Bao would yield a system that sequentially emits Kim's multi-wavelength light and then collectively evaluates the returns to determine distance, speed, and material-precisely the collective operation described in Kim. Such a combination would still not arrive at the claimed arrangement in which the control circuit senses distance according to the first reflection signal while judging the type of the object according to the sensed signal. Because the applied combination does not teach or suggest every limitation of amended claim 1, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and the rejection cannot be sustained.
Examiner Response:
The Office finds this argument unpersuasive. As explained above, the Office doesn’t accept Applicant’s premise that Kim “collectively” evaluates the distance, speed, and material properties, as only one of the wavelengths taught by Kim is known to effectively capture the differences in material reflectance, particularly between metal, skin, and fabric.
Applicant Argument:
Finally, Applicant argues (P8/9) the following against the reasons to combine the references:
Moreover, a person of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references to arrive at the claimed invention, because their underlying sensing principles are in tension. Bao's sequential pulsing is directed to time-of-flight ranging, in which distance is derived from the time-of-arrival ( or phase) of narrow, substantially constant power pulses; the transient intensity of such pulses is not a meaningful basis for the radiance/albedo intensity comparison on which Kim's material determination depends. A person of ordinary skill seeking to preserve Kim's intensity-based material determination would therefore have no rational reason to graft Bao's time-of-flight pulse-sequencing rationale onto Kim, and would have had no reasonable expectation that doing so would yield the claimed functional division in which distance is sensed according to the first reflection signal while the sensed signal is used to judge the object type.
Examiner Response:
The Office finds this argument unpersuasive. Kim discloses using multiple wavelengths to capture different information including distance, speed , and material properties. Bao is used to show a system that uses the different wavelengths in sequence rather than parallel. The reason to combine, i.e. avoiding oversaturation, is perfectly reasonable and does not, as Applicant argues, defeat the purpose of the primary reference.
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
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights