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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 10 March 2026 overcomes the prior rejection(s). However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (lDS) submitted on 03/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1, 8, 21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (US20200200913A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 4, lidar system 10 as implemented in Figs. 10 & 12), comprising:
a light emitter configured to emit a first light pulse at a first time and a second light pulse at a second time (Fig. 4, light emitter 30+32; ¶ 25, “designed to emit a pulsed flash of light”; Fig. 12, step 1210);
a first light detector having a first predetermined field of view, the first predetermined field of view covering a first range of distance from the light emitter (Fig. 4, first photodetector 20; ¶ 32, “the first field of view FV1 is the area in which reflected light may be sensed by the first photodetector 20”; ¶ 33, “the first photodetector 20 has a short range”);
a second light detector having a second predetermined field of view different from the first predetermined field of view, the second predetermined field of view covering a second range of distance different from the first range of distance from the light emitter (Fig. 4, second photodetector 24; ¶ 32, “the second field of view FV2 is the area in which reflected light may be sensed by the second photodetector 24”; ¶ 33, “the length of the first field of view FV1 is shorter than the length of the second field of view FV2,” and “the second photodetector 24 has a long range”);
a processor (Fig. 4, controller 16; ¶ 22); and a memory storing computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor (¶ 22, the memory stores “instructions executable by the processor”), cause the processor to:
cause the light emitter to emit the first light pulse at the first time (Fig. 12, step 1210; ¶ 58);
activate the first light detector during a first time-of-flight window, the first time-of-flight window corresponding to a time period during which return light corresponding to a given emitted light pulse would be within the first predetermined field of view (Fig. 12, step 1230; ¶ 60, “during the first time period, the first photodetector 20 is detecting photons reflected in the first field of view FV1”);
activate the second light detector during a second time-of-flight window, the second time-of-flight window corresponding to a time period during which return light corresponding to the given emitted light pulse would be within the second predetermined field of view (Fig. 12, step 1240; ¶ 62, “during the second time period, the second photodetector 24 is detecting photons reflected in the portion 62 of the second field of view FV2 that extends beyond the first field of view FV1”);
cause the light emitter to emit the second light pulse at the second time before return light from the first light pulse is detected, such that the first light pulse and the second light pulse are simultaneously traversing an environment for a period of time (Fig. 12, step 1210; ¶¶ 54, 58, “simultaneously emit[ting] a pulse of light from the first light source 18 and the second light source 22,” i.e., first and second light pulses traversing an environment simultaneously); and
determine, based on return light being detected by one of the first light detector and the second light detector, whether the return light is associated with the first light pulse or the second light pulse (¶¶ 53, 55, 60, 62, the controller “controls the timing of emission of light and collection of light to distinguish between reflected light in the first field of view FV1 and in the second field of view FV2” and “short-range detection occurs during the first time period and long-range detection occurs during the second time period,” i.e., detector timing distinguishes short-range FV1 returns from long-range FV2 returns, not first-pulse versus second-pulse returns from the same emitter).
Regarding claim 21, Smith discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the first time-of-flight window and the second time-of-flight window are non-overlapping in time during detection of the given emitted light pulse (Fig. 12, step 1230, first time period corresponds to when first photodetector is activated, while second photodetector is inactive, which is mutually exclusive, i.e., non-overlapping, with second time period in step 1240, where first photodetector is inactive, while second photodetector is active).
Regarding claim 23, Smith discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein determining whether the return light is associated with the first light pulse or the second light pulse comprises determining based on a correspondence between activation timing of the first light detector and the second light detector and expected return time of the first light pulse and the second light pulse (¶ 53, the controller “controls the timing of emission of light and collection of light to distinguish” the returns; ¶ 55, the controller activates the first detection in a first time period and second detection in a second time period, and “the time of flight of photons” to the longer-range second field of view “will be greater” than to the shorter-range first field of view; ¶ 60, first detector detects photons in FV1 because photons from the farther portion of FV2 “do not return within the first time period,” and ¶ 62, the second detector detects photos in the farther portion of FV2 because photos from FV1 “have returned before the second time period,” i.e., the system determines correspondence by matching detection activation timing to expected return time).
Claims 8, 24 and 26 are methods corresponding to the system of claims 1, 21 and 23. Accordingly, claims 8, 24 and 26 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claims 1, 21 and 23, respectively.
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 2, 4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Henderson (US20200158838A1).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein to activate the first light detector further comprises providing 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. However, Henderson teaches in ¶¶ 65, 67, 69, and 79 sequentially biasing a series of detectors to activate detection during its respective time window. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the timed detector activation of Smith with the bias-controlled detector activation of Henderson so that each detector is activated by application of a corresponding bias voltage, because doing so would have been a predictable use of known detector-bias control techniques to select active detectors and suppress inactive detector noise, thereby yielding improved detector selectivity and reduced noise during the respective time-of-flight windows. One skilled in the art would have recognized the benefits of such modification and the update would have been pursued and accomplished with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: provide a third bias voltage to the first light detector during the second time-of-flight window, the third bias voltage being lower than the first bias voltage (Smith, Fig. 12, step 1240, first light detector is off at the second time, where detector biasing is used to deactivate a detector as previously taught in Henderson ¶¶ 61, 65, 67, thus a lower bias, i.e., third bias, is associated with detector insensitivity/inactivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Smith in view of Henderson such that, during the second time-of-flight window when the first detector is deactivated, the first detector is held at a lower third bias voltage than the first bias voltage used during its active first time-of-flight window, because that would have been a predictable implementation of the bias deactivation taught by Henderson and would have reduced detector noise and cross-talk while the second detector is active.
Claims 9 and 11 are methods corresponding to the system of claims 2 and 4. Accordingly, claims 9 and 11 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claims 2 and 4, respectively.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Henderson further in view of Aull (US20110235771A1).
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 2. Smith in view of Henderson does not expressly teach that the first bias voltage and the second bias voltage are the same voltage level. However, Aull teaches that APDs in a detector array “may be biased globally to a resting voltage,” and also “may be biased globally above the Geiger-mode threshold” in ¶ 42, i.e., a common bias level may be shared across multiple detectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Henderson and implement the first and second detector activation voltages at the same voltage level as taught by Aull, because use of a common detector bias level would have simplified the bias circuitry, reduced implementation complexity, and promoted matched detector response across the detectors while still allowing for timed activation and deactivation control.
Claim 10 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 3.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Henderson further in view of Donovan (US20190146071A1).
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Henderson teaches the system according to claim 4, further teaches: the first light detector is an Avalanche Photodiode (APD) (Smith, ¶ 31). Smith in view of Henderson, however, does not teach that 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 operating time and be inoperable at the third bias voltage at a second operating time. Donovan teaches APD detector implementations for LIDAR including a controlled detector array using Geiger Mode APD (Fig. 10A; ¶ 62) and a controlled detector array using Linear APD (Fig. 10B; ¶ 62), with detector bias controlled independently. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smith in view of Henderson 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, ¶¶ 32, 63-65).
Claim 12 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Williams (US20170097263A1).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 1, however, does not disclose: 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 in graph 550 of FIG. 9 that APD bias modulation can define a detector gain profile, and specifically that the corresponding gain profile 554 is hyper-Gaussian (¶ 52). Williams also teaches that the APD bias waveform can be shaped and controlled by external circuitry (¶ 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector-activation instruction for the first detector of Smith with the Gaussian gain shaping of Williams because doing so would have been a predictable signal-shaping technique for tailoring detector sensitivity over the intended return interval, thereby reducing tail noise and improving timing selectivity (Williams, ¶¶ 50-52).
Claim 13 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Westell (US5028998A).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 1. The present embodiment of Smith does not disclose: further comprising a third light detector, […], and wherein the first to third light detectors are physically oriented to have different individual fields of view. However, Smith teaches adoption of a third detector 28 and third field of view FV3 in Figs. 5 and 7; ¶ 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Smith with the additional teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional field of view coverage and directional partitioning, thereby yielding a system with greater situational awareness (¶ 32).
Smith, as modified, 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 Smith 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 the system of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 7.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Rysinski (US20120169909A1).
Regarding claim 22, Smith discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that individual analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) are provided for each of the first light detector and the second light detector. Rysinski teaches a plurality of column ADCs “configured to correspond to the regular pixel columns” (¶¶ 8-9), and further teaches that “[e]ach column ADC 130 processes one column … in parallel” (¶ 25), with a plurality of column ADCs 130 corresponding respectively to pixel columns 110 (¶ 28; Fig. 3 shows separate ADC structures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smith with the teaches of Rysinski because dedicated per-detector conversion would have been a predictable application of parallel ADC architecture would improve data conversion speed, reduced power dissipation, and lowered detector noise (Rysinski, ¶ 3).
Claim 25 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 22. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 22.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights