Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/032,424

LIDAR SYSTEM AND ITS CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 25, 2020
Examiner
HULKA, JAMES R
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.
OA Round
9 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
731 granted / 957 resolved
+24.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
994
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 957 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 January 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Claims 3, 5, 6, 13 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, and 14 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) 1-2, 4, 7-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villeneuve (US 2017/0155225) in view of Kawazu (US 2020/0412993), Wang (US 2018/0277030) and He (CN 104,333,964) Regarding Claim 1, Villeneuve teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system comprising: a light generator configured to irradiate a laser to an object disposed in a blind section of the LIDAR system [0014-16; 0051; 0094-95; 0103-05; 0109; 0116; 0139]; a light receiver configured to sense light reflected from the object [#140 of Fig 1; 0049]; a receiver configured to receive a signal that is converted into an electric signal in the light receiver [0049-51; 0057; 0061-62; 0075; 0182]; a feedback control system comprising a comparator configured to repeat feedback control operation including determining whether the signal corresponds to a voltage value which is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference [0115; 0211-0219]; a controller and comparator are coupled through an internal communication channel [0049-52; 0057; 0060-62; 0067] and in response to a flag a controller configured to control a pulse width of the laser according to the determination of the comparator [#150 of Fig 1; 0049-51; 0060; 0062; 0075; 0094; 0139; 0211; 0214] -and, an output unit configured to output a pulse signal toward an internal communication channel [0049-52; 0057; 0060-62; 0067]; a pulse comparator configured to compare the pulse signal passing with a predetermined reference voltage [0217]; a determination unit configured to determine whether the pulse signal is attenuated based on the comparison; and a de-emphasis unit configured to determine whether the pulse signal is modulated based on the determination [0049-52; 0057; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0139-41; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Villeneuve implies but does not explicitly teach to transmit a flag representing that the voltage value which is less than the predetermined reference to the controller until the voltage value of the laser becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference based on the control, when the comparator stops transmitting the flag when the voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein the absence of the flag is used to terminate the feedback control operation [0049-51; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094; 0101; 0139; 0207-08; 0211; 0214; 0290]. Kawazu teaches to transmit a flag representing that the voltage value …wherein when the comparator stops transmitting the flag when the voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein the absence of the flag is used to terminate the feedback control operation [0252; 0395] (Error flag XERP set to 1 when voltage VDDL < VthH and XERP set to 0 when VDDL > VthH). He teaches a feedback control system comprising a comparator configured to adjust and terminate the laser pulse width modulation and to repeat feedback control operation including determining whether the signal corresponds to a voltage value which is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference [Claims 1, 6, and 9; 0002-03; 0006; 0013; 0024; 0034-35; 0038] and voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein when the comparator stops transmitting the flag when the voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein the absence of the flag is used to terminate the feedback control operation [0002-03; 0006; 0013; 0024; 0034-35; 0038]. Wang teaches continuous flag transmission (continuous error feedback and correction) [0064]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Villeneuve to include whether voltage value exceeded/came in under a reference threshold and transmitting in order to maximize signal-to-noise ratio but avoid saturation of the imaging pixels. Regarding Claim 12, Villeneuve discloses a control method using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system [0014-16; 0051], comprising: irradiating a laser to an object disposed in a blind section of the LIDAR system [0014-16; 0051; 0094-95; 0103-05; 0109; 0116; 0139]; receiving a signal reflected from the object [0049-51; 0057; 0061-62; 0075; 0182]; repeating feedback control operation determining whether the received signal corresponds to a voltage value which is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference [0115; 0211-0219]; a controller and comparator are coupled through an internal communication channel [0049-52; 0057; 0060-62; 0067] and, in response to a flag controlling a pulse width of the laser irradiated to the object according to the determination of the voltage value of the signal [#150 of Fig 1; 0049-51; 0060; 0062; 0075; 0094; 0139; 0211; 0214] - and, controlling a pulse width, … outputting a pulse signal toward an internal communication channel [0049-52; 0057; 0094-95]; comparing the pulse signal passing the internal communication channel with a predetermined reference voltage [0271]; determining whether the pulse signal is attenuated based on the comparison; and determining whether the pulse signal is modulated based on the determination… [0049-52; 0057; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0139-141; 0176; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Villeneuve implies but does not explicitly teach to transmit a flag representing that the voltage value which is less than the predetermined reference to the controller… when the comparator stops transmitting the flag when the voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein the absence of the flag is used to terminate the feedback control operation [0049-51; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094; 0101; 0139; 0207-08; 0211; 0214; 0290]. Kawazu teaches to transmit a flag representing that the voltage value which is less than the predetermined reference to the controller until the voltage value … when the comparator stops transmitting the flag when the voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein the absence of the flag is used to terminate the feedback control operation [0252; 0395] (Error flag XERP set to 1 when voltage VDDL < VthH and XERP set to 0 when VDDL > VthH). He teaches a comparator configured to repeat feedback control operation including determining whether the signal corresponds to a voltage value which is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference [Claims 1, 6, and 9; 0002-03; 0006; 0013; 0024; 0034-35; 0038] and when the comparator stops transmitting the flag when the voltage value becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined reference, and wherein the absence of the flag is used to terminate the feedback control operation [0002; 0006; 0024; 0034-35; 0038]. Wang teaches continuous flag transmission (continuous error feedback and correction) [0064]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Villeneuve to include whether voltage value exceeded/came in under a reference threshold and transmitting in order to maximize signal-to-noise ratio but avoid saturation of the imaging pixels. Regarding Claim 2, Villeneuve also teaches wherein the controller is configured to control an output power of the light generator through pulse width modulation [0049-54; 0099-0105; 0115; 0123]. Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Villeneuve also teaches wherein the controller is configured to increase the pulse width of the laser and re-irradiated with the increased width to the object [0049-51; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094; 0101; 0139; 0207-08; 0211; 0214; 0290]. He also teaches this limitation in [0002; 0006; 0024; 0034-35; 0038]. Regarding Claim 7, Villeneuve also teaches wherein when it is determined that the pulse signal is attenuated, the de-emphasis unit is configured to perform amplitude modulation for a rising edge of the pulse signal [0049-51; 0057; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0139; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Regarding Claim 8, Villeneuve also teaches wherein the pulse comparator is configured to: output a comparison result of a high level when the pulse signal is less than the reference voltage; and output a comparison result of a low level when the pulse signal is equal to or greater than the reference voltage [0049-51; 0057; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0139; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Kawazu also teaches this limitation in [0252; 0395]. Regarding Claim 9, Villeneuve also teaches wherein the determination unit is configured to: determine that the pulse signal is attenuated when receiving the comparison result of the high level from the pulse comparator; determine that the pulse signal is in a normal state when receiving the comparison result of the low level from the pulse comparator; and activate the de-emphasis unit when it is determined that the pulse signal is attenuated [0049-51; 0057; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0123; 0125; 0136; 0139; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Kawazu also teaches this limitation in [0252; 0395]. Regarding Claim 10, Villeneuve also teaches wherein the de-emphasis unit further comprises: a de-emphasis circuit connected to an output terminal of the output unit; a NOR gate [0211-19; 0323-25] configured to transmit an enable signal for activating the de-emphasis circuit when it is determined that the pulse signal is attenuated according to the determination; and a delay control connected to at least one input terminal of the NOR gate to delay and transmit input data that is input into the determination unit [0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0139; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Regarding Claim 11, Villeneuve also teaches wherein the de-emphasis circuit is configured to perform pulse width modulation of the pulse signal [0049-51; 0057; 0060-62; 0067; 0075; 0094-5; 0101-05; 0109; 0115-6; 0123; 0125; 0136; 0139; 0182; 0207-08; 0211-19; 0290]. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s amendments appear to only be a re-phrasing of the limitation where the flag is transmitted if the voltage value is above a threshold, and then ends, or discontinued if below the threshold in that the feedback controller controls (and terminates) a pulse width modulation. The examiner has updated the rejection to include paragraph citations for these references. Primary reference Villenueve extensively details pulse control circuits inside the operating device, both before the actual pulse is transmitted and afterwards ([0049-52; 0057; 0065] for example). Comparison with reference voltages is found in [0211-0219] with numerous extensive details. Details of a feedback controller controlling pulse width modulation can be found in quaternary reference He in paragraphs [Claims 1, 6, and 9; 0002-03; 0006; 0013; 0024; 0034-35; 0038]. Furthermore, if a condition is present that sends a flag above a certain threshold, but when that condition is not present, a flag is not transmitted – this is functionally interpreted as cessation of the flag transmission. If the below threshold condition exists that does not result in a flag or error transmission, it is functionally ceased. In response to applicant’s arguments on Page 7-8, the applicant mischaracterizes which limitations are taught by each of the individual references. Specifically, the applicant attributes numerous features cited to tertiary reference Wang, which is cited because the feedback correction (flag) is continuous until the feedback control operation is successful, at which time the feedback control operation is ended. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on 5712705227. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2020
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 31, 2023
Response Filed
Jun 19, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 26, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 17, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591050
TIME OF FLIGHT RANGING SYSTEM AND RANGING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571917
IMAGE SENSOR OPERATING BASED ON PLURALITY OF DELAY CLOCK SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571884
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR SINGLE PHOTON DEPTH IMAGING WITH IMPROVED EFFICIENCY USING COMPRESSIVE HISTOGRAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553994
AVALANCHE PHOTODIODE GAIN COMPENSATION FOR WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546895
DEVICE OF ACQUISITION OF A 2D IMAGE AND OF A DEPTH IMAGE OF A SCENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+11.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 957 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month