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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 11 of copending Application No. 18582597 in view of Hassibi US20210041562.
Claim 1 of the instant application ‘025 and claim 1 of the reference application ‘597 are directed to a drive device, a light emitting device, a first light emitting section and a second light emitting section (plurality of emitting sections), and the second light emitting section has a light emitting period in a light non-emitting period during which the first light emitting section does not emit light between a light emitting period and a next light emitting period of the first light emitting section.
Claim 1 of the reference application ‘597 does not disclose performing pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period.
Hassibi teaches performing pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period (Hassibi; [0101] a pulse sequence 180 with a time period of 500 pulse widths).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the emission rate as taught by Claim 1 of the instant application ‘025 to be 500 times as taught by Hassibi for the purpose of providing a faster frame rate, a denser point cloud, and/or improving resistance to noise.
Claim 5 of the instant application ‘025 and claim 9 of the reference application ‘597 are directed to a third light emitting section that is not adjacent to the first light emitting section included in the light emitting device overlaps with the light emitting period of the first light emitting section.
Claim 10 of the instant application ‘025 and claim 11 of the reference application ‘597 are directed to a light emitting apparatus, a light emitting unit, a drive device, a first light emitting section and a second light emitting section (a plurality of emitting sections), and the second light emitting section has a light emitting period in a light non-emitting period during which the first light emitting section does not emit light between a light emitting period and a next light emitting period of the first light emitting section.
Claim 11 of the reference application ‘597 does not disclose performing pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period.
Hassibi teaches performing pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period (Hassibi; [0101] a pulse sequence 180 with a time period of 500 pulse widths).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the emission rate as taught by Claim 10 of the instant application ‘025 to be 500 times as taught by Hassibi for the purpose of providing a faster frame rate, a denser point cloud, and/or improving resistance to noise.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the applicant is acting as its own lexicographer in the specification in [0068] which provides a special definition for the term “adjacent”. [0068] states “Being adjacent to a certain light emitting section Ai means that being arranged in any one direction of the x-direction or the y-direction with respect to the light emitting section Ai without being interposed with another light emitting section 41.”
See MPEP 2111.01(IV.); 2173.05(a).
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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rainko US20220011434.
Regarding independent claim 6, Rainko discloses, in Figures 1-7,
A distance measurement apparatus (Rainko; Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a light emitting unit (Rainko; transmitter 300) that includes a first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) and a second light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114);
a drive unit (Rainko; Fig. 5-1; drivers 308-1 to 308-4) that drives the light emitting unit such that each of the first light emitting section and the second light emitting section has a predetermined plurality of light emitting periods (Rainko; pulse train 114 has predetermined detection periods);
a light receiving unit (Rainko; receiver 306) that receives light emitted from the light emitting unit and reflected by a target object (Rainko; object 108); and
a calculation unit (Rainko; processor 214; [0060] “use timing data to measure a distance”) that calculates a distance to the target object based on a result of light reception by the light receiving unit,
wherein the drive unit drives the light emitting unit such that the second light emitting section has a light emitting period in a light non-emitting period during which the first light emitting section does not emit light between a light emitting period and a next light emitting period of the first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 are emitted during the non-emitting period of a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for consecutive pulses of pulse train 114).
Regarding claim 7, Rainko discloses The distance measurement apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the light emitting unit includes one light emitting section group (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; the group of lasers 310-1 and 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) including the first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) and the second light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114), and another light emitting section group (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; the group of lasers 310-3 and 310-4 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) including another light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-3 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114), and after all light emitting sections belonging to the one light emitting section group complete a light emitting period once, the calculation unit acquires a result of light reception by the light receiving unit from a start of the light emitting period of the light emitting section at a head to an end of the light emitting period of the light emitting section at a tail in the one light emitting section group (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; portion 500-2 of pulse train 114).
Regarding claim 8, Rainko discloses The distance measurement apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the light receiving unit includes a first light receiving section that receives the light reflected by the target object in the light emitting period of the first light emitting section, and a second light receiving section that receives the light reflected by the target object in the light emitting period of the second light emitting section, and the calculation unit acquires a result of the light reception for each light receiving section included in the light receiving unit (Rainko; [0045] photodetector 314; [0048] photodetector 314 is an array of detectors).
Regarding claim 9, Rainko discloses The distance measurement apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the drive unit drives the light emitting unit such that the second light emitting section has the light emitting period in a period during which the calculation unit acquires a result of light reception in the first light receiving section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; portion 500-2 has second light emitting section 310-2 emits light while portion 502-2 shows light reception at receiver 306).
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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainko US20220011434 in view of Hassibi US20210041562.
Regarding independent claim 1, Rainko discloses, in Figures 1-7,
A drive device (Rainko; Fig. 1-7) that drives a light emitting device (Rainko; transmitter 300) including a first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) and a second light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114),
wherein each of the first light emitting section and the second light emitting section has a predetermined plurality of light emitting periods (Rainko; pulse train 114 has predetermined detection periods), and
the drive device is configured to:
cause the light emitting device to perform pulse light emission times or more in the light emitting period (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; set of pulses for each laser); and
drive the light emitting device such that the second light emitting section has a light emitting period in a light non-emitting period during which the first light emitting section does not emit light between a light emitting period and a next light emitting period of the first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 are emitted during the non-emitting period of a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for consecutive pulses of pulse train 114).
Rainko is silent regarding cause the light emitting device to perform pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period.
Hassibi teaches cause the light emitting device to perform pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period (Hassibi; [0101] a pulse sequence 180 with a time period of 500 pulse widths).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the emission rate as taught by Rainko to be 500 times as taught by Hassibi for the purpose of providing a faster frame rate, a denser point cloud, and/or improving resistance to noise.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Rainko teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The drive device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting device is driven such that with respect to one light emitting section group (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; the group of lasers 310-1 and 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) including the first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) and the second light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) included in the light emitting device, and another light emitting section group (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; the group of lasers 310-3 and 310-4 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) including another light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-3 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114), after the predetermined plurality of light emitting periods of the one light emitting section group, the other light emitting section group has a light emitting period (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; portion 500-2 of pulse train 114).
Regarding independent claim 10, Rainko discloses, in Figures 1-7,
A light emitting apparatus (Rainko; Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a light emitting unit (Rainko; transmitter 300) that includes a first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) and a second light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114);
a drive unit (Rainko; Fig. 5-1; drivers 308-1 to 308-4) that drives the light emitting unit such that each of the first light emitting section and the second light emitting section has a predetermined plurality of light emitting periods (Rainko; pulse train 114 has predetermined detection periods);
wherein the drive unit is configured to:
cause the light emitting unit to perform pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; set of pulses for each laser); and
drive the light emitting unit such that the second light emitting section has a light emitting period in a light non-emitting period during which the first light emitting section does not emit light between a light emitting period and a next light emitting period of the first light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-2 are emitted during the non-emitting period of a set of pulses for laser 310-1 for consecutive pulses of pulse train 114).
Rainko is silent regarding cause the light emitting device to perform pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period.
Hassibi teaches cause the light emitting device to perform pulse light emission 500 times or more in the light emitting period (Hassibi; [0101] a pulse sequence 180 with a time period of 500 pulse widths).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the emission rate as taught by Rainko to be 500 times as taught by Hassibi for the purpose of providing a faster frame rate, a denser point cloud, and/or improving resistance to noise.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainko in view of Hassibi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Halbritter US20220349998.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Rainko teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The drive device according to claim 2, wherein the light emitting device is driven such that light emitting sections belonging to the one light emitting section group are to each other (Rainko; Fig. 5-2).
Modified Rainko is silent regarding wherein the light emitting device is driven such that light emitting sections belonging to the one light emitting section group are adjacent to each other.
Halbritter teaches wherein the light emitting device is driven such that light emitting sections belonging to the one light emitting section group are adjacent to each other (Halbritter; Fig. 1; [0101] pixels 25a and 25b are adjacent to each other and are sequentially activated/deactivated in a staggered pattern; [0102] “the illumination can be carried out differently depending on the respective solid angle, for example with regard to wavelength, pulse shape, power, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relative positions of the light emitting sections as taught by Modified Rainko to be adjacent as taught by Halbritter for the purpose of providing the desired different/adjustable illumination patterns (Halbritter; [0102] “the illumination can be carried out differently depending on the respective solid angle, for example with regard to wavelength, pulse shape, power, etc.”).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Rainko teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The drive device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting device is driven such that a light emitting period of a third light emitting section (Rainko; Fig. 5-2; a set of pulses for laser 310-3 for portion 500-2 of pulse train 114) that is to the first light emitting section included in the light emitting device with the light emitting period of the first light emitting section.
Modified Rainko does not teach wherein the light emitting device is driven such that a light emitting period of a third light emitting section that is not adjacent to the first light emitting section included in the light emitting device overlaps with the light emitting period of the first light emitting section.
Rainko teaches wherein the light emitting device is driven such that a light emitting period of a third light emitting section overlaps with the light emitting period of the first light emitting section (Rainko; portion 500-3 has a third light emitting section 310-3 overlaps with the light emitting period of the first light emitting section 310-1; [0075] “guarantee a high temporal resolution, enabling an accurate determination of the return time and, therefore, the time delay, distance, or speed to the object 108”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the third light emitting section as taught by Modified Rainko in portion 500-2 to include an overlap with the light emitting period of the first light emitting section as taught by Rainko in portion 500-3 for the purpose of providing “a high temporal resolution, enabling an accurate determination of the return time and, therefore, the time delay, distance, or speed to the object” (Rainko; [0075] “guarantee a high temporal resolution, enabling an accurate determination of the return time and, therefore, the time delay, distance, or speed to the object 108”).
Modified Rainko does not teach wherein the light emitting device is driven such that a light emitting period of a third light emitting section that is not adjacent to the first light emitting section included in the light emitting device.
Halbritter teaches wherein the light emitting device is driven such that a light emitting period of a third light emitting section that is not adjacent to the first light emitting section (Halbritter; Fig. 10; [0127] first group of VCSELs 43a are not adjacent to second group of VCSELs 43b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relative positions of the light emitting sections as taught by Modified Rainko to be adjacent as taught by Halbritter for the purpose of providing the desired different/adjustable illumination patterns (Halbritter; [0102] “the illumination can be carried out differently depending on the respective solid angle, for example with regard to wavelength, pulse shape, power, etc.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tziony US20220291359 teaches, in Figure 2F, “the transmit controller 204 will tune the pulse amplitude, the pulse width, and/or the pulse delay to compensate for the drivers' thermal dependency”.
Barnes US20230117191 teaches, in Figures 2A-2B, VCSEL temperature pulses relating to TOF emitting bursts.
Kobayashi US20250211722 teaches, in Figures 14-15, a pulse count number of 500 times.
Gerlach DE102021102870 teaches using pauses to cool down the internal temperature of a VCSEL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 5/29/26
Prosecution Insights