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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner agrees that D1 and D2 solve two different problems but the combination of the reference makes obvious the limitation as combination may solve both problems simultaneously. Applicants argument on page 9 is incorrect as adjustment in D2 is performed “ adjusting the emitting power and/OR detecting gain for different sections” according to [0056] not “ adjusting the emitting power and detecting gain for different sections” as argued in response.
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, 7, 13 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20220113407 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13 D1 teaches
1. An optical sensing system comprising:
a three-dimensional scanner(400) configured to scan a measurement target with a laser light and receive reflected light of the laser light to generate distance data indicating a distance to the measurement target and luminance data indicating luminance of the reflected light, and (fig. 1 page 2 3 lidar)
an intensity determination circuit(implicit lidar calculates eye safety page 4 “If the repeatability of the transmitted laser beam increases as the distance approaches, it may affect the laser eye safety. The power control unit 322 calculates the laser safety level by receiving the repeatability information (eg, frequency) of the laser beam transmitted from the repeatability control unit 321, and calculates the laser safety level according to the calculated laser safety level. Adjust the output power of the laser beam emitted from ).” according to distance page 5 “In addition, the synchronization unit 323 provides distance information for each object to the repetition degree control unit 321 and the power control unit 322, and is transmitted from the transmission unit 100 according to the distance information to each object. Adjust the repeatability of the laser beam and the output power of the laser beam.”) configured to dynamically determine intensity of the laser light based on the distance data so as to suppress a change in luminance of the reflected light caused by a length of the distance during the scanning of the three-dimensional scanner.(implicit the fact that it maintains eye safety means that at least in case of the person approaching to lidar it decreases the power each time person approaches closer to the vehicle in the way that eye safety criterion is satisfied.)
wherein the intensity determination circuit is further configured to determine the intensity of the laser light so that the distance and the intensity have a positive correlation.(implicit as in case when the human is on borderline of the eye safety approaches to vehicle the system should decrease the laser power in order to further satisfy eye safety standard.)
but does not teach
wherein the intensity determination circuit is further configured to determine the intensity of the laser light based on a value obtained by squaring the distance
D2 teaches another issue solved by adjustment of the laser intensity where
wherein the intensity determination circuit is further configured to determine the intensity of the laser light so that the distance and the intensity have a positive correlation[0056](as intensity of the transmission(It) is directly correlated with returned intensity(Idet) for the same target located at the same distance(It=alpha*Idet where Idet ~It/distance^2)(physics course of radiation ) positive correlation to broadness of the claim Examiner considers” emitting power and detecting gain for each section to be proportional to a square of a maximum distance ”)
wherein the intensity determination circuit is further configured to determine the intensity of the laser light based on a value obtained by squaring the distance[0056](adjusting emitting power to achieve the result)
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D2 in order to ne able to more uniform 3-D representation of the detection range and/or a better quality of an image can be achieved.
6, 12, 18 The optical sensing system according to claim 1, further comprising a point cloud data generation circuit configured to generate point cloud data based on the distance data and the luminance data generated by the three-dimensional scanner.(implicit as distance is calculated and for each distance eye safety standards are checked and power of beam is adjusted the obtained point cloud data will be based on the distance and luminance)
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) 5, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20220113407 A1.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
5, 11, 17 The optical sensing system according to claim 2, wherein the intensity determination circuit is further configured to determine the intensity by referring to an intensity determination table indicating a correspondence relationship
between the distance and the intensity of the laser light.
Using the table instead of the formula is just obvious modification in order to avoid same calculation multiple times and therefore safe computer time.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D2 further in view of D3 CN 114518568 B.
Although D1 does not explicitly say
4, 10,16 The optical sensing system according to claim 2, wherein the intensity determination circuit is further configured to:
determine the intensity of the laser light as a first intensity when the distance is longer than a predetermined value, and
determine the intensity of the laser light as a second intensity lower than
the first intensity when the distance is shorter than the predetermined value.
D1 explicitly teaches determining the intensity of the beam at multiple length ( page 5 Meanwhile, FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an application example of a lidar scanning device according to a third embodiment of the present invention. In FIG. 5, a plurality of scanners 400: 410 and 420 may be provided. Two scanners are illustrated for convenience of description, but the present invention is not limited thereto. Each of the plurality of scanners rotates at different speeds, and rotation speeds may be assigned for each measurement distance. For example, the scanner A 410 may be allocated for measuring a short distance within 150 m, and the scanner B 420 may be allocated for measuring a long distance within a range of 150 m to 300 m. In this case, the scanner B 420 for long-distance measurement may be assigned to be smaller than the rotational speed of the scanner A 410 for short-range measurement.) and due to the fact that eye safety standards are different the intensity will be changed accordingly according to (page 4)
D3 teaches
determine the intensity of the laser light as a first intensity when the distance is longer than a predetermined value, and
determine the intensity of the laser light as a second intensity lower than
the first intensity when the distance is shorter than the predetermined value.( page 19 “Thus, according to a second aspect of the present invention, the first detection laser beam in the telemetry mode and the second detection laser beam in the proximity mode can be independently separated. according to the feedback of the detection result, correspondingly adjusting the luminous intensity of the first detection laser beam (if there is an object in a short distance, reducing the light intensity of the first detection laser beam; if there is no object, keeping the light intensity of the first detecting laser beam unchanged), and not adjusting the light intensity of the second detecting laser beam. By this way, it can reduce the luminous power consumption of measuring distance on the basis of not weakening the ability of detecting in short distance.”)
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 effectively detect the signal at different distances(without saturating the detector) and reduce luminous power consumption.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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
Prosecution Insights