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 Amendment
The Amendment filed June 25th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 18 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final office Action mailed April 1st, 2026.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell et al. (United States Patent No. 9869754 B1), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches a sensor device (Fig. 1; Fig. 3; [Col. 2, line 6] lidar system 100) comprising:
a scanning unit ([Col. 2, line 11] scanner 120); and
a control unit configured to control a density distribution of a plurality of spots to be emitted by the scanning unit until the plurality of spots to be emitted by the scanning unit satisfy a first predetermined condition ([Col. 18, line 6-11] a scanning speed provided by scanner 120, or a shape or path followed by scan pattern 200. As an example, the pulse period of light source 110 may be a substantially fixed value, or the pulse period may be adjusted dynamically during a scan to vary the density of pixels 210 across the scan region;),
wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether or not the plurality of spots satisfy the first predetermined condition, control the density distribution in a case where the first predetermined condition is not satisfied, and repeat the control and the determination until the first predetermined condition is satisfied ([Col. 18, line 31-34] In particular embodiments, a particular scan pattern 200 may be repeated from one scan to the next, or one or more parameters of a scan pattern 200 may be adjusted or varied from one scan to another.), and
wherein the first predetermined condition includes whether or not the number of the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined value ([Col. 20, line 40-51] In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may provide a higher density of pixels 210 which may result in a higher-density point cloud within the overlap region 510. Additionally, the relatively high-density parts of scan patterns 200A and 200B may be configured to coincide approximately with the overlap region 510, resulting in a further increase in pixel density within the overlap region 510. In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may be aimed in a direction with relatively high importance or relevance (e.g., a forward-looking portion of a vehicle), or an overlap region 510 may provide a redundant back-up for an important portion of a FOR.).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the density distribution by controlling a scanning speed of the scanning unit ([Col. 18, line 4-13] In particular embodiments, a distribution of pixels 210 in a scan pattern 200 may be determined, at least in part, by a pulse period of light source 110, a scanning speed provided by scanner 120, or a shape or path followed by scan pattern 200. As an example, the pulse period of light source 110 may be a substantially fixed value, or the pulse period may be adjusted dynamically during a scan to vary the density of pixels 210 across the scan region. As another example, an angular speed with which the scanner 120 rotates may be substantially fixed or may vary during a scan).
Regarding claim 4, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined value is the number of points of the plurality of spots in a predetermined direction within the region ([Col. 20, line 40-51] In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may provide a higher density of pixels 210 which may result in a higher-density point cloud within the overlap region 510. Additionally, the relatively high-density parts of scan patterns 200A and 200B may be configured to coincide approximately with the overlap region 510, resulting in a further increase in pixel density within the overlap region 510. In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may be aimed in a direction with relatively high importance or relevance (e.g., a forward-looking portion of a vehicle), or an overlap region 510 may provide a redundant back-up for an important portion of a FOR.).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first predetermined condition includes success or failure of detection, recognition, or identification of an object using a point cloud generated from the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit ([Col. 22, line 3-12] In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may perform a scan that covers a full field of regard, and then, in a subsequent scan, lidar system 100 may perform a targeted scan 800 to investigate a particular sub-region (e.g., targeted scan region 810) of the full field of regard. As an example, during a scan that covers the full field of regard, one or more particular regions of interest may be identified (e.g., there may be a target 130 located in a region of interest), and lidar system 100 may then perform a targeted scan 800 to gain additional information about the target 130.).
Regarding claim 6, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claims 1, wherein the first predetermined condition includes whether or not an overlap rate of the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained through scanning by the scanning unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined value ([Col. 19, line 52- Col. 20, line 24] In particular embodiments, two scan patterns 200 may be configured to overlap in an overlap region 510 where the overlap region 510 has a higher density of pixels 210 than the portions of the scan patterns 200 located outside the overlap region...As another example, an overlap region 510 may include an overlap between 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, or any other suitable percentage of scan regions 500A and 500B, and the overlap region 510 may include 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or any other suitable percentage of the total number of pixels 210 of scan patterns 200A and 200B.; [Col. 20, line 51-56] As an example, lidar sensors 100A and 100B may be configured to overlap across region 510, and if one of the lidar sensors (e.g., lidar sensor 100A) experiences a problem or failure, the other lidar sensor (e.g., lidar sensor 100B) may continue to scan and produce a point cloud that covers the particular region of interest.).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the density distribution of the plurality of spots in a region selected according to a second predetermined condition from among a plurality of regions partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit ([Col. 22, line 38-44] In the example of FIG. 11, scan pattern 200 may have a relatively low density of pixels 210, and targeted scan 800 may have a relatively high density of pixels. As an example, the average pixel density of the targeted scan 800 may be 2×, 3×, 5×, 10×, or any other suitable factor greater than the average pixel density of scan pattern 200.).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 7, wherein the second predetermined condition includes a risk level of each of the plurality of regions ([Col. 22, line 7-11] As an example, during a scan that covers the full field of regard, one or more particular regions of interest may be identified (e.g., there may be a target 130 located in a region of interest), and lidar system 100 may then perform a targeted scan 800 to gain additional information about the target 130.).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, further comprising: a sensor unit whose field of view at least partially overlaps at least a portion of a field of view obtained by the scanning unit ([Col. 6, line 52-54] In particular embodiments, receiver 140 may be referred to as a photoreceiver, optical receiver, optical sensor, detector, photodetector, or optical detector.).
Regarding claim 11, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to stop controlling the density distribution in a case where the plurality of spots do not satisfy the first predetermined condition ([Col. 22, line 52-56] In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may perform a standard scan that covers a full field of regard, and then, in a subsequent scan, lidar system 100 may perform a combined standard/targeted scan that includes a scan pattern 200 with a lower density of pixels 210).
Regarding claim 13, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein a rate of density change of the plurality of spots controlled by the control unit varies depending on directions of the plurality of spots ([Col. 19, line 59-65] As another example, an overlap region 510 may include approximately 1°, 10°, 20°, or any other suitable angular portion of scan region 500A and 500B. If scan regions 500A and 500B each have a 60° FOR.sub.H and a horizontal angular overlap of approximately 3°, then scan regions 500A and 500B may be referred to as having an overlap of approximately 5%.).
Regarding claim 14, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to make the density distribution of the plurality of spots in a portion of a field of view obtained by the scanning unit different from the density distribution of the plurality of spots in another portion of the field of view ([Fig. 6]; [Col. 18, line 62-65] As an example, a straight-line region 420 may cover 40%, 60%, or 80% of a FOR, and a sinusoidal region 430 may cover the remaining 60%, 40%, or 20%, respectively, of the FOR.).
Regarding claim 15, Campbell teaches a control device comprising: a control unit configured to control a density distribution of a plurality of spots to be emitted by a scanning unit until the plurality of spots to be emitted by the scanning unit satisfy a first predetermined condition ([Col. 2, line 11] scanner 120; [Col. 18, line 6-11] a scanning speed provided by scanner 120, or a shape or path followed by scan pattern 200. As an example, the pulse period of light source 110 may be a substantially fixed value, or the pulse period may be adjusted dynamically during a scan to vary the density of pixels 210 across the scan region;),
wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether or not the plurality of spots satisfy the first predetermined condition, control the density distribution in a case where the first predetermined condition is not satisfied, and repeat the control and the determination until the first predetermined condition is satisfied ([Col. 18, line 31-34] In particular embodiments, a particular scan pattern 200 may be repeated from one scan to the next, or one or more parameters of a scan pattern 200 may be adjusted or varied from one scan to another.), and
wherein the first predetermined condition includes whether or not the number of the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined value ([Col. 20, line 40-51] In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may provide a higher density of pixels 210 which may result in a higher-density point cloud within the overlap region 510. Additionally, the relatively high-density parts of scan patterns 200A and 200B may be configured to coincide approximately with the overlap region 510, resulting in a further increase in pixel density within the overlap region 510. In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may be aimed in a direction with relatively high importance or relevance (e.g., a forward-looking portion of a vehicle), or an overlap region 510 may provide a redundant back-up for an important portion of a FOR.).
Regarding claim 16, Campbell teaches a control method comprising: causing a computer to control a density distribution of a plurality of spots to be emitted by a scanning unit until the plurality of spots to be emitted by the scanning unit satisfy a first predetermined condition ([Col. 2, line 11] scanner 120; [Col. 18, line 6-11] a scanning speed provided by scanner 120, or a shape or path followed by scan pattern 200. As an example, the pulse period of light source 110 may be a substantially fixed value, or the pulse period may be adjusted dynamically during a scan to vary the density of pixels 210 across the scan region; [Col. 35, lines 34-37] In particular embodiments, one or more computer systems 900 may perform one or more steps of one or more methods described or illustrated herein.),
wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether or not the plurality of spots satisfy the first predetermined condition, control the density distribution in a case where the first predetermined condition is not satisfied, and repeat the control and the determination until the first predetermined condition is satisfied ([Col. 18, line 31-34] In particular embodiments, a particular scan pattern 200 may be repeated from one scan to the next, or one or more parameters of a scan pattern 200 may be adjusted or varied from one scan to another.), and
wherein the first predetermined condition includes whether or not the number of the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined value ([Col. 20, line 40-51] In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may provide a higher density of pixels 210 which may result in a higher-density point cloud within the overlap region 510. Additionally, the relatively high-density parts of scan patterns 200A and 200B may be configured to coincide approximately with the overlap region 510, resulting in a further increase in pixel density within the overlap region 510. In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may be aimed in a direction with relatively high importance or relevance (e.g., a forward-looking portion of a vehicle), or an overlap region 510 may provide a redundant back-up for an important portion of a FOR.).
Regarding claim 18, Campbell teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to have: a function of controlling a density distribution of a plurality of spots to be emitted through scanning by a scanning unit until the plurality of spots to be emitted by the scanning unit satisfy a first predetermined condition ([Col. 2, line 11] scanner 120; [Col. 18, line 6-11] a scanning speed provided by scanner 120, or a shape or path followed by scan pattern 200. As an example, the pulse period of light source 110 may be a substantially fixed value, or the pulse period may be adjusted dynamically during a scan to vary the density of pixels 210 across the scan region; [Col. 35, lines 34-37] In particular embodiments, one or more computer systems 900 may perform one or more steps of one or more methods described or illustrated herein; [Col. 39, line 5-10] In particular embodiments, one or more implementations of the subject matter described herein may be implemented as one or more computer programs (e.g., one or more modules of computer-program instructions encoded or stored on a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium).),
wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether or not the plurality of spots satisfy the first predetermined condition, control the density distribution in a case where the first predetermined condition is not satisfied, and repeat the control and the determination until the first predetermined condition is satisfied ([Col. 18, line 31-34] In particular embodiments, a particular scan pattern 200 may be repeated from one scan to the next, or one or more parameters of a scan pattern 200 may be adjusted or varied from one scan to another.), and
wherein the first predetermined condition includes whether or not the number of the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined value ([Col. 20, line 40-51] In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may provide a higher density of pixels 210 which may result in a higher-density point cloud within the overlap region 510. Additionally, the relatively high-density parts of scan patterns 200A and 200B may be configured to coincide approximately with the overlap region 510, resulting in a further increase in pixel density within the overlap region 510. In particular embodiments, an overlap region 510 may be aimed in a direction with relatively high importance or relevance (e.g., a forward-looking portion of a vehicle), or an overlap region 510 may provide a redundant back-up for an important portion of a FOR.).
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.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of O'Keeffe (United States Patent Application Publication 20190317193 A9), hereinafter O'Keeffe.
Regarding claim 9, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1,
Campbell fails to teach the sensor wherein the control unit is configured to assign an identifier to an object detected, recognized, or identified using a point cloud generated from the plurality of spots
However, O’Keeffe teaches the sensor wherein the control unit is configured to assign an identifier to an object detected, recognized, or identified using a point cloud generated from the plurality of spots ([0102] Similarly a classifier 490 can use patterns of sensor data to determine a classification for an object in the FOV. For example, classifier 490 can use a database of previous objects and characteristic features stored in object memory 495 to classify parts of the data from the reflected pulses as coming from vehicles, pedestrians or buildings)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Campbell to comprise the object recognition and classifying system similar to O’Keeffe, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known technology to more accurately represent the surrounding environment for detection and identification.
Regarding claim 12, Campbell teaches the sensor device according to claim 1,
Campbell fails to teach the sensor wherein the control unit is configured to stop controlling the density distribution in a case where an object detected, recognized, or identified using a point cloud generated from the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit remains stationary for a predetermined time or longer
However, O’Keeffe teaches the sensor wherein the control unit is configured to stop controlling the density distribution in a case where an object detected, recognized, or identified using a point cloud generated from the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained by the scanning unit remains stationary for a predetermined time or longer ([0267] In this way the density of laser scan locations (e.g. the number per unit angle of the field of view, such as 4 scan locations per radian) can be increased for objects of interest such as elephant 4240 and decreased for mundane regions such as the ground surrounding the elephant. One method of operating laser range finder 110 can be to increase the density of laser pulses based on regions of the FOV exhibiting distinct boundaries (e.g. elephant 4240) relative to the background.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Campbell to comprise the system stopping scanning on stationary objects similar to O’Keeffe, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing scanning power dedicated to objects of little to no importance to the immediate device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the newly amended independent claim limitations. As these limitations were added in the amendment they could not have been referred to in previous correspondence, however under further search and consideration, the argument is found to be unpersuasive. As the independent claims fail to describe the method of control used or further description of a predetermined value beyond simply a value by which the scan can be considered completed or not, the prior art of Campbell, which teaches performing the scans as determined prior to initialization, and which would then be performed until such time that they are finished, teach the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation as written, which is the merit by which all claims must be examined. Barring further amendments of the claims to further limit the control method or the value, this rejection has been amended above to reflect the amendments but is otherwise maintained.
Applicant further argues that the Campbell lacks a “number of spots is equal to or greater than a predetermined value”. This argument is once again not persuasive. As the applicant points out, the prior art of Campbell uses the term of a "relatively high-density". Lacking any further description by which the spots is measured beyond a value determined ahead of time, the prior art appears to read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation.
Regarding the argument made that the prior art of record fails to teach the limitations of claim 6, namely "wherein the first predetermined condition includes whether or not an overlap rate of the plurality of spots within a region partitioned from within a field of view obtained through scanning by the scanning unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined value", citing support from the specification of the immediate application, the examiner notes that while the intended use and specification are considered in the examination of the application, the claims are examined as written. As written, the claim language does not describe an overlapping spot as being distinguishable from the overlapping regions described by Campbell.
Finally the arguments made against the rejection of claim 8, wherein “the second predetermined condition includes a risk level of each of the plurality of regions”, the argument is once again not found to be persuasive. While the prior art of Campbell does not expressly use the same terminology as the immediate application, the manner in which regions of the scan are catalogued and prioritized for further scans as outlined by the prior art is in keeping with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed risk level as described. As such the rejections are maintained in this Final Office Action.
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 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 ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 8:00-5:00 PST.
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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights