DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 9 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 11-15, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Russell (US 2018/0284231), in view of Kostamovaara (US 2015/0369666).
Regarding Claim 1, Russell teaches a method of operating a light emitting depth sensor [0038 – “The distance D from lidar system 100 to the target 130 may be referred to as a distance, depth, or range of the target 130”; 0066], comprising: emitting a sequence of emitted light pulses into a field of view [0025-6; 0061; 0064; 0066-67; 0088; 0096; 0112; 0128 – “when the light source 110 produces pulses at a pulse-repetition frequency”; 0144]; wherein the sequence of emitted light pulses is emitted across a plurality of pulse repetition intervals that includes a first plurality of pulse repetition intervals during a first time period, and a second plurality of pulse repetition intervals during a second time period subsequent to the first time period [0022-23 “By operating in a low-gain mode for a time period T1 after a light pulse is transmitted, the receiver reduces the likelihood of detecting noise for a time period T1 just after a light pulse is transmitted. For example, the time period T1 may occur when it is too early to receive a returned pulse from a distance that exceeds a minimum range. Additionally, low-gain may be applied to returned pulses scattered by remote targets at close range to prevent saturation at the photodetector. Moreover, switching from a low-gain mode to a high-gain mode and back minimizes recovery time and decreases the minimum range that may be detected”; 0049; 0086; 0091; 0125-32; 0139]; determining a first number of detected light pulses detected at a light sensing pixel of an array of light sensing pixels during the first time period [0023- “operating the pulse-detection circuit in a low-gain mode (e.g., having a gain below a threshold level) for a time period T1 after the light source emits a light pulse” ; 0025- “The detected light pulse as it is transmitted may be referred to as an "optical" t0. The clock for measuring the first and second time periods T1 and T2 may be initialized at electrical t0, at optical t0, or at a particular time interval after electrical t0 or optical t0.” ; 0091 – “each of the linear scan patterns 254A-N includes pixels associated with one or more laser pulses and distance measurements.”; 0116 – “ The APD 400 that is operated at or above a breakdown voltage may be referred to as a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) and may be referred to as operating in a Geiger mode or a photon-counting mode”; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0141-44]; determining a second number of detected light pulses detected at the light sensing pixel during the second time period [0023-25; 0125-28 “The threshold time period T2 may be configured to last from expiration of the threshold time period Tl until the time in which a subsequent pulse is transmitted”; 0129; 0133-34; 0141- “When the amount of time that has elapsed since t0 is within a threshold time period T2 after the threshold time period T1 has elapsed “; 0142--44]; and adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor based on the (determined difference between the) first number and the second number [0067; 0116; 0141 – “ the threshold time period T1 is dynamically adjustable based on characteristics of the detected light used to identify optical t0 . For example, the controller 150 may increase the threshold time period T1 when the pulse duration of the detected light exceeds a threshold duration. The characteristics may include the peak power … the average power … the pulse energy … the pulse duration…” ; 0144 – “the set of gain values in the low-gain (period T1) and high-gain modes (period T2) or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted downward. When the noise floor metric is below a certain threshold value, the set of gain values in the low-gain and high-gain modes or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted upward. The adjustment may be applied until the lidar system 100 recalibrates”]. Russell does not explicitly teach – but Kostamovaara does teach determining a difference between the first number and second number [0020; 0033-37 – “having different time windows 300, 302, 304, 306 which may be used in post-processing during counting the detections; …counter 208 may count a number of detections in at least two different predetermined time windows 300 to 304 on the basis of the timing of the detections with respect to… “; 0043-46; 0054; 0057; Claim 25] – (a difference is merely a comparison and subtraction of the two count numbers, more simplistic and easier for post-processing operations). It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include subtracting counts from different time periods as this would allow the controller to provide feedback to allow for more accurate dynamic adjustment of the depth sensor (see [0033-37] and [0043-46] of Kostamovaara and [0141] of Russell).
Regarding Claim 13, Russell teaches an electronic device comprising: an electronic timing control system [0063-64 “The controller 150 may receive electrical trigger pulses or edges from the light source 110, where each pulse or edge corresponds to the emission of an optical pulse by the light source 110’ ; 0065-67; 0105-06; 0125; 0132-34; 0141]; at least one light emitter operably associated with the electronic timing control system [0063-64 “The controller 150 may provide instructions, a control signal, or a trigger signal to the light source 110 indicating when the light source 110 should produce optical pulses”; 0065-67; 0105-06; 0125; 0132-34; 0141]; and an array of light sensing pixels operably associated with the electronic timing control system [0044-48; 0091 – “each of the linear scan patterns 254A-N includes pixels associated with one or more laser pulses and distance measurements”]; wherein the electronic timing control system is configured to: provide a first set of timing control signals that cause the at least one light emitter to emit a sequence of light pulses into a field of view [0026; 0063-64 “the controller 150 may cause the light source 110 to adjust one or more of the frequency, period, duration, pulse energy, peak power, average power, or wavelength of the optical pulses produced by the light source 110”; 0065-67; 0086-8; 0091; 0096; 0112; 0125]; wherein the sequence of emitted light pulses is emitted across a plurality of pulse repetition intervals that includes a first plurality of pulse repetition intervals during a first time period, and a second plurality of pulse repetition intervals during a second time period subsequent to the first time period [0022-23 “By operating in a low-gain mode for a time period T1 after a light pulse is transmitted, the receiver reduces the likelihood of detecting noise for a time period T1 just after a light pulse is transmitted. For example, the time period T1 may occur when it is too early to receive a returned pulse from a distance that exceeds a minimum range. Additionally, low-gain may be applied to returned pulses scattered by remote targets at close range to prevent saturation at the photodetector. Moreover, switching from a low-gain mode to a high-gain mode and back minimizes recovery time and decreases the minimum range that may be detected”; 0049; 0086; 0091; 0125-32; 0139]; a first time period precedes an expected arrival time of reflections of the emitted sequence of light pulses at the activated light sensing pixel [0023; “; 0116 – “ The APD 400 that is operated at or above a breakdown voltage may be referred to as a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) and may be referred to as operating in a Geiger mode or a photon-counting mode”; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0139 – “to identify return light pulses corresponding to the emitted light pulses. The received light signals are then processed for example, by the pulse-detection circuit 504 as shown in FIG. 11, to identify characteristics of the received light signals. The characteristics of the return light pulses are then used to generate a point cloud having respective pixels”; 0141-44]; a second time period following the expected arrival time [0023; 0116; 0125-28 “The threshold time period T2 may be configured to last from expiration of the threshold time period Tl until the time in which a subsequent pulse is transmitted”; 0129; 0133-34; 0141-44]; activate a light sensing pixel of the array of light sensing pixels to detect light pulses [0026; 0063-67; 0088; 0091 – “each of the linear scan patterns 254A-N includes pixels associated with one or more laser pulses and distance measurements.”; 0096; 0112; 0125]; provide a second set of timing control signals that cause: a counter to count a first number of light pulses detected by the light sensing pixel during a first time period [0023; “; 0116; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0139; 0141-44]; and the counter to count a second number of light pulses detected by the light sensing pixel during a second time period [0023; 0116; 0125-28; 0129; 0133-34; 0141-44]; and adjust operation of the electronic device based on the (determined difference between the) first number and the second number [0022-23; 0067; 0125-32; 0139; 0141 – “ the threshold time period T1 is dynamically adjustable based on characteristics of the detected light used to identify optical t0 . For example, the controller 150 may increase the threshold time period T1 when the pulse duration of the detected light exceeds a threshold duration. The characteristics may include the peak power … the average power … the pulse energy … the pulse duration…” ; 0144 – “the set of gain values in the low-gain (period T1) and high-gain modes (period T2) or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted downward. When the noise floor metric is below a certain threshold value, the set of gain values in the low-gain and high-gain modes or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted upward. The adjustment may be applied until the lidar system 100 recalibrates”]. Russell does not explicitly teach – but Kostamovaara does teach determining a difference between the first number and second number [0020; 0033-37 – “having different time windows 300, 302, 304, 306 which may be used in post-processing during counting the detections; …counter 208 may count a number of detections in at least two different predetermined time windows 300 to 304 on the basis of the timing of the detections with respect to… “; 0043-46; 0054; 0057; Claim 25] – (a difference is merely a comparison and subtraction of the two count numbers, more simplistic and easier for post-processing operations). It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include subtracting counts from different time periods as this would allow the controller to provide feedback to allow for more accurate dynamic adjustment of the depth sensor (see [0033-37] and [0043-46] of Kostamovaara and [0141] of Russell).
Regarding Claim 20, Russell teaches a method of operating a light emitting depth sensor [0038 – “The distance D from lidar system 100 to the target 130 may be referred to as a distance,
depth, or range of the target 130”; 0066] comprising: emitting a sequence of light pulses into a field of view during a counting time period [0026; 0061; 0063-67; 0088; 0091; 0096; 0112; 0125; 0128 – “when the light source 110 produces pulses at a pulse-repetition frequency”; 0144]; wherein the sequence of light pulses is emitted across a plurality of pulse repetition intervals during the counting period [0022-23; 0049; 0086; 0091; 0125-32; 0139]; receiving, at a subarray of light sensing pixels of an array light sensing pixels [0023; 0091 – “each of the linear scan patterns 254A-N includes pixels associated with one or more laser pulses and distance measurements”; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0141-44], reflected light pulses corresponding to reflections of a subset of the emitted light pulses from an object in the field of view [0023; 0038 – “The distance D from lidar system 100 to the target 130 may be referred to as a distance, depth, or range of the target 130”; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0141-44]; for each of the light sensing pixels in the subarray counting respective numbers of detected light pulses that are received during the counting time period [0023; 0063-67; 0088; 0091; 0096; 0112; 0116 – “ The APD 400 that is operated at or above a breakdown voltage may be referred to as a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) and may be referred to as operating in a Geiger mode or a photon-counting mode”; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0141-44], the detected light pulses including the reflected light pulses; and adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor based on the respective numbers of detected light pulses [0022-23; 0125-32; 0139; 0141 – “ the threshold time period T1 is dynamically adjustable based on characteristics of the detected light used to identify optical t0 . For example, the controller 150 may increase the threshold time period T1 when the pulse duration of the detected light exceeds a threshold duration. The characteristics may include the peak power … the average power … the pulse energy … the pulse duration…” ; 0144 – “the set of gain values in the low-gain (period T1) and high-gain modes (period T2) or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted downward. When the noise floor metric is below a certain threshold value, the set of gain values in the low-gain and high-gain modes or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted upward. The adjustment may be applied until the lidar system 100 recalibrates”]. Russell does not explicitly teach – but Kostamovaara does teach determining a comparison of the respective number of detected light pulses [0020; 0033-37 – “having different time windows 300, 302, 304, 306 which may be used in post-processing during counting the detections; …counter 208 may count a number of detections in at least two different predetermined time windows 300 to 304 on the basis of the timing of the detections with respect to… “; 0043-46; 0054; 0057; Claim 25] – (a difference is merely a comparison and subtraction of the two count numbers, more simplistic and easier for post-processing operations). It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include subtracting counts from different time periods as this would allow the controller to provide feedback to allow for more accurate dynamic adjustment of the depth sensor (see [0033-37] and [0043-46] of Kostamovaara and [0141] of Russell).
Regarding Claim 7, Russell also teaches activating the light sensing pixel for detection of the first number of the light pulses and the second number of the light pulses during a time interval containing an expected on-center time of the reflections of the sequence of emitted light pulses at the activated light sensing pixel [0023; 0063-67; 0088; 0091; 0096; 0112; 0125-29; 0133-34].
Regarding Claim 9, Russell also teaches wherein: the light sensing pixel is a first light sensing pixel; the array of light sensing pixels comprises a second light sensing pixel adjacent to the first light sensing pixel [0091 – “each of the linear scan patterns 254A-N includes pixels associated with one or more laser pulses and distance measurements”; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0141-44]; and the emitted sequence of light pulses is emitted into the field of view to cause the reflections of the sequence of emitted light pulses to be received at the first light sensing pixel and subsequently at the second light sensing pixel [0023; 0091; 0125-29; 0133-34; 0141-44].
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Russell also teaches discloses wherein adjusting operation the light emitting depth sensor comprises adjusting at least one of a first duration of the first time period or a second duration of the second time period [0022-23; 0067; 0125-32; 0139; 0141 – “ the threshold time period T1 is dynamically adjustable based on characteristics of the detected light used to identify optical t0 . For example, the controller 150 may increase the threshold time period T1 when the pulse duration of the detected light exceeds a threshold duration. The characteristics may include the peak power … the average power … the pulse energy … the pulse duration…” ; 0144 – “the set of gain values in the low-gain (period T1) and high-gain modes (period T2) or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted downward. When the noise floor metric is below a certain threshold value, the set of gain values in the low-gain and high-gain modes or the minimum and/or maximum gain values within an adjustable gain function may be adjusted upward. The adjustment may be applied until the lidar system 100 recalibrates”].
Regarding Claim 12, Russell also teaches wherein adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor comprises adjusting one of altering a direction at which a light source emits the sequence of emitted light pulses and altering how the reflections of the sequence of emitted light pulses are directed onto the array [0022-23; 0060; 0067; 0088; 0125-32; 0139; 0141; 0144].
Regarding Claim 14, Russell also teaches discloses wherein the emitted sequence of light pulses is emitted into the field of view according to a line scan pattern, and a set of the reflections of the emitted sequence of light pulses are directed across a row of the array of light sensing pixels [0060; 0067; 0088; 0091 – “each of the linear scan patterns 254A-N includes pixels associated with one or more laser pulses and distance measurements”; 0125-32; 0139; 0141].
Regarding Claim 15, Russell also teaches wherein adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor comprises altering an expected on-center/arrival time of the reflections of the sequence of emitted light pulses at the light sensing pixel [0022-23; 0067; 0125-32; 0139; 0141; 0144].
Regarding Claim 19, Russell also teaches wherein at least one light sensing pixel of the array of light sensing pixels includes a single photon avalanche diode [0031; 0062; 0106; 0116 – “ The APD 400 that is operated at or above a breakdown voltage may be referred to as a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) and may be referred to as operating in a Geiger mode or a photon-counting mode”].
Regarding Claim 21, Russell also teaches adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor includes adjusting at least one of: an emission of the sequence of light pulses into the field of view, or a directing of the reflected light pulses onto the subarray of light sensing pixels [0022-23; 0063-7; 0125-34; 0139; 0141; 0144].
Claims 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2018/0284231) and Kostamovaara (US 2015/0369666), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borowski (US 2013/0300840).
Regarding Claim 2, Russell does not explicitly teach – but Borowski does teach wherein a first duration of the first time period and a second duration of the second time period are each a fixed multiple of a pulse repetition interval of the sequence of emitted light pulses [0013-18; 0114]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include adjustable receive time periods to validate the reflections off the target surface were from the transmitted signal and produce detected data on the basis of the measured round-trip delay of the pulses and using the precise timing of the pulse trains for efficiently detecting faint signals at each SPAD detector cell.
Regarding Claim 3, Russell also teaches wherein adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor comprises altering an expected on-center/arrival time of the reflections of the sequence of emitted light pulses at the light sensing pixel [0022-23; 0067; 0125-32; 0139; 0141; 0144].
Claims 4-6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2018/0284231) and Kostamovaara (US 2015/0369666), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Niclass (US 2012/0075615).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Russell does not explicitly teach – but Niclass does teach forming a histogram of time of flight values of the light pulses detected during both the first time period and the second time period; and estimating a distance to a portion of the object based on the histogram [0004; 0013; 0024; 0039; 0041-44; 0059-64]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include histogram analysis in order to select the best pulse repetition rate, quickly estimate the range of the object, change the direction of the transmitter to obtain a better depth image, or expanding dynamic range without additional optical components, because it controls photon detection probability based on output of the receiver.
Regarding Claim 5, Russell does not explicitly teach – but Niclass does teach weighting a first time of flight value corresponding to a first detected light pulse in the histogram based on a proximity of a first time of detection of the first detected light pulse to an expected on-center time at the light sensing pixel [0004; 0013; 0024; 0039; 0041-44; 0059-64]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include histogram analysis with weighting in order to select the best pulse repetition rate, quickly estimate the range of the object, change the direction of the transmitter to obtain a better depth image, or expanding dynamic range without additional optical components, because it controls photon detection probability based on output of the receiver.
Regarding Claim 6, Russell does not explicitly teach – but Niclass does teach determining that the distance is above a first threshold and below a second threshold, wherein the adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor is performed when the estimated distance is above the first threshold and below the second threshold [0004; 0113; 0024; 0039; 0041-44; 0059-64]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to include histogram analysis with thresholds in order to select the best pulse repetition rate, quickly estimate the range of the object, change the direction of the transmitter to obtain a better depth image, or expanding dynamic range without additional optical components, because it controls photon detection probability based on output of the receiver.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2018/0284231) and Kostamovaara (US 2015/0369666), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kita (US 2012/0105688).
Regarding Claim 8, Russell does not explicitly teach - but Kita does teach estimating distortions in how the reflections of the sequence of emitted light pulses are received at the array [0102; 0267]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Russell to estimate distortions to correct for relative motion of the instrument or target object during scanning.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2018/0284231) and Kostamovaara (US 2015/0369666), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0349369).
Regarding Claim 10, Russell does not explicitly teach – but Lee does teach determining a third number of the detected light pulses detected at the second light sensing pixel during a third time period; and determining a fourth number of the reflected light pulses that are received at the second light sensing pixel during a fourth time period following the third time period; wherein adjusting operation of the light emitting depth sensor is further based on the third number and the fourth number [0016-18; 0043-48; 0060; 0088-91; 0120-0123]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Russell to include determining light pulses at third and fourth light periods, and using a second pixel, because a motion in the partial region based on the time of flights extracts depth information according to a result of the motion estimation. After capturing the partial region from T1 to Tn, time of flight at each time may be calculated to estimate relative motion over time. In addition, the estimated motions may be compensated using the interpolation technique and restored, and noise may be reduced therefrom.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russell (US 2018/0284231) and Kostamovaara (US 2015/0369666), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kalscheur (US 2016/0245903).
Regarding Claim 16, Russell does not explicitly teach – but Kalscheur does teach wherein the correction is determined using a feedback loop [0051]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lee to use a feedback loop in order to more quickly apply the corrections and adjustments as soon as they were calculated to either the transmitter or receiver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 13, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ amendments, Russell discloses in [0049] about plural pulse repetition intervals – thus rendering those portions of the amendments anticipated. Regarding applicant’s amendments on the comparison/difference of counts, Russell already used photon-counting in plural time periods as a basis to adjust the transmission characteristics (like gain) to the sensor. Applicants’ amendment appears to be an attempt to claim that subtracting two numbers that a computer processor already factored in is now novel and non-obvious. As such, Kostamovaara more explicitly teaches details regarding different counting periods of received pulses and the use in post-processing, thus rendering obvious the applicants’ amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 103 are thus updated, as applicant has presented minimal amendments to the claims. No allowable subject matter can be indicated at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached on 5712722097. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645