Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
SUMMARY
2. The amendment filed on June 22, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 19, 2026, claims 10-11, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 22, and 24-25 have been amended of which claims 10 and 19 are independent claims. Applicant maintained claims 14, 23, 26, and 28 and cancelled claims 12, 18, 21, and 27. Claims 1-9 are cancelled as before the Non-Final Office Action. NO claim has been added as new claim after the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 10-11, 13-17, 19-20, 22-26 and 28 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements(IDS) submitted was filed along with the mailing date of the application amendment on June 22, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments in “REMARKS” filed on June 22, 2026, regarding independent claims 10 and 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that “the present application defines the pattern generator and the shifting unit as separate elements, and the shifting unit separately shifts an "already fixed pattern" generated by the pattern generator (see paragraphs [0012] and [0036] of the present specification)”, examiner would like to mention that claim limitations have been mapped as recited in the claims. Claims do not recite “already fixed pattern” but only “fixed pattern”. Therefore, arguments for limitations, “already fixed pattern” not applicable to the rejection. Schnitzer’s disclosure generates and shift patterns dynamically by changing position of the beam splitter. As long as the prior arts teach the claim limitations by a single component, the rejection is valid. Unless claims recite the merits of using two separate components for the limitations or recite “a shifting unit different from the pattern generator”, beam splitter of Schnitzer’s teaching reads the claim limitations.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, “also, regarding dependent claims 12 and 21, which are now included in independent claims 10 and 19, respectively, the Office Action relies on FIGS. 2-4 of Schnitzer et al. However, as described above, FIGS. 2-5 of Schnitzer et al. merely show light-receiving-side regrouping of macropixels(160n) within one pass, and do not teach or suggest interleaving emitted sampling points between measurement cycles (see paragraphs [0030]-[0044] of Schnitzer et al.)”, again the examiner would like to mention that claims do not recite “interleaving emitted sampling points between measurement cycle”. Therefore, arguments do not give weight to the claim rejection. In addition to figs.2-3, Schnitzer’s also shows these limitations in fig.4 and corresponding texts.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen from figure, sampling points of past cycle also present in the sampling point of the present cycle.
Because of the above-mentioned reason, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2) by Schnitzer et al. (US 2021/0181315 A1).
Claim Objections
5. Claims 10-11, 13-15, 19-20, and 22-24, are objected to because of the following informalities:
The above-mentioned claims use prepositional phrases/logic operator “and/or”. One of ordinary skill in the art could either consider the logic operator “AND” or logic operator “OR”. Logic operator “AND” requires both conditions should be met joining with “AND” operator. On the other hand, logic operator “OR” requires only one condition that is joined with OR. It is not required to meet second condition to map the second condition with prior art. It becomes as optional matter to map. In that case the corresponding depending claims are not required to map. Therefore, applicant is suggested to choose one logic operator, either “OR” or “AND”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 10-11, 13, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schnitzer et al.(US 2021/0181315 A1)(herein after Schnitzer).
Regarding claim 19, Schnitzer teaches a lidar scanner for a vehicle(fig.2, Para-25), the lidar scanner comprising:
a laser source(laser beam 210, fig.2, Para-26) and a pattern generator(sensor head 101 along with beam splitter 121, fig.2; Para-28) configured to generate a fixed scanning pattern(Para-26: sensor head 101 also includes an optical imaging device 150. This may involve, for example, one or multiple optical lens element(s) with the aid of which laser beams 210, 220 are shaped in the desired manner);
a controller(control device 130, fig.2, Para-27) configured to generate a respective set of scanning values during and/or after a respective measurement cycle(figs.2-3, Para 27-30), wherein the fixed scanning pattern is defined by relative positions of sampling points being the same for the successive measurement cycles(sampling points, figs.2-3) (inherently center point of detection area 310 is always fixed with respect to the laser beam); and
a shifting unit(sensor head 101 along with beam splitter 121, fig.2; Para-28: rotating scanning movement 122) configured to shift the fixed scanning pattern of successive measurement cycles relatively to the vehicle(Para-28: Sampling of overall observation area 300 is achieved only by rotating scanning movement 122 and the accompanying successive shift of detection areas 310 of successive single laser pulses) [and/or to distort the scanning pattern of successive measurement cycles for generating an external scanning pattern emitted into the surroundings] by changing a respective position[and/or shape] of at least one predefined element of the lidar scanner (figs.2-4 and related texts)(the shaded portion of the limitations are not considered, examine takes “or” parameter in rejecting the claims),
wherein by the change of position [and/or shape] of the at least one element at least some of the sampling points in one measurement cycle are each positioned in between respective sampling points of the previous measurement cycle(figs.2-4).
Regarding claim 20, Schnitzer teaches the lidar scanner according to claim 19, wherein by the change of position (sensor head 101 along with beam splitter 121, figs.1-2) [and/or shape] of the at least one element, a light path of a laser beam is changed(laser beam 210, fig.2), and wherein the laser beam is generated by the laser source(inherent to have laser source to generate laser beam 210) and guided according to the fixed pattern by the pattern generator(figs.2-3) such that the laser beam represents the fixed scanning pattern(Para-26).
Regarding claim 22, Schnitzer teaches the lidar scanner according to claim 19, wherein the at least one element for shifting the fixed scanning pattern comprises at least one of:
a mirror, wherein the shifting unit alters a position of the mirror in between successive measurement cycles;
a lens and/or prism that is mechanically moved in between successive measurement cycles(Para-26: sensor head 101 also includes an optical imaging device 150. This may involve, for example, one or multiple optical lens element(s) with the aid of which laser beams 210, 220 are shaped in the desired manner);
and/or elastic flexible lens and/or prism that is deformed;
the laser source and/or the pattern generator is moved in the vehicle; and
the whole lidar scanner is shifted relative to a remainder of the vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19, since both claims 10 and 19 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 20, since both claims 11 and 20 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 22, since both claims 13 and 22 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. claims 14-17, 23-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnitzer et al.(US 2021/0181315 A1) in view of Jungwirth et al.(US 2018/0364333 A1)(herein after Jungwirth).
Regarding claim 23, Schnitzer teaches the lidar scanner according to claim 19, wherein the shifting unit is configured to change of position and/or shape of the at least one element (Para-26, 28) but fails to disclose expressly changing position on the basis of a mechanical force of at least one mechanical actuator and/or a magnetic force of at least one electromagnetic actuator.
However, Jungwirth teaches a variable resolution light radar system, where changing position of the at least one element on the basis of a mechanical force of at least one mechanical actuator(Para-91) and/or a magnetic force of at least one electromagnetic actuator.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the application, to have modified Schnitzer with the teaching of Jungwirth to include the feature in order to provide a target region scanning apparatus used as variable resolution light radar system used for obstacle detection and avoidance when navigating platform such as stationary platform, land-based structure, aquatic-based structure, space-based structure, mobile robot, vehicle, self-driving car, aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicle and surface ship in measurement environment.
Regarding claim 24, Schnitzer teaches the lidar scanner according to claim 19, wherein the shifting unit(sensor head 101 along with beam splitter 121, figs.1-2) is configured to switch between different preset values(predefined angular increments) that each define a specific shift(Para-28: sampling of overall observation area 300 is achieved only by rotating scanning movement 122 and the accompanying successive shift of detection areas 310 of successive single laser pulses) and/or distortion of the external scanning pattern to set a degree of the change of position and/or shape of the at least on element, and but fails to teach wherein the shifting unit is configured to choose the preset value in dependence on an external input signal.
However, Jungwirth teaches a variable resolution light radar system, wherein the shifting unit is configured to choose the preset value in dependence on an external input signal(Para-102: this change may be used to vary the angular resolution that changes path 519 to target region 524)(it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that dependent on the position of the target object, scanning direction of laser beam is changed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the application, to have modified Schnitzer with the teaching of Jungwirth to include the feature in order to improve resolution of a lidar system.
Regarding claim 25, Schnitzer as modified by Jungwirth teaches the lidar scanner according to claim 24, further comprising:
a processor(controller 212, fig.2) configured to analyze at least one of the sets of scanning values(Para-154, Jungwirth), and
wherein the processor is configured to detect at least one object in the surroundings of the vehicle on the basis of the at least one set, select one of the preset values according to a predefined sampling criterion for covering the at least one object with sampling points, and provide the choice-selection as the input signal to the shifting unit(fig.12, Para-48, 148, 151-155, 157-158, Jungwirth).
Regarding claim 26, Schnitzer as modified by Jungwirth teaches the lidar scanner according to claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to combine the sets of scanning values of at least two successive measurement cycles to generate an image comprising a higher density of sampling points than the fixed scanning pattern(fig.10, Para 140-142, Jungwirth; Para-142: The process then generates an image for a number of images using the distance information (operation 1004) with the process then returning to operation 1000) (for motivation see the rejection of claim 23 above).
Regarding claim 28, Schnitzer as modified by Jungwirth teaches a vehicle comprising a lidar scanner according to claim 19(Para-4, 71, 166)(for motivation see the rejection of claim 23 above).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 23, since both claims 14 and 23 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 24, since both claims 15 and 24 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 25, since claims 16 and 2 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 26, since claims 17 and 26 recite identical claim limitations except presenting the claims in different formats.
Conclusion
12. 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.
Examiner Note
13. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights