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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The additional information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by the applicant and listed below have been considered and are included in the file.
09 January 2026
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-29 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 1, 25 and 28 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 09 January 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Prior provisional rejections of claims 28 and 29 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (pg. 8 of Remarks) filed 09 January 2025 regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 28 have been noted where applicant is not filing a terminal disclaimer at the current time. Submitted amendments have overcome the provisional rejection in the prior office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10 of Remarks, filed 09 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art in response to amendments to the claim(s). Applicant argues that the newly amended limitations are not taught by the previously referenced sections in Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 20210247499 A1), which is persuasive as the newly added limitations are not found in those paragraphs, specifically references paragraphs [0106] and [0112] – [0113]. While these limitations are not explicitly found in these paragraphs, taking Zhu as a whole reference leads to the updated rejection provided within this office action under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-14 (lines 1-3) of Remarks, filed 09 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art in response to amendments to the claim(s). Applicant argues that the newly amended limitations are not taught by the previously referenced sections in Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin, US 20210144325 A1) and in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 20210247499 A1), which is persuasive as the newly added limitations are not found in those paragraphs. Specifically, it is noted that paragraphs [0068], [0084], and [0091] within Jin do not teach the newly amended limitations, nor do the referenced paragraphs of Zhu ([0106] and [0112] – [0113]). Applicant also argues that the newly amended limitations are not taught by the previously references sections in While these limitations are not explicitly found in these paragraphs, taking both Jin and Zhu as a whole leads to the updated rejection provided within this office action under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has stated that the prior art cited Jin in view of Zhu does not teach the limitation where a control circuit of a lidar system determines detection intervals for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot based on a shot list that defines a sequence of laser pulses.
As noted in the prior office action (paragraph 9, pages 4-5) Jin teaches defining a time period for detection, T2, as a time when the pixel array senses pulses reflected from an object and generates charge. This time period may additionally include sub time frames defined by photo gates, which may have delay time dependent upon estimated distances of objects. The system therefore would initiate reception after a global reset time, indicative of a point to start detection, and end detection and a previously determined time to begin readout of the pixel array. Jin additionally sets an order of emissions and receptions based on mode(s), where the modes are determined by a set of range windows and delays related to these windows. While this is not explicitly called a “shot list” in Jin, it is establishing a sequence of emission/detection combinations based on expected ranges. As is known in the art of time-of-flight (ToF) systems, expected ranges directly relate to expected detection intervals.
Zhu discloses selecting pixel sets, which are subsets of a detector array, where “ ([0049]); The detecting module 120 may comprise a detector array 121, which can be, e.g., a two-dimensional array of photosensors that each photosensor may be individually addressable and/or controlled. A photosensor may correspond to a particular pixel of resolution in a ranging measurement. The detector array 121 may be operably coupled to a detector circuit 123 that is configured to dynamically enable/disable individual pixels in the array thereby providing a detecting module 120 with improved dynamic range and an improved resistance to cross talk effects.”, where the detecting module may receive commands such as those which “([0056]); specify one or more operational parameters for the detector array at pixel level (e.g., a subset of SPADs to be activated in a pixel or a selection of a subset of return signals for forming a sensor read-out).”
Zhu additionally teaches that a pattern generator within the controller of the system may set matched emission and detection patterns ([0086] – [0087]), which may map to specific selections of emitters and detectors ([0107] – [0111]), and that these choices may be pre-set or dynamically changed based on operation modes such as environmental factors and eye-safety requirements. Zhu also notes that the operational parameters may be adjusted “at the pixel level or sub-pixel level, and/or can be adjusted per image frame or per distance measurement.” ([0007]).
It is well known in the art of scanning LIDAR and LADAR to have a system with a predetermined pattern of emission so to specifically scan an environment or part of an environment, and to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is an obvious combination such that the subset of detectors within a pixel, as taught by Zhu, could be operated upon the detection scheme of Jin where detection interval times correspond to an expected return windows and a sequence of those windows is predetermined or established by the system.
Claims 2-24 are dependent upon claim 1. The combination of Jin and Zhu is maintained as being an obvious combination which teaches all limitations of claim 1, and therefore the further rejections of claims 2-24 are also maintained.
Regarding claim 25, the claim includes newly introduced limitations similar to those of claim 1 as applied to a method for controlling a lidar receiver, and therefore the arguments from claim 1 are similarly applied.
Claims 26 and 27 are dependent upon claim 25. The combination of Jin and Zhu is maintained as being an obvious combination which teaches all limitations of claim 25, and therefore the further rejections of claims 26 and 27 are also maintained.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pages 1-2 of the specification include numerous mentions of "U.S. patent application _______".
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, “based” should read “based”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin, US 20210144325 A1), and in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 20210247499 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 25 Jin teaches a lidar system, and a method for controlling a lidar receiver, respectively, comprising:
a lidar receiver, wherein the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector, the photodetector comprising an array of pixels ([0314] - [0032]; Fig. 1 sensor (120) with pixel array (121));
and a control circuit for controlling the lidar receiver ([0029]; Fig. 1 processor (130) or driving circuit (124));
wherein the control circuit determines data indicative of a detection interval for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot based on a plurality of defined criteria ([0066]; Fig. 5 sensing time (T2)),
wherein the control circuit determines the detection interval based on a shot list that defines a sequence of laser pulse shots targeting different range points ([0084] - [0085], [0090] - [0095]; where the controller sets emission order by mode, and where modes are representative of a set of range windows and detection delay relates to the windows),
wherein the control circuit generates and provides control data to the lidar receiver for controlling how the lidar receiver detects the return (2) second data for controlling when to start collection from the identified pixel set for detecting the return, and (3) third data for controlling when to stop collection from the identified pixel set, wherein the second data and the third data are based on the determined detection interval data and define a time period for detecting the return ([0066], [0078] - [0085]; Fig. 5 sensing time (T2) shown in Figs. 7, 8 where collection is started at the end of delay time TD and ended depending on operation mode);
and wherein the lidar receiver, in response to the provided control data, (2) stops readout from the identified pixel set at a conclusion of the defined time period in accordance with the third data ([0072], where T3 readout time occurs after T2, and specific readouts from pixel groups, for example a first row, can occur),
and wherein the control circuit and lidar receiver perform their respective operations for a plurality of returns from a plurality of laser pulse shots ([0008]).
Jin fails to teach identifying specific pixels as a pixel set within the array to use for detection, and does not explicitly mention assigning pixel sets based on an emission pattern.
Zhu teaches a control circuit which generates and provides control data to the lidar receiver for controlling how the lidar receiver detects the return, wherein the control data comprises (1) first data that identifies a pixel set of the array to use for detecting the return ([0049]; Chosen pixels are selected based on mapping relationship with sensing pattern),
wherein the second and third data define shot- specific start and stop times for collection from different pixel sets that follow a sequenced spatial pattern corresponding to the sequenced spatial pattern of the laser pulse shots ([0040] - [0041], [0056], [0086] - [0087], [0095] and [0107] - [0111], where the system has a pattern generator that sets matched emitter and detector patterns based on a firing pattern which includes spatial and temporal information, where the firing pattern may be configured during operation or dynamically altered),
wherein the lidar receiver, in response to the provided control data, (1) selects the pixel set identified by the first data for readout to support detecting the return at a start of the defined time period in accordance with the second data ([0056] - [0058]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Zhu to first identify a subset of pixels within the array for use in detection, and to assign a pattern of detection to a specific pattern of emission based on a firing pattern, which relates to a predetermined interval of time (and range) for detection with a reasonable expectation of success. The system of Jin may also utilize operation modes, which can be selected to increase resolution or accuracy, be related to field-of-view, or specifically select time frames of detection based on desired range of detection ([0103] – [0108]). Incorporating a pixel subset associated with these detection ranges into the processor would have predictable results. Additionally, establishing a scan pattern is well known in the art of scanning LIDAR, and the system of Zhu discusses setting a firing pattern, where a pattern generator controls both a firing and sensing pattern, and can assign a subset of sensors to readout based on expected returns from the emission pattern ([0107] – [0111]).
Regarding claim 2, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the determined detection interval data comprises a minimum range for an object in a field of view to be targeted with the laser pulse shot ([0080], [0087]; Fig. 7 Delay time (TD) may be shortened for nearby objects.).
Regarding claim 3, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the determined detection interval data comprises a maximum range for an object in a field of view to be targeted with the laser pulse shot ([0080], [0087]; Fig. 7 Delay time (TD) may be extended for distant objects).
Regarding claim 4, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the determined detection interval data comprises (1) a minimum range for an object in a field of view to be targeted with the laser pulse shot and (2) a maximum range for the object, and wherein the control circuit translates the minimum and maximum ranges into the second and third data ([0006], [0132], where a window time width is based on the selected measuring range of depth and its lower and upper limits.)
Regarding claim 5, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1.
Jin fails to teach identifying specific pixels as a pixel set within the array to use for detection.
Zhu teaches that each of the identified pixel sets comprises one or more of the pixels of the array ([0043]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Zhu to identify subsets of the pixel array as comprising one or more of the pixels within the array, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1.
Jin fails to teach identifying specific pixels as a pixel set within the array to use for detection based on desired range points.
Zhu teaches that the control circuit identifies the pixel sets for the first data with respect to the laser pulse shots based on a plurality of range points in a field of view that are targeted by the laser pulse shots ([0066], [0104] where a subset of pixels producing sensor output signals may be chosen due to real-time conditions such as estimated measurement range.)
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Zhu that the pixels identified are related to a specific set of range points with a reasonable expectation of success. The operation modes of Jin, which can be selected to be related to field-of-view or desired range of detection ([0103] – [0108]) would incorporate a pixel subset associated with these detection ranges into the processor with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 6.
Jin fails to teach identifying specific pixels as a pixel set within the array to use for detection based on desired range points.
Zhu teaches the identified pixel sets follow a pattern that correspond to the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots ([0056], where a sensing pattern of the detection module is synched with the firing pattern).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Zhu that the pixels identified are related to a specific set of range points with a reasonable expectation of success. The operation modes of Jin, which can be selected to be related to field-of-view or desired range of detection ([0103] – [0108]) would incorporate a pixel subset associated with these detection ranges into the processor with predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the time periods defined by the detection interval data for the laser pulse shots are non-overlapping ([0067]).
Regarding claim 11, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising
a signal processing circuit ([0027]; Fig. 1 (130)) that processes sensed signal data from the identified pixel sets to (1) detect the returns within the sensed signal data and (2) compute return data for the detected returns ([0038] - [0039])
Regarding claim 12, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 11, wherein
the signal processing circuit comprises a plurality of processors that share processing of the sensed signal data ([0038], where the processor (130) may include a CPU, ALU, digital signal processor, FPGA, and the system may be controlled by processor (130) and/or processor (230)).
Regarding claim 13, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the signal processing circuit updates a lidar point cloud with the computed return data ([0008], [0126], where a three-dimensional depth image is also described as a 3D point cloud which is used to detect objects in a field of view).
Regarding claim 24, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the array comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array of pixels ([0032]; Fig. 1 pixel array (121) includes a plurality of pixels arranged two-dimensionally).
Regarding claim 26, Jin as modified above teaches the method of claim 25, wherein
the determined detection interval data comprises a minimum range for an object in a field of view to be targeted with the laser pulse shot ([0080], [0087]; Fig. 7 Delay time (TD) may be shortened for nearby objects.).
Regarding claim 27, Jin as modified above teaches the method of claim 25, wherein
the determined detection interval data comprises a maximum range for an object in a field of view to be targeted with the laser pulse shot ([0080], [0087]; Fig. 7 Delay time (TD) may be extended for distant objects).
Claims 7 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin, US 20210144325 A1), in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 20210247499 A1) and further in view of Campbell et al. (hereinafter Campbell, US 20180275249 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 6.
Jin fails to teach identifying range points within detected data by azimuth and elevation angles.
Campbell teaches the range points targeted by the laser pulse shots are identified by azimuth and elevation angles ([0045]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to classify detected points by azimuth and elevation angles with a reasonable expectation of success as this is a well-known method of categorizing points within a data point cloud in the field.
Regarding claim 14, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1.
Jin fails to teach specifics regarding the transmitter and how the direction of emitted light is directed into the environment, including use of a scannable mirror.
Campbell teaches a lidar transmitter, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror which includes one or more scannable mirrors, and wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward a plurality of targeted range points in a field of view via the scannable mirror ([0048], [0052]; Fig. 3 transmitted via scanner (120)).
Jin describes that output pulses from a light unit may emit in a range of angles corresponding to a selected operation mode ([0107] – [0108]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to specifically include a mirror to direct emitted pulses into a field of view with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 14.
Jin fails to teach use of a scannable mirror in resonant mode.
Campbell teaches the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in a resonant mode ([0052]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to use a scannable mirror in resonant mode as taught by Campbell to modify the transmitter of Jin with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 15.
Jin fails to teach the specific range of frequencies the resonant mode of a scannable mirror should fall within.
Campbell teaches the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 100 Hz and 20 kHz ([0091]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to use a scannable mirror with a resonant mode within a specific range of frequencies to direct emitted light from a light source with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 15.
Jin fails to teach the specific range of frequencies the resonant mode of a scannable mirror should fall within.
Campbell teaches the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 10 kHz and 15 kHz ([0091]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to use a scannable mirror with a resonant mode within a specific range of frequencies to direct emitted light from a light source with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 14.
Jin fails to teach specifics regarding the transmitter and how the direction of emitted light is directed into the environment, including use of a scannable mirror which comprises two scannable mirrors.
Campbell teaches the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror, wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors ([0054]; Fig. 3 transmitted via scanner (120) with mirrors (300-1) and (300-2)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify (primary) to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to use a transmitter with two scannable mirrors would have a reasonable expectation of success. Jin describes that output pulses from a light unit may emit in a range of angles corresponding to a selected operation mode ([0107] – [0108]). Use of two scannable mirrors, to direct in both a horizontal and vertical scanning path within a field of view, would have predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 18.
Jin fails to teach the scanning pattern specific to a second scannable mirror.
Campbell teaches the lidar transmitter scans the second scannable mirror in a point-to-point mode according to a step function that varies as a function of the range points targeted with the laser pulse shots ([0045]-[0046], [0065]-[0068]; Fig. 5 where a scan pattern is defined where each point (210) is separated by an appropriate time or angular interval, where each point may be associated with one or more laser pulses and/or corresponding distance measurements).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to set a specific scan pattern of the range points within the operational modes of Jin with a reasonable expectation of success. Jin describes that output pulses from a light unit may emit in a range of angles corresponding to a selected operation mode ([0107] – [0108]), and additionally that operation modes can have first, second, and third modes where modes are defined by different ranges of distances ([0090] – [0096]).
Regarding claim 20, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 18.
Jin fails to teach specifics regarding the transmitter and how the direction of emitted light is directed into the environment, including use of a scannable mirror which comprises two scannable mirrors in a specific order.
Campbell teaches the second scannable mirror is optically downstream from the first scannable mirror ([0054]; Fig. 3 transmitted via scanner (120) where light reflected from mirror (300-1) then is reflected off mirror (300-2)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify (primary) to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to use a transmitter with two scannable mirrors would have a reasonable expectation of success. Jin describes that output pulses from a light unit may emit in a range of angles corresponding to a selected operation mode ([0107] – [0108]). Use of two scannable mirrors, where specifically the second mirror is downstream from the first, to direct in both a horizontal and vertical scanning path within a field of view, would have predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 14.
Jin fails to teach a bistatic arrangement between the transmitter and photodetector.
Zhu teaches the lidar transmitter and the photodetector are in a bistatic arrangement with respect to each other ([0059]; Fig. 2 optical axis of emitting module (200) is not in same location as optical axis of detecting module (210)).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Jin to incorporate a bistatic orientation of a transmitter and receiver with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 14.
Jin fails to teach a control circuit scheduling the pulses according to a laser energy model.
Zhu teaches a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots ([0059]; Fig. 2 emitting module (200) which may comprise a plurality of surface-emitting diodes, such as VCSELs (201)), and wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots according to a laser energy model for the laser source ([0078] - [0084], emitters may be individually powered based on the firing pattern, where the firing pattern may be generated based on different requirements.)
Jin teaches use of an intensifier, which may amplify reflected/detected light in response to light output from the light unit ([0135]), as well as use of a defined global reset time for the system ([0066]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Jin to incorporate the use of generating light signals in accordance with a laser energy model with a reasonable expectation of success. A system which includes amplification as well as timing processes could additionally take consideration of an energy model for the light source when scheduling the pulses with predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 22.
Jin as modified above fails to teach scheduling laser pulse shots in accordance with both a laser energy model and mirror motion model.
Campbell teaches the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots according to the laser energy model ([0036]) and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror ([0034], one or more scanning mirrors are coupled to a controller to guide the output beam in a desired scan pattern).
Jin describes that output pulses from a light unit may emit in a range of angles corresponding to a selected operation mode ([0107] – [0108]), in addition to global reset timing ([0066]), so incorporating the mirrors, mirror motion model and laser energy model of Campbell would have predictable results. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Campbell, where pulses are scheduled, both taking into account a laser energy model and a mirror motion model, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin, US 20210144325 A1), in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 20210247499 A1) and further in view of Field et al. (hereinafter Field, US 20190355773 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Jin as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, which includes a control circuit ([0029]; Fig. 1 processor (130) or driving circuit (124)).
Jin as modified above does not teach defining activation times based on settle times for pixels nor identifying specific pixel sets to activate.
Field teaches that activation times for (the) identified pixel sets based on a settle time for the pixels and ([0033] - [0036]; where settle, or rise, times denote time frames when SPADs may not be armed and therefore may not detect a photon).
Zhu teaches a system which (2) activates the identified pixel sets based on the defined activation times to enable collections to start from the identified pixel sets in accordance with the second data ([0054] - [0055], one or more photodetectors, which may be SPADs, are activated according to the sensing pattern.)
Jin discloses a timing process which includes a global reset time T1, where the system includes time to reset the photodetectors within the array ([0065] – [0066]). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Jin to incorporate the teachings of Field, where activation times can include settle times for pixels, and Zhu to activate specific identified pixels within a detector array based on times (which include the aforementioned settle times) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu, US 20210247499 A1) in view of Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin, US 20210144325 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Zhu teaches an article of manufacture for controlling a lidar receiver, wherein the lidar receiver comprises a photodetector, the photodetector comprising an array of pixels, ([0049]; Fig. 1 detector array (121)) the article of manufacture comprising:
machine-readable code that is resident on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium ([0057]; Fig. 1 control unit (130)), wherein the code defines processing operations to be performed by a processor to cause the processor to
process a shot list, the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view ([0041], [0056], where multi-pulse sequences may be emitted in the 3D environment); and
determine a plurality of detection range values associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, wherein the determined detection range values for use in controlling a lidar receiver with respect to ranges by which the lidar receiver will detect returns from the laser pulse shots, ([0064]-[0065], [0081], [0084]; the firing pattern may be generated dynamically to accommodate different measurement ranges, or other conditions, such as near versus far-field detection, and firing patterns may also be mapped to detector arrangements) wherein the defined criteria comprises estimates of ranges to the plurality of range points targeted by the laser pulse shots ([0037], [0104], where the one or more real-time conditions included in parameters determining sensor output may comprise an estimated measurement range).
Zhu does not explicitly teach specifically setting start and stop times for the lidar receiver based on range values.
Jin teaches a LIDAR system where a lidar receiver comprises a photodetector with an array of pixels,
wherein a controller determines a plurality of detection range values associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, ([0066]; Fig. 5 sensing time (T2)), and
wherein the detection range values are shot-specific values that define, for each laser pulse shot, when the lidar receiver will start and stop detecting returns from that laser pulse shot ([0084] - [0085], [0090] - [0095]; where the controller sets emission order by mode, and where modes are representative of a set of range windows and detection delay of laser pulses relates to the windows).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Jin to first identify a subset of pixels within the array for use in detection, and to assign a pattern of detection to a specific pattern of emission based on a firing pattern, which relates to a predetermined interval of time (and range) for detection for each range window with a reasonable expectation of success. The system of Jin utilizes operation modes, which can be selected to increase resolution or accuracy, be related to field-of-view, or specifically select time frames of detection based on desired range of detection ([0103] – [0108]). Incorporating the time windows based on range modes of Jin into the pixel subsets and firing patterns of Zhu would have predictable results of aligning emissions and detections based on specific needed range windows. Additionally, establishing a scan pattern is well known in the art of scanning LIDAR, and the system of Zhu discusses setting a firing pattern, where a pattern generator controls both a firing and sensing pattern, and can assign a subset of sensors to readout based on expected returns from the emission pattern ([0107] – [0111]).
Regarding claim 29, Zhu as modified above teaches the article of manufacture of claim 28, wherein the code further defines processing operations that cause the processor to:
access a lidar point cloud to determine range estimates for a plurality of shot coordinates from the shot list ([0037] - [0039]);
and assign detection range values for the laser pulse shots that target the shot coordinates from the lidar point cloud based on the determined range estimates ([0055] - [0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shand (US 20190041503 A1) teaches an operating system for a LIDAR device which establishes a nominal detection range and detection periods, which are indicative of one or more ranges, and further establishes an emission and detection timing sequence which determines operation.
Gilliland et al. (US 20120154785 A1) teaches a vehicular collision avoidance system which uses flash LADAR sensors which include global timing references to align emission, detection, and include mapping of portions of the environment being sampled to specific pixels within the detector.
Laifenfeld et al. (US 20190018119 A1) teaches a LIDAR system and method of operation where pulse sequences of emission and detection are used to form histograms of environmental distances, and a timing control system which can be configured to emit and detect the pulse sequences based on expected (set) range/time periods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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 at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645