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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 4/15/2025, 6/30/2025 and 10/1/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 10/14/2024 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The last two claims in the present application are incorrectly numbered as 49 and 50, thus creating two claims numbered 49.
Therefore, for the purpose of examination with respect to the cited prior art these last two claims are interpreted as 50 and 51 wherein each is dependent on the first recited claim 49.
Appropriate correction of claim enumeration is required.
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)(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 32, 40, 44-46, 48, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Finkelstein et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0310375).
With respect to claim 32, Finkelstein et al disclose: A detection method for a LiDAR [ taught by figure 1 ] that comprises a plurality of lasers and a plurality of detectors to form a plurality of channels [ taught by emitter array (115) and detector array (110) ], the detection method comprising: performing detection by group based on a predetermined detection time sequence for multiple channels in a single detection round , wherein the detection is performed in parallel for each group of channels, and one single detection of each channel comprises a first sub-detection and a second sub-detection [ paragraph [ 0056 ] teaches a control (205) creating emitter/detection sub-groups (301, 401, 302, 402) wherein figure 2 shows the control outputting timing (210) ]; and for a plurality of parallel detecting channels: controlling lasers corresponding to the plurality of parallel detecting channels to emit light using a first light intensity in the first sub-detection, and determining first detection data through the detection by detectors corresponding to the plurality of parallel detecting channels, wherein the first light intensity is configured to enable the detectors corresponding to the plurality of parallel detecting channels to receive echoes from one or more high-reflectivity objects with a reflectivity greater than a predetermined first reflectivity threshold [ paragraph [ 0056 ] states, “…, the control circuit 205 may be configured to selectively operate a subset 301 of the emitter elements 315e (whose light emission is directed towards the proximate target) to emit optical signals having a lower power level responsive to receiving detection signal(s) from one or more spatially-correlated detector elements 410d (e.g., of subset 401) indicating the higher reflectance…” ]; changing a light-emitting strategy of lasers of the plurality of channels based on the first detection data in the second sub-detection, and determining second detection data through the detection by the detectors corresponding to the plurality of parallel detecting channels [ paragraph [ 0056 ] states, “…and may selectively activate a different subset 302 of the emitter elements 315e (whose light emission is directed towards the distant target) to emit light having a higher power level responsive to receiving detection signal(s) from one or more spatially-correlated detector elements 410d (e.g., of subset 402) indicating the lower reflectance…” ]; and determining a detecting result of the plurality of channels for a single detection based on at least one of the first detection data or the second detection data [ paragraph [ 0041 ] states, “…Light emission output from one or more of the emitters 115e impinges on and is reflected by one or more targets 150, and the reflected light is detected as an optical signal (also referred to herein as an echo signal or echo) by one or more of the detectors 110d (e.g., via one or more lenses 112), converted into an electrical signal representation, and processed (e.g., based on time of flight) to define a 3-D point cloud representation 170 of the field of view 190…”].
Claims 46 and 49 are anticipated by the subject matter of Finkelstein et al, as applied to claim 32.
Paragraph [ 0024 ] states, “…In some embodiments the control circuit implements an algorithm or circuitry whereby, even if a highly reflective target is imaged or detected at a zone of illumination in the field of view, the control circuit is configured to generate a periodic pulse or sequence of pulses to operate the emitter elements having a spatial location that corresponds to the zone to emit higher power light in order to check or detect whether less reflective targets may be present in that zone…”; thus, anticipating claims 40, 44, 45, 48, and 51.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-39, 41-43 and 47 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.
Claim 50 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights