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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/19/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated June 16, 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 23, and 24 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-27 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On 7-10, Applicant argues that neither Jin nor Jin ‘325 teaches “wherein the control circuit uses a shot list to schedule the plurality of laser pulse shots and to determine the plurality of detection intervals based on targeted range points identified in the shot list for the plurality of laser pulse shots.” However, Jin teaches in Fig. 11A a sequence of laser beam shots sent along a light scanning pattern. The controller controls the light source to emit the laser beam along the scanning pattern (Paragraph [0090]). Jin’s controller controlling the light source to emit laser beams along a scanning pattern is equivalent to the limitation: “the control circuit uses a shot list to schedule the plurality of laser pulse shots.” Furthermore, Jin’s exposure intervals are determined based on the sequential laser beams (Paragraph [0091]). Therefore, the combination of Jin and Jin ‘325 teaches the limitation of claim 1 and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the sets of the array" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al., US 20210199781 A1 ("Jin") in view of Jin et al., US 20210144325 A1 (“Jin ’325”).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses a system comprising:
a photodetector array, the photodetector array comprising a plurality of pixels for sensing signals representative of incident light on the plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, ToF Sensor 140, pixel array 141, Paragraph [0027]);
a plurality of readout channels from the photodetector array (Fig. 3A, each pixel PXa has readout circuit RO1 and RO2, Paragraph [0030]-[0031], Paragraph [0037]), wherein the plurality of readout channels permit a plurality of readouts of sensed signals from different sets of the pixels at the same time (Fig. 11A, readout interval RO simultaneous for pixels in each row, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]);
a signal processing circuit (Fig. 4A, analog processing circuit 144, Paragraph [0049]); and
a control circuit (Fig. 4A, timing controller 146, Paragraph [0050]), wherein the control circuit determines a plurality of detection intervals (Fig. 11A, exposure interval EXP, Paragraph [0091]) for controlling the signal processing circuit to detect returns from a plurality of laser pulse shots via different sets of the pixels (Fig. 4A, timing controller 146, Paragraph [0050]), wherein the control circuit uses a shot list to schedule the plurality of laser pulse shots (Fig. 11A, laser beam spots, light scanning, Paragraph [0090]) and to determine the plurality of detection intervals based on targeted range points identified in the shot list for the plurality of laser pulse shots (Fig. 11A, exposure interval EXP, Paragraph [0091]), […] and wherein the signal processing circuit processes a plurality of sensed signals read out from the photodetector array to (1) detect the returns and (2) compute return information based on the detected returns (Fig. 4A, analog processing circuit 144, Paragraph [0049]).
Jin does not teach: wherein each detection interval is specifically timed to correspond to an expected return time window for its associated laser pulse shot.
However, Jin ‘325 teaches a timing scheme for detecting a reflected light pulse. The timing scheme includes a delay time which is chosen depending on the measuring range of depth selected by the processor. For an object at a close distance, the delay time has a shorter width. For an object at a long distance, the delay time has a longer width. After the delay time, a window time occurs where the reflected pulse signal is detected by the pixel array during the first to fourth photogate signals. The window time width can also be adjusted depending on the operation mode. Thus, the detection interval is timed to correspond to the expected time window for an associated laser pulse (Fig. 7, delay time TD, window time TW, reflection pulse signal RP, first to fourth photo gate signals PG1 to PG4, Paragraph [0080],[0082]; See also Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jin’s exposure intervals by timing the detection interval to correspond to the returned light, which is disclosed by Jin ‘325. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of a depth measurement of an object, as suggested by Jin ‘325 (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 2, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of readout channels allow for control circuit to define a plurality of detection intervals that overlap (Jin, Fig. 11A, exposure intervals EXP for R1-th and R2-th rows overlap for each scanned column, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of detection intervals are overlapping (Jin, Fig. 11A, exposure intervals EXP for R1 and R2 overlap for each scanned column, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 4, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control circuit identifies the different sets of the pixels to read out from based on a plurality of range points that are targeted by the laser pulse shots (Jin, Fig. 11A, laser beam, light scanning pattern and corresponding pixel exposure intervals EXP, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 5, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 4-, wherein the shot list identifies the targeted range points for the laser pulse shots by azimuth and elevation angles (Jin, Fig. 11A, laser beam, light scanning pattern ranges over azimuth and elevation angles, Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the different sets of the pixels comprises one or more of the pixels of the photodetector array (Jin, Fig. 11A, Pixels at R1, C1 and R2, C1, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 7, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each determined detection interval has a corresponding pixel set from which sensed signals are read out, and wherein each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals comprises (1) first data that indicates when to start collection from its corresponding pixel set and (2) second data that indicates when to stop collection its corresponding pixel set (Jin, Fig. 11A, start and stop of each exposure intervals EXP, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 8, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 7 wherein, for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise estimates of minimum and maximum ranges for the range point targeted by a laser pulse shot associated with that determined detection interval (Jin ‘325, Fig. 7, delay time TD, window time TW, Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jin’s exposure intervals by introducing a delay time between the light signal and photogate signals based on the expected object distance, which is disclosed by Jin ‘325. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of a depth measurement of an object, as suggested by Jin ‘325 (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 9, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the control circuit translates the minimum and maximum range estimates into start and stop collection times for the pixel sets corresponding to the determined detection intervals (Jin ‘325, Fig. 7, delay time TD, window time TW, first to fourth photo gate signals PG1 to PG4, Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jin’s exposure intervals by introducing a delay time between the light signal and photogate signals based on the expected object distance, which is disclosed by Jin ‘325. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the accuracy of a depth measurement of an object, as suggested by Jin ‘325 (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 10, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control circuit activates pixels of the photodetector array to be used for detecting the returns sufficiently prior to when collections are to start from the activated pixels for a pixel settle time to have passed when the collections are to start from the activated pixels (Jin, Fig. 11A, reset interval RST before exposure interval EXP, Paragraph [0036], Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a plurality of processors that share processing of the sensed signals (Jin, Fig. 4A, analog processing circuit 144, data buffer 145, timing controller 146, Paragraph [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the signal processing circuit updates a lidar point cloud with the computed return information (Jin, Fig. 4A, analog processing circuit 144, data buffer 145, Paragraph [0049]-[0050]: generates depth data using the digital signal).
Regarding claim 13, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a lidar transmitter, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror (Jin, Fig. 2A, optical device 120a MEMs mirror, Paragraph [0029]), and wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward targeted range points via the scannable mirror (Jin, Fig. 2A, light signal EL, Paragraph [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in a resonant mode (Jin, Fig. 11A, light scanning pattern oscillates over rows, Paragraph [0028], Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 23, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 1-, wherein the sets of the array comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array of pixels (Jin, Fig. 1, pixel array 141, Paragraph [0027]).
Claims 24-27 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-4. Claims 24-27 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, in further view of Campbell et al., US 20180275249 A1 ("Campbell").
Regarding claim 15, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 14.
Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, does not teach: wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 100 Hz and 20 kHz.
However, Campbell does teach a resonant mirror scanner that may be configured to scan an output beam at a frequency of either 1 Hz, 5 Hz, 10 Hz, 20 Hz, 40 Hz, 60 Hz, 100 Hz, 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 5 kHz, or 10 kHz (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MEMs scanning mirror disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by scanning the mirror at one of the frequencies taught by Campbell, such as 10 kHz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement a particular scan pattern, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 16, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 14.
Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, does not teach: wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 10 kHz and 15 kHz.
However, Campbell does teach a resonant mirror scanner that may be configured to scan an output beam at a frequency of either 1 Hz, 5 Hz, 10 Hz, 20 Hz, 40 Hz, 60 Hz, 100 Hz, 500 Hz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 5 kHz, or 10 kHz (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the MEMs scanning mirror disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by scanning the mirror at one of the frequencies taught by Campbell, such as 10 kHz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement a particular scan pattern, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 17, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 13.
Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, does not teach: wherein 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.
However, Campbell does teach two scanning mirrors, where the first scanning mirror can scan the output beam horizontally and the second scanning mirror can scan the output beam vertically (Fig. 3, mirror 300-1 and mirror 300-2, Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scanning mechanism, disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by including a second scanning mirror to scan light in a second direction, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to scan the output beam in both the horizontal and vertical direction, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325 and Campbell, discloses the system of claim 17, wherein 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 (Campbell, Paragraph [0057]: vertical actuator can apply a discrete vertical offset).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scanning mechanism, disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by including a second scanning mirror to scan light in a second direction, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to scan the output beam in both the horizontal and vertical direction, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325 and Campbell, discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the second scannable mirror is optically downstream from the first scannable mirror (Campbell, Fig. 3, mirror 300-1 and mirror 300-2, Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scanning mechanism, disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by including a second scanning mirror to scan light in a second direction, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to scan the output beam in both the horizontal and vertical direction, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 21, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 13, further comprising a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots (Jin, Fig.1, light source 110, light signal EL, Paragraph [0027]).
Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, does not teach: and wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source.
However, Campbell does teach an eye-safe laser that is configured to emit light in accordance with Class I laser product regulations. The laser must be configured such that its emission wavelength, average power, peak power, peak intensity, pulse energy, beam size, beam divergence, and exposure time are eye-safe. Thus, the eye-safe laser regulations serve as a model for laser operations (Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by configuring the laser according to eye-safe laser regulations, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a laser that “presents little or no possibility of causing damage to a person's eyes”, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 22, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325 and Campbell, discloses the system of claim 21 wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to the laser energy model (Campbell, Paragraph [0051]) and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror (Jin, Fig. 2A, optical device 120a, Paragraph [0028]-[0029], Fig. 11A, light scanning path, Paragraph [0090]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by configuring the laser according to eye-safe laser regulations, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a laser that “presents little or no possibility of causing damage to a person's eyes”, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0051]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, in further view of Smits, US 20170176575 A1 ("Smits").
Regarding claim 20, Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, discloses the system of claim 13.
Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, does not teach: wherein the lidar transmitter and the photodetector circuit are in a bistatic arrangement with respect to each other.
However, Smits does teach a sensing system with a transmit system with a scanning beam and a receive system with one or more sensors. The transmit system and receive system are displaced by an offset distance (Fig. 4, transmit system 404, receive system 412, offset distance D, Paragraph [0120]-[0122]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the time of flight measuring system, disclosed by Jin, as modified in view of Jin ‘325, by having separate devices for the ToF sensor and light source and displacing those devices, which is disclosed by Smits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a three-dimensional tracking system, as suggested by Smits (Paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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 at (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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights