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. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Monotonous is not a term used in the art to characterize an increase or decrease, examiner hereafter interprets monotonous as monotonic Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 6 recites the limitation " the cutoff frequency " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Hereafter, examiner interprets claim 6 as being dependent on claim 4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s ) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-2 and 14-16 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Keilaf et al. (WO 2018055449). Regarding claim 1 , Keilaf teaches: A ranging apparatus comprising (#100 of Fig. 32A, LIDAR System) : a main body (#100 of Fig. 32A, LIDAR System) including a light emitting device configured to emit a light beam in a plurality of directions at different elevation angles (projection unit #102 and scanning unit #104 of Fig. 32B) , and a light detector that detects reflected light of the light beam (#106 of Fig. 32B, sensing unit) ; a signal processing circuit that generates distance data based on a signal outputted from the light detector (#109 of Fig. 32B, processing unit) ; a vibration detector (#3219 of Fig. 32A, vibration sensors) that detects a change in attitude of the main body attributed to vibration in distinction from a change in attitude of the main body attributed to an inclination of a ground surface at a location where the main body is installed ([570] states that inclination is detected , [566] states that vibration is separated from other signals based on a variety of characteristics ) , and outputs a vibration signal indicating an amount of change in the attitude attributed to the vibration [555] ; and a control circuit that corrects a direction of emission of the light beam to be emitted from the light emitting device based on the vibration signal [557] . Regarding claim 2, Keilaf teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting device includes a light source that emits the light beam (#102 of Fig. 32B, projecting unit) , and an actuator that changes the direction of emission of the light beam (#3240 of Fig. 32C, actuator) , and the control circuit corrects the direction of emission of the light beam by controlling the actuator based on the vibration signal [56 6 ] . Regarding claim 14, Keilaf teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an image sensor that shoots a scene including a direction in which the light beam is emitted (#2205 of Fig. 22, camera) , wherein the control circuit recognizes at least one target object included in the scene based on an image obtained by the image sensor [359] , and determines the direction of emission of the light beam so as to irradiate the at least one target object with the light beam [359] . Regarding claim 15, Keilaf teaches: A mobile body (#3210 of Fig. 32A, vehicle) comprising : the ranging apparatus according to claim 1 (#100 of Fig. 32A, LIDAR System) . Regarding claim 16, Keilaf teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having a program stored thereon, the program causing a computer to execute [ Claim 225] : generating distance data based on a signal outputted from a light detector [106] ; detecting a change in attitude of a ranging apparatus attributed to vibration in distinction from a change in attitude of the ranging apparatus attributed to an inclination of a ground surface at a location where the ranging apparatus is installed ([570] states that inclination is detected , [566 ] states that vibration is separated from other signals based on a variety of characteristics ) , and outputting a vibration signal indicating an amount of change in the attitude attributed to the vibration [555] ; and correcting a direction of emission of a light beam to be emitted from the light emitting device based on the vibration signal [557] . 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) 3-6, 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Keilaf in view of Banno et al. (US 20200269696) . While Banno does not disclose a LIDAR system, it works to solve the same problem of vibration suppression for a light emitting unit. Regarding claim 3, Keilaf teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vibration detector includes an attitude sensor that outputs an attitude signal indicating a variation with time of an attitude of the main body ([560] states that the vibration sensor can be an accelerometer, [570] states that inclination (attitude) can be determined by accelerometers ) Keilaf does not teach, but Banno , solving the same problem of vibration suppression, does teach: An arithmetic circuit that generates the vibration signal by removing a component of the change in the attitude attributed to the inclination of the ground surface from the attitude signal [4 1 ] Keilaf also teaches: Identifying vibrations based on them being above a certain frequency. [566] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibration sensors of Keilaf to filter out low frequency signals similar to Banno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of accurately identifying vibration from other changes in attitude. Keilaf opens the door for frequency filtering to identify vibrations, but fails to describe the details of how it is done. Banno fills in the gaps with the specifics of the filtering system. Regarding claim 4, Keilaf as modified above , teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 3 , Keilaf does not teach, but Banno does teach: an arithmetic circuit which generates the vibration signal by extracting a high-frequency component being higher than a preset cutoff frequency from the attitude signal [ 40-41 ] . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibration sensors of Keilaf to filter out low frequency signals similar to Banno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of accurately identifying vibration from other changes in attitude. Keilaf opens the door for frequency filtering to identify vibrations, but fails to describe the details of how it is done. Banno fills in the gaps with the specifics of the filtering system. Regarding claim 5, Keilaf as modified above , teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 4 Keilaf does not teach, but Banno does teach: an arithmetic circuit which generates the vibration signal by carrying out low-pass filtering processing to extract a low-frequency component being lower than the cutoff frequency from the attitude signal, and processing to remove the low-frequency component from the attitude signal [40-41] . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibration sensors of Keilaf to filter out low frequency signals similar to Banno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of accurately identifying vibration from other changes in attitude. Keilaf opens the door for frequency filtering to identify vibrations, but fails to describe the details of how it is done. Banno fills in the gaps with the specifics of the filtering system. Regarding claim 6 (interpreted as dependent on claim 4), Keilaf , as modified above , teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 4 . Keilaf does not teach, but Banno does teach: Using a cutoff frequency included in a range from 0.1 Hz and 10 Hz [33] . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibration sensors of Keilaf to filter out low frequency signals similar to Banno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of accurately identifying vibration from other changes in attitude. Keilaf opens the door for frequency filtering to identify vibrations, but fails to describe the details of how it is done. Banno fills in the gaps with the specifics of the filtering system. Regarding claim 8 , Keilaf , as modified above , teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising: a positioning device that estimates a location of the ranging apparatus (#2207 of Fig. 22, GPS) ; Keilaf does not teach , but Banno does teach: a storage device that stores relation data that defines a correlation between the location of the ranging apparatus and an inclination angle of the ground surface (#23 of Fig. 1, 3D map DB) , wherein the arithmetic circuit refers to the relation data and specifies the inclination angle of the ground surface from the location estimated by the positioning device (#62 of Fig. 1, slope acquisition portion, [37]) , determines an amount of change in the attitude of the main body attributed to the inclination of the ground surface based on the inclination angle [44] , and generates the vibration signal by subtracting the amount of change in the attitude of the main body attributed to the inclination of the ground surface from the attitude signal [39] . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibration and inclination detection system of Keilaf to use GPS data and a database to acquire inclination similar to Banno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the correction sensor to calculate inclination in advance and reduce processing time. Regarding claim 12 Keilaf also teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the ranging apparatus is mounted on a mobile body (#100 of Fig. 32A, LIDAR System) , and the arithmetic circuit performs processing while considering that there is no change in the attitude attributed to the vibration in a case where an amount of change in the attitude signal in a certain period exceeds a threshold and varies while having a tendency of any of a monotonous increase and a monotonous decrease [566 states that signals are considered to be vibrations if they are oscillatory, sporadic, or random, thus monotonic signals would be excluded from being vibrations ] . Regarding claim 13, Keilaf teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 1, Keilaf does not teach, but Banno does teach: a height sensor that detects a change in height of the main body from the ground surface (#24 of Fig. 1, height sensor) , and outputs a height change signal that indicates an amount of change in the height relative to a reference value [29] , wherein the control circuit determines an amount of correction of the direction of emission of the light beam based on the vibration signal and the height change signal [36] . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vibration correction system of Keilaf to use the height sensor and inclination detection method of Banno with a reasonable expectation of success. This is a simple substitution of two known methods for detecting vehicle inclination. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Keilaf in view of Hato et al. (US 20190333481 ) . While Hato does not disclose a LIDAR system, it works to solve the same problem of vibration suppression for a light emitting unit. Regarding claim 7, Keilaf teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 1 Keilaf does not teach, but Hato does teach: the control circuit temporarily stops correction of the direction of emission of the light beam in a case where magnitude of the vibration signal exceeds a preset range. (#S105 of Fig. 7, rough road determination threshold #Thg of Fig. 4 ) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vibration correction system of Keilaf with a correction suppression system similar to Hato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing the actuators from working outside of their normal operating conditions in the case where the correction would be more than what the movement of the actuators supports. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Keilaf in view of Banno as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 8 above, and further in view of Hato . Regarding claim 9 , Keilaf , as modified above , teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 8. Keilaf does not teach, but Hato does teach: Wherein a control circuit temporarily stops the correction of the direction of emission of the light beam (#S105 of Fig. 7 ) Keilaf also teaches: Changing scanning behavior in a case where the location estimated by the positioning device is included in a specific zone. [527-528] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the vibration correction system of Keilaf with the GPS road slope estimation of Banno and the correction suppression system of Hato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing a vehicle to detect rough roads ahead of time, suppress the vibration correction to prevent improper operation, and use a more uniform scan pattern to account for potential FOV misalignments. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Keilaf et al. in view of Banno et al. as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 3 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Biezen ( Screenshot from YouTube Video titled: Physics 8 Work, Energy, and Power (16 of 37) Driving Up A Hill , Published September 17th, 2013 ) . Regarding claim 10, Keilaf , as modified above , teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein The ranging apparatus is mounted on a mobile body (#100 of Fig. 32A, LIDAR System ) , The vibration detector further includes a velocity sensor that measures a moving velocity of the mobile body [524] Keilaf does not teach, but Biezen does teach: Determining the component of the change in attitude attributed to the inclination of the ground surface based on the measured moving velocity (screenshot mentioned above , the equation can be rearranged to calculate angle based on speed, power, efficiency, etc. ) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vibration correction system of Keilaf with the inclination calculation method of Biezen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of eliminating the need for a separate accelerometer/gyroscope sensor for inclination detection in the embodiment where the vibration detection is performed using actuator feedback. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf in view of Banno and Biezen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" and Zhang et al (US 20210086622 ) . Regarding claim 11 , Keilaf , as modified above, teaches: The ranging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the ranging apparatus is mounted on a mobile body (#100 of Fig. 32A, LIDAR System) Keilaf does not teach, but Zhang does teach: A mobile body driven by an electric motor [18] , including a torque sensor that measures torque of the electric motor [electric motor torque sensor #5 of Fig. 2 ] , Keilaf does not teach but Biezen does teach: determining the component of the change in the attitude attributed to the inclination of the ground surface based on the measured torque ( screenshot mentioned above, the equation shown can be rearranged to calculate the angle theta and use P ower = Torque * A ngular speed, the angular speed can be found using the motor speed sensor #6 of Fig. 2 from Zhang ) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vibration correction system of Keilaf with the electric motor and torque sensor similar to Zhang, and to further modify the system with the inclination determination method of Biezen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of creating a safe electric automobile, and reduce the need for a separate inclination sensor. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9128 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm . 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 Isam Alsomiri can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6970 . 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. /A.D.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645