DETAILED ACTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 5- 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russell et al. US 2019/0107606 hereinafter referred to as Russell. In regards to claim 1 , Russell teaches: “ A measuring apparatus that scans and measures a target with pulsed light, the measuring apparatus comprising: a light emitting element configured to emit the pulsed light ” Russell paragraph [0019] and Figure 1 teaches a lidar system 100 may include a light source 110, mirror 115, scanner 120, receiver 140, or controller 150. Russell paragraph [0019] teaches The light source 110 emits an output beam of light 125 which may be continuous-wave (CW), pulsed, or modulated in any suitable manner for a given application . “ a light receiving unit configured to receive the reflected pulsed light ” Russell Figure 1 and paragraph [0019] teaches receiver 140. “ a movable mirror configured to be oscillated at the resonant frequency of the movable mirror, and thereby change an emission direction of the pulsed light in a first direction ” Russell paragraph [0029] teaches lidar system 100 may include a scanner 120 to steer the output beam 125 in one or more directions downrange. As an example, scanner 120 may include one or more scanning mirrors that are configured to rotate, oscillate, tilt, pivot, or move in an angular manner about one or more axes. “ and a control unit configured to control a light emission intensity of the light emitting element ” Russell paragraph [0034] teaches controller 150 may provide instructions, a control signal, or a trigger signal to light source 110 indicating when light source 110 should produce optical pulses. “ the control unit is configured to emit the pulsed light having a higher intensity to an end part region including an end of a scanning range in the first direction than to a central region including a center of the scanning range in the first direction ” Russell paragraph [0071] teaches i n the example of FIG. 5, pixels 210 have a greater density toward the left edge 290L and right edge 290R of scan 200, and the pixel density in the middle region 290M of scan 200 is lower compared to the edges. In regards to claim 2 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: “ wherein an emission angle of the pulsed light changes at equal angular deviation ” Russell paragraph [0072] teaches a s another example, an angular speed with which the scanner 120 rotates may be substantially fixed or may vary during a scan. The Examiner interprets that a fixed angular speed would produce an equal angular deviation. In regards to claim 3 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: “ wherein an emission time interval of the pulsed light in the central region is less than an emission time interval of the pulsed light in the end part region ” Russell paragraph [0071] teaches a time interval or angle between pixels 210 may be dynamically adjusted during a scan so that a scan pattern 200 has a particular distribution of pixels 210 (e.g., a higher density of pixels 210 in one or more particular regions). As an example, the scan pattern 200 may be configured to have a higher density of pixels 210 in a middle or central region of scan 200 or toward one or more edges of scan 200 . In regards to claim 5 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: “ wherein the control unit is configured to change an intensity of the pulsed light in three or more levels in the first direction ” Russell paragraph [0083] teaches the pulse energy of optical pulses produced by light source 110 may be adjusted as the pulse repetition frequency (or pulse period) of light source 110 is varied. As an example, the pulse energy and the pulse repetition frequency of output beam 125 may vary approximately inversely so that as the repetition frequency of light source 110 is increased, the pulse energy decreases. As another example, the pulse energy and the pulse period of output beam 125 may vary approximately proportionally so that as the pulse period of the pulses emitted by light source 110 is decreased, the pulse energy also decreases. From Figure 5 it would appear the pulse frequency is at least three times. In regards to claim 6 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: “ wherein the control unit is configured to continuously change an intensity of the pulsed light in the first direction ” Russell paragraph [0083] teaches the pulse energy of optical pulses produced by light source 110 may be adjusted as the pulse repetition frequency (or pulse period) of light source 110 is varied. As an example, the pulse energy and the pulse repetition frequency of output beam 125 may vary approximately inversely so that as the repetition frequency of light source 110 is increased, the pulse energy decreases. As another example, the pulse energy and the pulse period of output beam 125 may vary approximately proportionally so that as the pulse period of the pulses emitted by light source 110 is decreased, the pulse energy also decreases. In regards to claim 14 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 14 contains similar limitations as in claim 3 (including those features of independent claim 1). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell In regards to claim 4 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: “ wherein a total pulse intensity unit time in the end part region is equal to or greater than 90% and equal to or less than 110% of a total pulse intensity per unit time in the central region ” This feature appears to suggest that the total pulse intensity per unit time on the edges is between 90% and 110% as the center region. This would clearly include a percentage of 100% or the same total pulse intensity. Essentially, the total pulse intensity on the edges is within a range slightly above or below the center range. While not explicitly stated have a total pulse intensity of the regions be near each other does not appear to provide any unpredictable results and it would appear these numbers represent nothing more than finding an optimal workable range. However, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Huang et al. US 2014/0186991 hereinafter referred to as Huang . In regards to claim 7 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach: “ wherein the control unit is configured to control the light receiving unit such that a signal multiplication factor of the light receiving unit in the end part region is lower than a signal multiplication factor of the light receiving unit in the central region ” Huang paragraph [0068] teaches one or more factors, such as the size, doping concentration and thickness of the partially doped region, or the central region 262, of multiplication layer 260 are controlled so that the electric field in the central region 262 is higher than the electric field in other regions of the multiplication layer 260, such as those regions of the multiplication layer 260 that surround the central region 262. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Huang to have included the features of “wherein the control unit is configured to control the light receiving unit such that a signal multiplication factor of the light receiving unit in the end part region is lower than a signal multiplication factor of the light receiving unit in the central region” s ince the central region 262 of the multiplication layer 260 is the main path of photo-generated carriers, it is necessary to maintain a high electric field in the central region 262 for the avalanche process to occur (Huang [0068]) . Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Keshavmurthy et al. US 2012/0062706 hereinafter referred to as Keshavmurthy. In regards to claim 8 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach: “ wherein two light emitting elements are provided as the light emitting element, and the scanning range by the pulsed light from one of the light emitting elements and the scanning range by the pulsed light from the other of the light emitting elements are adjacent to each other in the first direction ” Keshavmurthy paragraph [0006] teaches a first light source subsystem operable to project a point of light and scan the point of light in a first area of illumination, where the first light source subsystem uses a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) actuated mirror to scan the point of light; a first imaging device having a field of view arranged to intersect with the first illumination area and operable to capture image data therein; a second light source subsystem operable to project a point of light and scan the point of light in a second area of illumination that is adjacent to the first illumination area, where the second light source subsystem uses a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) actuated mirror to scan the plane of light; and a second imaging device having a field of view arranged to intersect with the second illumination area and operable to capture image data therein . It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Keshavmurthy to have included the features of “wherein two light emitting elements are provided as the light emitting element, and the scanning range by the pulsed light from one of the light emitting elements and the scanning range by the pulsed light from the other of the light emitting elements are adjacent to each other in the first direction” because e xisting machine vision applications use a multiplicity of light emitting diode (LED) light sources, single or multi line lasers and structured white lights to obtain three-dimensional contour information through an acquired image. The drawback of such solutions is that the flood illumination provided by these types of light source or any distributed sources do not carry three-dimensional information, and they need additional information either through a structured light or a laser line source. This leads to a complex imaging system (Keshavmurthy [0003]) . Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Luo et al. US 2019/0120964 hereinafter referred to as Luo . In regards to claim 9 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach: “ provided with a moving object; an acquisition unit configured to acquire map information; and a position determination unit configured to determine a position of the moving object based on the acquired map information and a measurement result of the measuring apparatus ” Luo paragraph [0001] teaches t he collaboratively processed data includes Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data for generating a digital map of an environment and/or tracking moving objects. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Luo to have included the features of “provided with a moving object; an acquisition unit configured to acquire map information; and a position determination unit configured to determine a position of the moving object based on the acquired map information and a measurement result of the measuring apparatus” to provide for near-range collaborated LiDAR fusion, in which vehicles equipped with LiDAR scanning systems are grouped together and negotiate with each other to break down the LiDAR scanning and processing workload (Luo [0004]) . Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Eichenholz US 2020/0025923 hereinafter referred to as Eichenholz . In regards to claim 10 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach: “ wherein the scanning range of one of the measuring apparatuses and the scanning range of another one of the measuring apparatuses are adjacent to each other in the first direction ” Eichenholz paragraph [0131] and Figure 10 teach four sensor heads 360 are positioned at or near the four corners of the vehicle (e.g., the sensor heads may be incorporated into a light assembly, side panel, bumper, or fender), and the laser 352 may be located within the vehicle (e.g., in or near the trunk). The four sensor heads 360 may each provide a 90° to 120° horizontal field of regard (FOR), and the four sensor heads 360 may be oriented so that together they provide a complete 360-degree view around the vehicle. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Eichenholz to have included the features of “ wherein the scanning range of one of the measuring apparatuses and the scanning range of another one of the measuring apparatuses are adjacent to each other in the first direction ” t o improve resolution and/or dynamically vary the laser power when certain properties of the targets are known (Eichenholz [0005]). In regards to claim 1 1 , Russell /Eichenholz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 0 and further teach: “ wherein emission outlets of the pulsed light of the plurality of measuring apparatuses are at least 1 cm apart from each other ” Eichenholz Figure 10 illustrates the sensors 360 are on corners of the vehicle. This would be more than 1cm apart. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Eichenholz to have included the features of “wherein emission outlets of the pulsed light of the plurality of measuring apparatuses are at least 1 cm apart from each other” t o improve resolution and/or dynamically vary the laser power when certain properties of the targets are known (Eichenholz [0005]). In regards to claim 1 2 , Russell/Eichenholz teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and further teach: “ wherein emission directions of the plurality of measuring apparatuses are synchronized with each other ” Eichenholz paragraph [0131] and Figure 10 teach four sensor heads 360 are positioned at or near the four corners of the vehicle (e.g., the sensor heads may be incorporated into a light assembly, side panel, bumper, or fender), and the laser 352 may be located within the vehicle (e.g., in or near the trunk). The four sensor heads 360 may each provide a 90° to 120° horizontal field of regard (FOR), and the four sensor heads 360 may be oriented so that together they provide a complete 360-degree view around the vehicle. The Examiner interprets the devices are synchronized to provide a 360 degree view. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Eichenholz to have included the features of “wherein emission directions of the plurality of measuring apparatuses are synchronized with each other” t o improve resolution and/or dynamically vary the laser power when certain properties of the targets are known (Eichenholz [0005]). Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell in view of Choi et al. US 2020/0241137 hereinafter referred to as Choi . In regards to claim 1 3 , Russell teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach: “ wherein one of the measuring apparatuses and another one of the measuring apparatuses are provided to face each other in a plan view ” Choi Figure 5B paragraph [0047] teaches the additional LiDAR sensor 210 is provided. In particular, as illustrated, the multiple LiDAR sensors 210 arranged to face each other . It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Russell in view of Choi to have included the features of “wherein one of the measuring apparatuses and another one of the measuring apparatuses are provided to face each other in a plan view” because this can reduce the chances of position detection error of the vehicle 110 even at the closer distance between the LiDAR sensor 210 and the vehicle 110 (Choi paragraph [0047]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5996 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30AM-5:00PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT John Miller can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7353 . 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. /MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422