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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments (dated 15 May 2026) with traverse to the unity of invention requirement dated 18 March 2026 are found persuasive. Therefore, the unity of invention requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
These limitations include:
“controlling means” of claim 23 (e.g. “controlling means may include one or more processing units” [0010])
“means for determining a current operational state of the LIDAR system” of claim 23 (e.g. processing units, [0010])
“means for switching the LIDAR system from a first operational mode to a second operational mode” of claim 23 (e.g. processing units, [0010])
“temperature sensing means” of claim 24 (e.g. temperature sensor, [0115])
“electrical operational means” of claim 24 (e.g. processing units and electrical components through specification)
“optical operational means” of claim 24 (optical components throughout specification)
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki US 20180364331 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yamasaki teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (distance measuring unit 1b in Fig. 5, [0054-56]) comprising a controller (power control unit 8 in Figs. 15 and 18, [0081-102]) configured to:
determine a current operational state of the LIDAR system regarding a predefined threshold state (S601 in Fig. 19, [0092-102]); and switch the LIDAR system from a first operational mode to a second operational mode when the current operational state exceeds the predefined threshold state, wherein the second operational mode comprises an operational power of at least one operational component of the LIDAR system being lower than in the first operational mode (normal mode when velocity less than threshold and power saving mode when velocity is greater than a threshold, Fig. 19, [0092-102]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the current operational state further comprises a distance to an object in a field of view or a continuous area of a field of view of a scene of the LIDAR system (distance considered in power choice, [0098-102])
Regarding claim 3, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the controller operates the LIDAR system in the second operational mode for a time period of at least one frame (power saving mode changes the acquiring frequency of the image including the distance information, Figs. 9-10, [0041, 65-70]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the current operational state of the LIDAR system comprises a velocity of the LIDAR system towards a scene of the LIDAR system (S601 in Fig. 19, [0092-102]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the at least one operational component comprises a light source of the LIDAR system, wherein the light source is configured to emit a light beam to a scene of the LIDAR system (301 in Figs. 5 and 7, [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 7, wherein the second operational mode further comprises a standby-mode and a wake-up mode of the light source in predetermined time periods prior to a next light emission period of the light source (pulsed light has non-emission time periods which can be considered a standby-mode, Figs. 9-10, [0065-66]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the at least one operational component is an electrical amplifier of the LIDAR system (frequency of avalanche amplification due to bias, [0067-69]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system comprises a processing unit configured to process signals received from the LIDAR system, wherein the operational power is a sampling rate and/or a processing rate of the processing unit (Figs. 9-10, [0065-70]).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eshel US 20180120424 A1.
Regarding claim 23, Eshel teaches a controlling means for a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, the controlling means (processor 118, [0749-764]) comprising:
a means for determining a current operational state of the LIDAR system regarding a predefined threshold state (temperature sensors, Figs. 53-54, [0749-764]); and
a means for switching the LIDAR system from a first operational mode to a second operational mode when the current operational state exceeds the predefined threshold state, wherein the second operational mode comprises an operational power of at least one operational means of the LIDAR system being lower than in the first operational mode (decreasing light emitted during subsequent scanning cycle due to temperature above threshold, Figs. 53-54, [0749-764]).
Regarding claim 24, Eshel teaches the controlling means of claim 23, wherein the LIDAR system comprises at least one temperature sensing means thermally coupled to at least one electrical operational means and/or optical operational means of the LIDAR system (temperature sensors, Figs. 53-54, [0749-764]), wherein the current operational state comprises a temperature determined by the temperature sensing means or comprises a distance to an object in a field of view of a scene of the LIDAR system (decreasing light emitted during subsequent scanning cycle due to temperature above threshold, Figs. 53-54, [0749-764]).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki US 20180364331 A1 in view of Eshel US 20180120424 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Yamasaki does not explicitly teach but Eshel teaches wherein the first operational mode comprises a first scanning direction of a scene of the LIDAR system, and the second operational mode further comprises a second scanning direction of the scene, wherein a movable component of the LIDAR system scans along the first scanning direction and the second scanning direction to scan the scene of the LIDAR system (near- and far-field scanning rate and distribution areas for controlling movement of deflectors with decrease in scanning rate in the far-field, Figs. 38-39, [0620-626]; 2D light deflectors 114 shown in at least Fig. 2A-B; see also Figs. 40A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamasaki such that the first operational mode comprises a first scanning direction of a scene of the LIDAR system, and the second operational mode further comprises a second scanning direction of the scene, wherein a movable component of the LIDAR system scans along the first scanning direction and the second scanning direction to scan the scene of the LIDAR system similar to Eshel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Eshel: [0622])
Regarding claim 6, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Yamasaki does not explicitly teach but Eshel teaches wherein the first operational mode comprises a first continuous area of a field of view of a scene of the LIDAR system, and the second operational mode further comprises a second continuous area of the field of view of the scene of the LIDAR system, wherein a movable component of the LIDAR system scans through the first continuous area and the second continuous area (different light distribution continuous areas in near- and far-field, use of light deflectors 114 for scanning, Fig. 39, [0620, 622, 626]; see also Figs. 40A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamasaki such that the first operational mode comprises a first scanning direction of a scene of the LIDAR system, and the second operational mode further comprises a second scanning direction of the scene, wherein a movable component of the LIDAR system scans along the first scanning direction and the second scanning direction to scan the scene of the LIDAR system similar to Eshel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Eshel: [0622])
Regarding claim 13, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Yamasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the LIDAR system comprises at least one temperature sensor thermally coupled to at least one electrical operational component and/or optical operational component of the LIDAR system, wherein the current operational state is a temperature determined by the temperature sensor.
Temperature of at last one component of the LIDAR system measured by temperature sensors (Figs. 53-55, [0539, 749-764])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamasaki such that the LIDAR system comprises at least one temperature sensor thermally coupled to at least one electrical operational component and/or optical operational component of the LIDAR system, wherein the current operational state is a temperature determined by the temperature sensor similar to Eshel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing damage and for safety reasons (Eshel: [0750]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki US 20180364331 A1 in view of Henderson US 20200249318 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1
Yamasaki does not explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of light sources as operational components of the LIDAR system, wherein, when a first light source of the plurality of light sources is in the first operational mode, at a same time, (i) a second light source of the plurality of light sources is in the second operational mode that further comprises a stand-by mode or a switched-off mode or (ii) a third light source of the plurality of light sources is in the second operational mode that further comprises a wake-up mode.
Henderson teaches turning off or reducing power of wider-facing emitters when in a longer range mode or for different power levels (Fig. 5A-D, [0087-93])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamasaki to include a plurality of light sources as operational components of the LIDAR system, wherein, when a first light source of the plurality of light sources is in the first operational mode, at a same time, (i) a second light source of the plurality of light sources is in the second operational mode that further comprises a stand-by mode or a switched-off mode or (ii) a third light source of the plurality of light sources is in the second operational mode that further comprises a wake-up mode similar to Henderson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki US 20180364331 A1 in view of Skirlo US 20190265574 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Yamasaki teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1,
Yamasaki does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one operational component is an optical amplifier of the LIDAR system.
Skirlo teaches decreasing power consumption by turning off SOAs when light isn’t needed to propagate through them ([0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamasaki such that the at least one operational component is an optical amplifier of the LIDAR system similar to Skirlo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Skirlo: [0044]).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaag US 20220327719 A1 in view of Yamasaki US 20180364331 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Shaag teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, if executed by one or more processors ([0015]), cause the one or more processors to:
determine at least one part of a field of view in a scene of a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system in a first frame and in a second frame (non-moving reference point or object, [0384-386]);
determine a difference of the at least one part of the field of view in the first frame and in the second frame (correlates LIDAR points against two or more frames, determines ego-motion based on optical flow analysis (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining ego-motion from two frames is equivalent to determining the velocity in that time), and calculating velocity of an object, Fig. 31, [0384-386, 411-430]);
Shaag does not explicitly teach switch the LIDAR system from a first operational mode to a second operational mode when the difference is below a predetermined threshold value, wherein the second operational mode comprises an operational power of at least one component of the LIDAR system being lower than in the first operational mode.
Yamasaki teaches determining that a target relatively moves at a low velocity based on a velocity threshold and sets the distance measuring apparatus to power saving mode ([0084-91])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaag to switch the LIDAR system from a first operational mode to a second operational mode when the difference is below a predetermined threshold value, wherein the second operational mode comprises an operational power of at least one component of the LIDAR system being lower than in the first operational mode similar to Yamasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Yamasaki: [0090]).
Regarding claim 15, Shaag teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the at least one part of the field of view comprises a distance to an object in the scene (LIDAR data includes depth information, [0384-386]).
Regarding claim 16, Shaag teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14,
Shaag does not explicitly teach wherein the LIDAR system operates in the second operational mode for at least a third frame.
Yamasaki teaches changing the frequency of the image acquisition for future images in power saving mode (Figs. 9-10, [0041, 65-70, 90-91])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaag such that the LIDAR system operates in the second operational mode for at least a third frame similar to Yamasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Yamasaki: [0090-91]).
Regarding claim 17, Shaag teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16,
Shaag does not explicitly teach wherein the LIDAR system operates in the second operational mode at least in the at least one part of the field of view in the third frame.
Yamasaki teaches changing the frequency of the image acquisition for future images in power saving mode (Figs. 9-10, [0041, 65-70, 90-91]; capturing same targets 11g, [0084-91])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaag such that the LIDAR system operates in the second operational mode at least in the at least one part of the field of view in the third frame similar to Yamasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Yamasaki: [0090-91]).
Regarding claim 18, Shaag teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17,
Shaag does not explicitly teach wherein the third frame is subsequent to the second frame.
Yamasaki teaches changing the frequency of the image acquisition for future images in power saving mode (Figs. 9-10, [0041, 65-70, 90-91])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaag such that the third frame is subsequent to the second frame similar to Yamasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption (Yamasaki: [0090-91]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pacala US 20220179071 A1 teaches reducing power level based on recorded strengths of signals (e.g. claim 8)
Dunn US 20220163635 A1 teaches operating regions of emissions in a low power mode when turning ([0104])
Zhang US 20220058452 A1 teaches reducing processing power when differences between two frames are below a threshold ([0037])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights