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 .
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, 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Limitations
“the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit are aligned in the scanning direction with the rotation axis of the deflection member of the first ranging unit placed in the scanning direction with respect to the rotation axis of the deflection member of the second ranging unit, and the second ranging unit starts the laser light scanning at a relative time which is relative to a time at which the first ranging unit starts the laser light scanning, “ and
“the relative time being within a range defined by an upper limit being a value representing the non-ranging period of the second ranging unit and a lower limit being a value representing a period of time taken to move an angle, in a rotational manner at the ranging angular velocity, between a first starting azimuth being the emission azimuth in which the first ranging unit starts the laser light scanning and a second starting azimuth being the emission azimuth in which the second ranging unit starts the laser light scanning, the lower value having a negative sign when the first starting azimuth is facing in the scanning direction relative to the second starting azimuth.”
1st limitation “aligned in the scanning direction with the rotation axis of the deflection member of the first ranging unit placed in the scanning direction with respect to the rotation axis of the deflection member of the second ranging unit” is unclear as deflection member can rotate in multiple directions and hence “aligned in the scanning” loses its meaning.
2nd limitation “the relative time being within a range defined by an upper limit being a value representing the non-ranging period of the second ranging unit and a lower limit being a value representing a period of time taken to move an angle, in a rotational manner at the ranging angular velocity, between a first starting azimuth being the emission azimuth in which the first ranging unit starts the laser light scanning and a second starting azimuth being the emission azimuth in which the second ranging unit starts the laser light scanning, the lower value having a negative sign when the first starting azimuth is facing in the scanning direction relative to the second starting azimuth” is unclear.
Examiner interpreted it as presented in rejection bellow.
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 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20180284240 A1 in view of D2 US 20180113200 A1.
Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches
1. A ranging device comprising:
a plurality of ranging units(fig. 9 360); and
a control unit(772) configured to control the plurality of ranging units[0126-0127],
wherein each of the plurality of ranging units includes a deflection member(120) configured to deflect laser light and is configured to perform ranging processing that scans a predetermined ranging area with the emitted laser light by rotating or oscillating the deflection member to change an emission azimuth of the laser light[0091], and measures a distance to an object located in the emission azimuth based on reflected light received from an azimuth identical to the emission azimuth,(implicit lidar device [0126-0127])
but does not explicitly teach while D2 teaches
the plurality of ranging units include a first ranging unit and a second ranging unit with the ranging areas overlapping with each other,[0134] (fig. 2b)
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in parallel with each other (fig. 2b) in a manner to prevent a first passage area traveled by the laser light emitted by the first ranging unit and a second passage area traveled by the laser light emitted by the second ranging unit from interfering with each other in the ranging areas.[0128][0134](different wavelength prevents interference)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to scan broader FOV.
2. The ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit each include a projector configured to emit the laser light and a light receiver configured to receive the reflected light of the laser light, and(fig. 8 and fig. 9)
each of the light receivers is arranged to receive the reflected light from an azimuth identical to the emission azimuth of the laser light.(implicit fig. 8 and fig. 3)
3. The ranging device according to claim 2, wherein
the reflected light from the azimuth identical to the emission azimuth is reflected by the deflection member for deflecting the laser light and received by the light receiver.(implicit fig. 2)
D1 does not teach but D2 teaches
4. The ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in a manner to prevent reversal of a magnitude relationship between angles of the emission azimuth of laser light emitted by the first ranging unit and the emission azimuth of laser light emitted by the second ranging unit relative to a common reference azimuth, as viewed from above in a direction along a rotation axis of the deflection member included in the first ranging unit or the second ranging unit.(D2 fig. 2B single mirror deflects all three lights and therefore all projections simultaneously draw the same pattern 120 on its own FOV and therefore no reversal of magnitudes )
5. The ranging device according to claim 4, wherein
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in identical ranging cycles in which distance measurement is performed.(D2 fig. 2B)
6. The ranging device according to claim 5, wherein
the ranging cycle includes a ranging period during which distance measurement is performed and a non-ranging period during which no distance measurement is performed, and(implicit when laser is off)
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in a manner to prevent the first passage area and the second passage area from interfering with each other in the ranging areas with the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit both in the ranging period.([0134][0154])
7. The ranging device according to claim 6, wherein
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in identical scanning directions for the laser light scanning and at identical ranging angular velocities being rotating or oscillating angular velocities of the deflection members during the ranging period,(fig. 2B)
the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit are aligned in the scanning direction with the rotation axis of the deflection member of the first ranging unit placed in the scanning direction with respect to the rotation axis of the deflection member of the second ranging unit, and(obvious placement of the unit modification in order to for example scan two vertical FOVs)
the second ranging unit starts the laser light scanning at a relative time which is relative to a time at which the first ranging unit starts the laser light scanning,(fig. 2b units start at the same time as patterns are the same)
the relative time being within a range defined by an upper limit being a value representing the non-ranging period(end of scan and unit is in off condition) of the second ranging unit and a lower limit being a value representing a period of time taken to move an angle(time during which scan is performed), in a rotational manner at the ranging angular velocity(fig. 2b), between a first starting azimuth being the emission azimuth in which the first ranging unit starts the laser light scanning and a second starting azimuth being the emission azimuth in which the second ranging unit starts the laser light scanning,(they start simultaneously ) the lower value having a negative sign when the first starting azimuth is facing in the scanning direction relative to the second starting azimuth.(depends on what do you call 0 , negative or positive)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to simultaneously scan multiple FOV using one scanning mirror
Although D1 and D2 do not explicitly teach
8. The ranging device according to claim 4, wherein
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing at different ranging angular velocities being rotating or oscillating angular velocities of the deflection members during a period during which distance measurement is performed.
D1/D2 teaches using different deflection members for each laser unit (fig. 9/fig. 2A) and therefore rotating them at different angular velocities is just a matter of design choice in order to scan different regions with different resolutions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to scan different regions with different resolutions.
D1 teaches
9. The ranging device according to claim 8, wherein
the ranging cycle in which distance measurement is performed includes a ranging period during which distance measurement is performed and a non-ranging period during which no distance measurement is performed, and(implicit when device is off it does not perform scanning)
but does not teach while D2 teaches
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in a manner to prevent the first passage area and the second passage area from interfering with each other in the ranging areas in a co-ranging state in which the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit are both in the ranging period.(D2 fig. 2B)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to scan multiple regions simultaneously with the same mirror.
11. The ranging device according to claim 1 wherein
the control unit controls the plurality of ranging units to cause the plurality of ranging units to change the rotating or oscillating angular velocities of the deflection members at different times.[0082]
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
12. The ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit controls the plurality of ranging units to cause periods of the deflection members having the highest rotating or oscillating angular velocities to have at least a non-overlapping time between the plurality of ranging units.(matter of design choice in order to gather sequentially data from different FOV)
it is just a matter of design choice in order to gather sequentially data from different FOV.
Claim(s) 10 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20180284240 A1 in view of D2 US 20180113200 A1 further in view of D3 WO2020049892A1.
D1 does not teach while D2 teaches
10. The ranging device according to claim 9, wherein
the control unit causes the first ranging unit to perform the ranging processing and the second ranging unit to perform the ranging processing in the same ranging cycle and in identical scanning directions for laser light scanning,(fig 2b)
the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit are aligned in the scanning direction with the rotation axis of the deflection member of the first ranging unit placed in the scanning direction with respect to the rotation axis of the deflection member of the second ranging unit, and(fig. 2b Obvious design choice in order to scan with two devices vertical direction)
D3 teaches
the co-ranging state has a period equal to or smaller than a value obtained by dividing an angle between the emission azimuths of the first ranging unit and the second ranging unit at start of the co-ranging state by a difference between the ranging angular velocities of the second ranging unit and the first ranging unit in the co-ranging state.[0004-0050](fig. 1-14)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to sequentially scan the one region at the time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645