CTNF 18/424,883 CTNF 98843 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Shand (US 20200142033 A1) . Claim 1: Shand teaches an information processing system comprising: an optical sensor that has a plurality of light emitting regions capable of emitting light independently ([0029]), the optical sensor causing at least one light emitting region of the plurality of light emitting regions to emit light to radiate the light onto a detection range split into a plurality of regions ([0029] - each group would emit into different regions as groups are distinct), the optical sensor being capable of detecting a distance to a target within the detection range for each region of the detection range by receiving light reflected from the target ([0003] - LiDAR means range measurement); and a processor configured to: control the optical sensor such that the plurality of light emitting regions sequentially emit light in accordance with a light emission sequence in which adjacent light emitting regions do not successively emit light if the target is not detected within the detection range ([0046] - firing orders - note limitation only requires sequence when target is not detected and does not require different sequence when target is). Claim 2: Shand teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to divide the plurality of light emitting regions into a plurality of groups and cause light emitting regions located at identical positions in the respective groups to emit light in sequence for each group, so as to cause the plurality of light emitting regions to emit light sequentially in accordance with the light emission sequence in which adjacent light emitting regions do not successively emit light (Fig. 3D and [0073]). Claim 3: Shand teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to perform control to cause the light emitting regions to emit light sequentially from an end in each group ([0073] taken with [0046] - serpentine pattern - light emitting regions emit light in the same sequence for each group, in serpentine pattern so from one end). Claim 8: As Claim 8 is a non-transitory computer claim corresponding to Claim 1, see rejection above. Claim 9: As Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1, see rejection above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shand (US 20200142033 A1) in view of Donovan (US 20180259623 A1) . Claim 4: Shand teaches the information processing system according to Claim 1, but not wherein the processor is configured to divide the plurality of light emitting regions into a plurality of groups and cause light emitting regions located at identical positions in the respective groups to simultaneously emit light in sequence, so as to cause the plurality of light emitting regions to emit light sequentially in accordance with the light emission sequence in which adjacent light emitting regions do not successively emit light. However, Shand does teach the same light emitting regions in each group emitting light in the same sequence ([0073] taken with [0046] - serpentine pattern - light emitting regions emit light in the same sequence for each group, in serpentine pattern so from one end). Shand does not teach the groups emitting simultaneously. Donovan teaches a LiDAR system wherein multiple arrays emit light simultaneously from the same position in each array ([0055]). It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the simultaneous emission, as taught by Donovan, in the system as taught by Shand, because this would allow for faster scanning as multiple groups are triggered at once . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 recites that, when an object is detected nearby when one emitter is fired, the emitters on either side of that are then also fired. This was not found in prior art. The closest prior art is US 20150160341 A, which teaches, in [0136], adjusting number of emitters fired based on object distance. However, this teaches firing less emitters when the object is closer, which is the opposite of the claim. Claims 6 and 7 are objected to due to dependency . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT. 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. /CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/424,883 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/424,883 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/424,883 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/424,883 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/424,883 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights