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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment of the independent claims introduce “the first and second time-of-flight windows being non-overlapping during detection of the first light pulse.” Applicant contends the limitation distinguishes the independent claims over the prior art of Henderson in view of Rysinski applied under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant, on pp. 9-10 of the Remarks, contends Henderson in Fig. 8 illustrates overlap of the first and second strobe window. The examiner agrees that the embodiment captured in Fig. 8 teaches overlapping detection intervals. However, Fig. 8 of Henderson represents a completely different detection scheme embodiment and was in no way relied upon for the basis of rejection. Rather, the prior action relies expressly relies on the detector timing scheme embodied in Fig. 2A, which clearly illustrates non-overlapping detection windows between Strobe#0 and Strobe#1 (see Final Action, p. 6).
Applicant, on p. 10 of the Remarks, further contends Figs. 2A-B of Henderson as being “illustrative only” and “appear sequential for illustration… and does not require non-overlap.” MPEP § 2125(I) recognizes that drawings may themselves be sufficient disclosure to teach a claimed structure or relationship. Here, Fig. 2A of Henderson expressly illustrates a non-overlapping detection timing scheme, clearly teaching the limitation.
In sum, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson (US20200158838A1) in view of Rysinski (US20120169909A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson teaches a LIDAR system comprising:
a light emitter configured to emit a first light pulse and a second light pulse (FIG. 1A, emitter array 115; ¶ [0025], “an emitter configured to emit a first optical signal and a second optical signal”; FIG. 2A, Laser#0, Laser#X);
a [1: light detector] having a first predetermined field of view (FIG. 1A, detector array 110; Fig. 2A, Strobe#0; ¶ [0077]), the first predetermined field of covering a first range of distance from the light emitter (¶ [0077], 1-20 meters);
[2: the light detector] having a second predetermined field of view different from the first predetermined field of view (FIG. 1A, detector array 110; Fig. 2A, Strobe#1; ¶ [0077]), the second predetermined field of view covering a second range of distance different from the first range of distance from the light emitter, the second predetermined field of view not overlapping the first predetermined field of view (¶ [0077], 20-40 meters);
a processor (FIGS. 1A-B, control circuit 105, ¶¶ [0055], [0062], and [0063]); and
a memory storing computer-executable instructions (FIGS. 1A-B, control circuit 105, ¶¶ [0055], [0062], [0063], and [0114]), that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
cause the light emitter to emit the first light pulse (FIGS. 1A-B, control circuit 105 and emitter array 115; FIG. 2A, Laser#0; ¶¶ [0075]-[0077]);
activate the [1: light detector] during a first time-of-flight window, the first time-of-flight window corresponding to a window during which return light corresponding to the first light pulse would be within the first predetermined field of view (FIGS. 1A-B, control circuit 105, detector array 110; FIG. 2A, Strobe#0; ¶¶ [0075]-[0077]); and
activate [2: the light detector] during a second time-of-flight window, the second time-of-flight window corresponding to a window during which return light corresponding to the first light pulse would be within the second predetermined field of view (FIGS. 1A-B, control circuit 105, detector array 110; FIG. 2A, Strobe#1; ¶¶ [0075]-[0077]), the first and second time-of-flight windows being non-overlapping during detection of the first light pulse (FIG. 2A, Strobe#0 does not overlap with Strobe#1);
cause the light emitter to emit the second light pulse after the first light pulse (FIGS. 1A-B, control circuit 105 and emitter array 115; FIG. 2A, Laser#0; ¶¶ [0075]-[0077]); and
associate light detected by [3: the light detector] with either the first light pulse or the second light pulse based on a predetermined correspondence between activation timing of one of [4: the light detector] and expected return time of each light pulse (¶¶ [0065]-[0067] and [0075]-[0077]), [5: …].
The referenced embodiment of Henderson does not expressly teach: (1) “first light detector”; (2) “second light detector”; (3) “the first light detector and second light detector”; and, (4) “each light detector.” However, Henderson in a separate embodiment, teaches a first light detector (Fig. 7, Column 0) and a second light detector (Fig. 7, Column 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light detector of Henderson with the further teachings of a first and second light detector of Henderson since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would recognize that the staggered activation of detector subsets during each strobe window confers the optical advantage of reducing instantaneous power consumption, mitigating SPAD saturation and thermal load, and enables parallel depth sampling across the detect array, improving frame efficiency and reducing time to acquire a full depth map. This update represents a known design benefit yielding predictable enhancements in optical performance and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan.
Henderson as modified does not teach: (5) “wherein individual analog to digital converters (ADCs) are provided for each of the first light detector and the second light detector.” However, Rysinski teaches the limitation in Fig. 1, 130. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each detector of Henderson individual ADCs as taught by Rysinski with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so would enable high-speed data conversion, reduced power dissipation, lower read noise, and higher dynamic range (see Rysinski, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 2, Henderson in view of Rysinski, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein to activate the first light detector further comprises to provide a first bias voltage to the first light detector, and wherein to activate the second light detector further comprises to provide a second bias voltage to the second light detector (Henderson, ¶¶ [0065], [0067], [0069], and [0079], detector is biased when activated).
Regarding claim 4, Henderson in view of Rysinski, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: provide a third bias voltage to the first light detector at the second time-of-flight window (Henderson, Fig. 2A, the first light detector is off at the second time; ¶¶ [0065] & [0067], biasing the first detector to deactivate), the third bias voltage being lower than the first bias voltage (Henderson, ¶ [0061], lower bias associated with insensitivity/inactivity).
Claims 8-9 and 11 are method claims corresponding to system claims 1-2 and 4, respectively, and are therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Rysinski and Aull (US20110235771A1).
Regarding claim 3, Henderson in view of Rysinski teaches the system of claim 2, and however does not teach: wherein the first bias voltage and second bias voltage are the same voltage level. However, Aull teaches the limitation in ¶ [0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bias voltages of Henderson in view of Rysinski with the teachings of Aull, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would have recognized that applying the same bias for multi-detector activation as taught by Aull would confer the advantages of improved detector array uniformity specifically across pixel sensitivity and timing, and further provide for more simplified biasing circuity, thereby yielding a system with greater accuracy and fewer measurement artifacts. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is a method corresponding to system claim 3 and is therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Rysinski and Donovan (US20190146071A1).
Regarding claim 5, Henderson in view of Rysinski teaches the system of claim 4, and further teaches: wherein the first light detector is an Avalanche Photodiode (APD) (Henderson FIG. 1A, detector array 110, ¶ [0061]), […]. Henderson in view of Rysinski does not teach: wherein the first light detector is configured to operate in a Geiger Mode at the first bias voltage or in a linear mode at a first time and be inoperable at the third bias voltage at a second time. However, Donovan teaches the limitation in ¶ [0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light detector of Henderson in view of Rysinski with the teachings of Donovan with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase the detector’s signal-to-noise ratio and enhance measurement sensitivity, thereby yielding a system with greater accuracy and detection reliability (Donovan, ¶¶ [0032], [0063]- [0065]).
Claim 12 is a method corresponding to system claim 5 and is therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Smits in further view of Williams (US20170097263A1).
Regarding claim 6, Henderson in view of Rysinski teaches the system of claim 1. This combination fails to teach: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to send an instruction to activate the first light detector based on a Gaussian function. However, Williams teaches the limitation in FIG. 9, graph 550, ¶ [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Henderson in view of Rysinski with the Gaussian gain profile biasing as taught by Williams with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so improves the signal-to-noise ratio and enables higher-speed, lower-error detection, thereby yielding a system with greater signal sensitivity and enhanced measurement accuracy (Williams, ¶¶ [0050]-[0052]).
Claim 13 is a method corresponding to system claim 6 and is therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Smits in further view of Westell (US5028998A).
Regarding claim 7, Henderson in view of Rysinski teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches: comprising a third light detector (Henderson, Fig. 7, Column 2), […], and wherein the first to third light detectors are physically oriented to have different individual fields of view (Henderson, Fig. 7, Column 0 through Column 2, associated with Strobe#0 through Strobe#2, each associated with a different field of view ¶ [0077]). Henderson in view of Rysinski does not teach: wherein the first light detector, second light detector, and third light detector are separated by a spacing that is logarithmic. However, Westell teaches the limitation in Col: 13:21-33; Fig. 10C, detector array 50 with spacing between detectors based on a logarithmic factor in base 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Henderson in view of Rysinski with the logarithmic spacing of detectors as taught by Westell, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would have recognized that applying logarithmic spacing of detectors as taught by Westell would enable a wide field-of-view with greater measurement uniformity and quality, thereby yielding a system more stable accuracy and detection performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is a method corresponding to system claim 7 and is therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Finkelstein (US20190250257A1) which discloses the activation and deactivation of SPADs for respective strobe windows between pulses further configured to output correlation signals representing the detection of photons having times of arrival within a predetermined correlation time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645