Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b) as being anticipated by Grauer (US 20150160340 A1).
Claim 1: Grauer teaches an active sensor comprising:
a semiconductor light source ([0026] - LED);
an optical system configured to irradiate a controllable irradiation range with emitted light from the semiconductor light source ([0029] - controlling light source);
a light sensor configured to detect reflected light from an object that reflects the emitted light of the optical system ([0027] and Fig. 2, CMOS 72);
and a light distribution controller configured to control the optical system so that the irradiation range is narrowed in accordance with a decrease in an output of the semiconductor light source ([0066] - reducing power consumption using narrow FOI).
Claim 6: Grauer teaches the active sensor according Claim 1
wherein the semiconductor light source is configured to emit pulsed light ([0029] - pulsed light),
and wherein the light sensor is configured to detect the reflected light at a timing synchronized with emission of the pulsed light ([0030] - light source synchronized to gated camera).
Claim 8: Grauer teaches an object identification system comprising: the active sensor according claim 1; and an arithmetic processing device configured to be able to identify a type of an object based on an image obtained by the active sensor ([0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Kelly (US 20100026187 A1).
Claim 2: Grauer teaches the active sensor according to claim 1. Grauer teaches reducing power consumption by narrowing an FOI ([0066]. Grauer does not teach, but Kelly does teach, wherein the light distribution controller is configured to narrow the irradiation range as a temperature of the semiconductor light source rises ([0078] – lowering power in response to high temperature).
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 lowering power in response to temperature, as taught by Kelly, with the narrowing FOV to lower power, as taught by Grauer, because high temperature is a known issue in LEDs, and lowering the power is a known solution. Further, the combination of the two would lead to the above claim limitation.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grauer.
Claim 3: Grauer teaches the active sensor according to Claim 1, but not wherein the light distribution controller is configured to narrow the irradiation range in accordance with a decrease in output of the light sensor.
However, Grauer does teach reducing power consumption using narrow FOI (i.e.: narrower FOI requires less power). Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art, that, if power is decreased, narrowing the FOI would allow for the system to compensate for the lower power output. Further, if the output of the light source is reduced, the received light at the sensor would also be reduced and thus there would be a decrease in output of the light sensor.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Hudman (US 20150070489 A1).
Claim 4: Grauer teaches the active sensor according to Claim 3. Grauer does not teach, but Hudman does teach, wherein the light distribution controller widens the irradiation range when the output of the light sensor exceeds a first threshold value after narrowing the irradiation range ([0097] – increasing footprint to reach illumination profile).
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 diffuser, as taught by Hudman, in the sensor as taught by Grauer, because changing the footprint of the light is well known in the art, and would allow for the illumination and power of the light beam to be reduced (as it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that if the footprint is increased, the power/illumination is decreased).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Shiina (US 20180246216 A1).
Claim 5: Grauer teaches the active sensor according to Claim 3. Grauer does not teach, but Shiina does teach, wherein an arithmetic processing device at a subsequent stage of the active sensor stops arithmetic processing based on an output of the active sensor, when the output of the light sensor is below a second threshold value after narrowing the irradiation range to a limit (bottom of [0058] – stopping sensor due to low signal).
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 stopping, as taught by Shiina, in the system as taught by Grauer, because, although Shiina is teaching stopping a GPS signal, this could easily be applied to a light sensor, as the basic idea of a low signal triggering a stop signal still applies. Further, this would allow for recalibration of the sensor when the signal is too low to detect.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Li (US 20220026532 A1).
Claim 7: Grauer teaches the active sensor according to Claim 1
wherein the light sensor is an image sensor ([0030] - gated camera),
and wherein the active sensor is […] configured to divide a field of view into a plurality of ranges with respect to a depth direction and to change a time difference between light emission and imaging for each range, making it possible to generate a plurality of images corresponding to the plurality of ranges ([0030], Fig. 3, and [0055] - range estimation algorithm).
Grauer does not teach, but Li does teach, wherein the active sensor is a time of flight camera ([0044]).
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 TOF camera, as taught by Li, in the sensor as taught by Grauer because Li’s invention also divides the FOV ([0078]), and thus would be able to be adapted into Grauer’s invention. Further, Grauer already does distance estimation ([0043]), and using a TOF system would make said estimation/measurement easier.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Kitano (US 20180252812 A1).
Claim 9: Grauer teaches the object identification system according to Claim 1. Grauer does not teach, but Kitano does teach, a vehicle lamp comprising the object identification system ([0042] – scanning units in headlights).
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 headlights, as taught by Kitano, with the system as taught by Grauer, because putting scanning units/object identification systems in headlights is known in the art (See Kitano [0002]).
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
Prosecution Insights