CTNF 18/574,724 CTNF 101513 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. Claims 1-13 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 07-31-01 Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claims 11 and 13, they require a controller of a scanning LIDAR device to make the number of times of light reception the same as the number of times of light emission for both a first set of light emitting and light receiving elements and a second set of light emitting and light receiving elements. While FIG. 4 of the instant application and its accompanying text includes language very similar to the claimed limitations, there is no discussion of how this would work outside. Unless the LIDAR were operating in a very tightly controlled calibration environment there would be no way for the controller to make sure every emitted pulse would be received back at the receiver. For example, scans performed over an area of a scan volume devoid of objects would not receive any return pulses and even instances in which an object is detected a geometry or surface finish of the object could cause the pulses to be either reflected away from the LIDAR device and/or absorbed, none of which is controllable by a controller. If the intention was for the light receiving elements to be prepared or turned on during an expected return window, then Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to describe this with greater particularity and to point to support for such a limitation in the specification of the patent application. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20170269209 (hereinafter Hall) . Regarding Claim 1, Hall teaches a light source device (100, see FIG. 1) , comprising: a light emitting unit (light emission/collection engine 112) in which a plurality of light emitting elements (light emitting elements 114, see FIG. 3 & [0044]) are arranged along a first direction (see direction 104 in FIG. 3 illustrating the vertical arrangement of light emitting elements 114) ; a scanning unit ([0043] describes rotation of rotating electronics board 111 with light emission/collection engine 112 to affect scanning) that scans light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements along a second direction (see direction ω shown in FIG. 3) orthogonal to the first direction; and a controller ([0020] describes controller for varying the repetition pattern of light emitted by pulsed illumination sources) that performs control to make the number of times of light emission of a first light emitting element group included in the plurality of light emitting elements larger than the number of times of light emission of a second light emitting element group not included in the first light emitting element group ([0020] describes how illumination beams directed toward a volume of space devoid of objects (e.g. toward the horizon or sky) would adopt a reduced light repetition pattern. The result would be that a first subset of light emitting elements 114 oriented toward areas with many detectable objects would have a higher light repetition pattern than a second subset of light emitting elements pointed toward the sky or horizon). Regarding Claim 2, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 1, wherein the controller performs control to increase the number of times of light emission as the distance required to be detected is larger ([0019] & [0070] describe how objects detected at distances of less than 10 or 25 meters would be illuminated by light beams with lower repetition patterns, meaning that objects at increased range would be illuminated with respectively higher repetition patterns) . Regarding Claim 3, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting unit emits light at different angles along a vertical direction (FIG. 2 shows the light emitting units 114 emit light at different angles along a vertical direction, see angle β in FIG. 2 & [0041]). Regarding Claim 4, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 3, wherein the first light emitting element group is a light emitting element that emits light in a direction in which an angle with a horizontal direction is smaller than that of the second light emitting element group (the example given in [0020] describes the sky oriented pulsed beams as often being devoid of objects. The result being that the first light emitting element group oriented straight ahead or down with more objects to detect would have a smaller angle relative to the horizon than the second light emitting group pointed toward the sky). Regarding Claim 5, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 1, wherein the first direction is a vertical direction, and the second direction is a horizontal direction (FIG. 1 shows the first direction 104 as vertical and the second direction ω as being horizontal) . Regarding Claim 6, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 1, wherein the light source device is installed on a mobile body ([0018] describes the LIDAR system mounted to a vehicle operating on a roadway) . Regarding Claim 7, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 6, wherein the controller determines the number of times of light emission according to a position where the light source device is installed ([0007] describes how the field of view for an autonomous vehicle application should extend from the ground in front of the vehicle to a point above the horizon and that areas within this region should be updated at least 5 times per second) . Regarding Claim 10 , A distance measuring device, comprising: a light emitting unit (light emission/collection engine 112) in which a plurality of light emitting elements (light emitting elements 114, see FIG. 3 & [0044]) are arranged along a first direction (see direction 104 in FIG. 3 illustrating the vertical arrangement of light emitting elements 114) ; a scanning unit ([0043] describes rotation of rotating electronics board 111 with light emission/collection engine 112 to affect scanning) that scans light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements along a second direction (see direction ω shown in FIG. 3) orthogonal to the first direction; a controller that performs control to make the number of times of light emission of a first light emitting element group included in the plurality of light emitting elements larger than the number of times of light emission of a second light emitting element group not included in the first light emitting element group ([0020] describes how illumination beams directed toward a volume of space devoid of objects (e.g. toward the horizon or sky) would adopt a reduced light repetition pattern. The result would be that a first subset of light emitting elements 114 oriented toward areas with many detectable objects would have a higher light repetition pattern than a second subset of light emitting elements pointed toward the sky or horizon) ; and a light receiving unit (light emission/collection engine 112) in which a plurality of light receiving elements (light detecting elements 113, see FIG. 3 & [0044]) are arranged along the first direction (FIG. 3 shows how light detecting elements 113 are also arranged along the vertical direction indicated by direction 104) and each of the light receiving elements receives light from the plurality of light emitting elements ([0020] describes a correspondence between detectors 113 and pulsed illumination beams emitted by light emitting elements 114) . Regarding Claim 11, The distance measuring device according to claim 10, wherein the controller performs control to: make the number of times of light reception of a light receiving element that receives light from the first light emitting element group to be the same as the number of times of light emission of the first light emitting element group; and make the number of times of light reception of a light receiving element that receives light from the second light emitting element group to be the same as the number of times of light emission of the second light emitting element group ([0020] describes how light detecting elements are configured to receive pulses reflected off objects and back toward the LIDAR device in a corresponding beam’s field of view, but as described above in the 112(a) rejection of Claim 11 it is unclear how a controller would make sure every emitted pulse was received by the corresponding light detecting element) . Regarding Claims 12-13, they are rejected for the same reasons as respective claims 10 and 11 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of US PG PUB 20180284276 (hereinafter Campbell) . Regarding Claim 8, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 6, however Hall fails to teach wherein the controller determines the number of times of light emission according to a speed at which the mobile body moves. However, Templeton teaches wherein the controller determines the number of times of light emission according to a speed at which the mobile body moves (Col. 6 lines 46-48 describe increasing refresh rate at high rates of speed and Col 6 lines 51 to 54 describe reducing refresh rate at low rates of speed). Hall and Templeton both describe systems in which parameters of a LIDAR scan pattern are adjusted depending on a current use case. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify Hall with Templeton’s speed dependent scan parameter teachings so that light emitters would emit pulses at a rate commensurate with a speed of the vehicle. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found this modification obvious in light of Templeton teachings at Col 6, lines 48-51 that describe how at high speeds potential obstacles develop on relatively short time scales making faster refresh rates important for safety reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of US Patent 9383753 (hereinafter Templeton) . Regarding Claim 9, Hall teaches the light source device according to claim 6, but Hall fails to teach wherein the controller determines the number of times of light emission according to position information of the mobile body. However, Campbell teaches wherein the controller determines the number of times of light emission according to position information of the mobile body (see [0130] of Campbell where it describes how when the position of a vehicle is such that it will be going up an incline a scan pattern of the LIDAR is moved upward). Hall and Campbell both describe systems in which parameters of a LIDAR scan pattern are adjusted depending on a current use case. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify Hall with Campbell’s position dependent teaching so that light emitters pointed upwards would operate at higher pulse repetition rates for greater density pattern focused on an area likely to include oncoming traffic, yielding better detection of any vehicles heading down the grade. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm. 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. /BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/574,724 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights