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 .
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 01/23/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-10, filed on 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 15-17 under 102 and claims 5-14, 18 under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Sharma et al. (US 20200158837 A1, “Sharma”) necessitated by the Applicant’s arguments.
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 1-4, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk et al. (US 20060114333 A1, “Gokturk”) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20200158837 A1, “Sharma”).
Regarding claim 1, Gokturk teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device comprising:
a light transmitter configured to transmit light to an object (Fig. 3A, para 12, laser 220);
a light receiver (Fig. 3A, para 13, para 25 and 66 receiver 230) that comprises at least one light receiving region (Fig. 3A, the array can form the light receiving region), wherein the light receiving region comprising a plurality of sub-light receiving regions, each of the plurality of sub-light receiving regions comprising a light detection element configured to receive the light reflected from the object (Fig. 3A, para 13 and 66, the light receiving region of the array has plurality of sub-light receiving regions, each of the plurality of sub-light receiving regions comprising a light detection element 240 ) and output a detection signal (Para 13, System 200 includes an array 230 of pixel photodetectors (or photodiodes) 240, each of which has dedicated circuitry 250 to process detection charge output by the associated detector.); and
a processor (Fig. 3, para 13, 24-25, CPU 260) configured to determine a time of flight (ToF) of the light that is transmitted to and then reflected from the object by varying (a pulse width of the detection signal and) a time window (that is used to generate a histogram for TOF computation) according to a measurement condition (Para 66-71, 94 and abstract disclose varying detection windows/exposure in response to measurement conditions (distance, brightness)).
Gokturk fails to teach determining ToF by varying a pulse width of the detection signal and a time window used to generate a histogram for ToF computation.
However, Sharma teaches generating a ToF histogram only within a selected detection window, not over the entire acquisition period (Para 22 “…a fine measurement phase, in which a TOF histogram is captured within a narrow measurement window that is set on the basis of the approximate TOF found in the coarse phase.”; 26 “…the memory of each pixel stores respective counts of the photons that arrive … in multiple different time bins, which span the detection window…”; 36 “The histogram generated during the fine measurement phase covers only the detection window, rather than the entire acquisition period…”). Sharma further teaches that the detection window is identified, set, and changed dynamically based on measured photon returns (i.e., measurement conditions) (Para 7/10 “…to sweep the gating interval … and to identify … a respective detection window…
…such that the detection window for at least some of the sensing elements changes over the series of image frames.”; 24-25 “…the controller identifies a respective detection window……the detection window … can typically change over the series of the image frames.”; 42-43 “…identify the gating interval in which SPAD 52 actually received reflected laser pulses……identify this gating interval as the detection window…”). Sharma also teaches that the effective detection pulse width is defined by the gating interval duration, during which detection pulses can occur (Para 7; 22-23 “…using adaptively gated detection…photons arriving … outside the gating period … will be ignored.”; 36 “…histogram bins … span the detection window…”. “…histogram bins … span the detection window…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Sharma’s multi-window, histogram-based gated ToF measurement within Gokturk’s system that already varies timing in response to distance and illumination conditions, in order to improve ToF accuracy (timing resolution), reduce background noise, and efficiently adapt detection timing under changing measurement conditions, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the measurement condition is at least one of a distance to the object and an illuminance of a use environment (Gokturk, Para 66-71, 94 and abstract disclose “detection window exposure” analogous to capture exposure, and thus vary the time window (time gating) based illuminance (brightness, reflectivity) and distance) , and wherein in one measurement cycle, a plurality of time windows corresponding to a plurality of bins are provided to generate the histogram, the pulse width varies in real time according to the measurement condition, and the plurality of time windows varies within the same measurement cycle (Sharma teaches determining time-of-flight using histogram-based photon arrival timing, wherein within a single measurement cycle (frame) a histogram is generated from a plurality of time bins spanning a detection window, and further teaches sweeping and varying multiple gating intervals (time windows) during a coarse phase of the same measurement cycle before fixing a window for fine measurement (Para 11, 24, 26, 40-42). Sharma further teaches gated detection in which detection signals occur only during the gating interval, such that adjusting the gating interval varies the effective temporal width of detection signals (Para 7, 22-23).
Regarding claim 3, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to vary the time window to apply a first time bin when the distance to the object is greater than a distance threshold or when the illuminance of the use environment is greater than an illuminance threshold, and to apply a second time bin, which is greater than the first time bin, when the distance to the object is less than or equal to the distance threshold or when the illuminance of the use environment is less than or equal to the illuminance threshold (Gokturk (Para 43, 68) teaches for distant objects or high ambient illumination, a narrower gate window is applied….for closer objects or low illumination, a broader gate is used. Sharma (Para 22-23, 26, 36, 40-43. See also the rejection of claim 1) teaches generating a time-of-flight histogram comprising a plurality of time bins spanning a detection window and sweeping/selecting different gating intervals corresponding to different time offsets during a measurement cycle. The time bins correspond to different temporal positions relative to the transmitted pulse, such that bins representing later arrival times correspond to greater object distances.).
Regarding claim 4, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 2, wherein the processor varies the time window according to the distance to the object, based on a degree of time delay of a stop signal generated when the light is received, with respect to a start signal generated when the light is transmitted (Gokturk (Para 43, 68) teaches the time of flight is measured as the delay between the transmission start signal and the detection stop signal…the detection window is shifted according to the expected distance. Sharma teaches determining time-of-flight based on a time delay between a start signal associated with transmission of a light pulse and a stop signal generated upon photon detection, using a time-to-digital converter to increment histogram bins corresponding to photon arrival timing (Para 5 and 35). Sharma further teaches identifying and fixing a detection window (time window) based on measured photon arrival timing during a coarse phase and using that window for fine histogram generation (Para 22-23, 26, 42-43. See also, the rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to vary the time window according to the measured delay between the start and stop signals, as taught by Sharma, within Gokturk’s adaptive timing system, in order to refine ToF measurement and improve detection accuracy, yielding predictable results.).
Claims 15-17 are method claims corresponding to device claims 1-3. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk in view of Sharma and Gaalema et al. (US 20200182968 A1, “Gaalema”).
Regarding claim 5, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, fails to explicitly but Gaalema teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the light detection element includes a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) (Para 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the light detection element includes a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) because SPADs can detect single photons, enabling long-range operation and high performance even under weak return signals (Superior sensitivity).
Claims 6-9, 12, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk in view of Sharma, Gaalema and John Kevin Moore (US 9985163 B2, “Moore”).
Regarding claim 6, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, fails to explicitly teach but Gaalema teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a pulse generator (Fig. 6, para 87-88 disclose a processor controlling pulse generation for SPAD; the processor processes timing pulses from sub-detectors) configured to generate a pulse signal having a pulse width with respect to a detection signal generated based on the light received by the light receiver, wherein the pulse generator comprises:
a comparator (Fig. 6, para 89) configured to generate the pulse signal by comparing an electrical signal generated by the light detection element of each of the plurality of sub-light receiving regions of the light receiver with a reference voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the processor with a pulse generator that includes a comparator configured to generate a pulse signal by comparing a detection signal from a photodetector to a reference voltage, because such comparator-based pulse generation was a well-known in TOF and SPAD base Lidar front-ends to enable precise timing discrimination.
Gokturk, in view of Sharma and Gaalema , fails to explicitly teach but Moore teaches a pulse shaper configured to vary the time window by varying the pulse width by selectively adjusting a delay of the pulse signal output from the comparator (Fig. 1, col 29-56, pulse shaper 106 receives the comparator/pulse output (PS_INT), passes it through a delay block 110 and AND gate 112 to form PS_OUT; pulse width of PS_OUT corresponds to the gating window and is varied by the amount of delay applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a pulse shaper configured to vary the time window by varying the pulse width through adjustment of a delay in the comparator output signal, because delay-based pulse shaping was a well-known predictable technique for controlling the effective time resolution of TOF Sensor/Lidar measurements.
Regarding claim 7, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 6, wherein the pulse shaper is further provided to vary the pulse width via a logical product of the pulse signal output from the comparator and a delayed pulse signal (Moore, Fig. 1, col 29-56, AND gate 112 receives both PS_INT (with no delayed) and PS_DEL (delayed) to form PS_OUT; pulse width is determined by logical overlap (logical product) and can be varied by changing the delay).
Regarding claim 8, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 6, wherein the pulse shaper comprises: a delay portion configured to adjust the delay of the pulse signal according to a delay signal (Moore, Fig. 1, col 29-56, delay block 110 delays PS_INT to generate PS_DEL; delay is adjustable by bias/capacitance setting); and
a gate device configured to obtain a logical product of the pulse signal and a delayed pulse signal (Moore, Fig. 1, col 29-56, AND gate 112 outputs PS_out = logical product of PS_INT and PS_DEL),
wherein the pulse width is varied by adjusting the delay signal (Moore, Fig. 1, col 29-56, Adjusting the delay block changes the overlap at AND gate, thus varying pulse width).
Regarding claim 9, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 8, wherein the delay signal is adjusted to vary the time window by varying the pulse width to apply a first time bin when a distance to the object is greater than a distance threshold or an illuminance of a use environment is greater than an illuminance threshold, and to apply a second time bin that is greater than the first time bin when the distance to the object is less than or equal to the distance threshold or the illuminance of the use environment is less than or equal to the illuminance threshold (Gokturk, Para 43, 68, for distant objects or high ambient illumination, a narrower gate window is applied….for closer objects or low illumination, a broader gate is used.).
Regarding claim 12, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 8, wherein the delay signal is input as a ramp signal (Moore, Fig. 1, col 29-56, the delay input to the gates of NMOS transistors can be a continuously varying analog voltage (ramp), wich adjust the inverter output capacitance and consequently the pulse width).
Regarding claim 14, Gokturk, in view of Gaalema and Moore, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 8, wherein the pulse width is adjusted as 2 ns to 4 ns (Gaalema, para 38).
It would have been obvious to adjust the pulse width to 2-4ns because such narrow pulse widths were already recognized in the art as optimal for improving TOF resolution while still maintaining sufficient signal to noise ratio (SNR).
Claim 18 is a method claims corresponding to device claim 6. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk in view of Gaalema, Moore and Shinji Hattori (US 5459424 A, “Hattori”).
Regarding claim 10, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore, fails to explicitly teach but Hattori teaches the LiDAR device of claim 8, wherein the delay portion comprises: a first inverter and a second inverter (Fig. 2, col 3: lines 26-53, 2 CMOS inverters in series form the main delay path of the pulse signal);
a first transistor connected to be branched between the first inverter and the second inverter (Fig. 2, col 3: lines 26-53, A transistor (NMOS/PMOS switching transistor) is connected between the output of the first inverter and input of the second inverter to control pulse propagation);
a second transistor connected to be branched between the first transistor and the gate device (Fig. 2, col 3: lines 26-53, a second transistor connects the node after the first transistor to the input of the AND gate, controlling the logic timing); and
a first capacitor and a second capacitor serially connected to the first transistor and the second transistor, respectively (Fig. 2, col 3: lines 54-65, Capacitors connected to each transistor set the RC delay of each stage, controlling the pulse width precisely according to the delay signal),
wherein the delay signal is input to the first transistor and the second transistor, and the delay portion is provided to adjust the delay of the pulse signal by adjusting an output capacitance of the first inverter and the second inverter according to the delay signal (Fig. 2, col 4: lines 36-66, Analog voltage input (delay signal) applied to transistor gates adjusts effective capacitance and propagation delay, controlling pulse width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the delay portion of TOF sensor/Lidar using two inverters, a pair of transistors, and capacitor for adjusting delay an ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this known inverter, transistor, capacitor topology for the TOF sensor/Lidar pulse delay portion because of predictable control of pulse delay (by adjusting the bias applied to the transistor and/or varying capacitor values, the effective output capacitance or the inverters can be tuned, yielding precise control of ns-scale delay).
Regarding claim 11, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema, Moore and Hattori, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 10, wherein the first transistor and the second transistor include NMOS transistors (Hattori, fig. 2, col 3: lines 26-53 and col 4: lines 23-35, teach that the first and second transistors in the two-inverter delay are NMOS devices).
It would have been obvious to have the first transistor and the second transistor include NMOS transistors because NMOS devices were widely used in delay lines, pulse shaping circuits, and CMOS logic gates due to their fast-switching speed, small area, and low on resistance compare to PMOS devices. Thus, selecting NMOS transistor for the first transistor and the second transistor would have been a predictable and routine design choice to improve speed and reduce circuit complexity in a TOF sensor/Lidar pulse shaping delay line.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore and NCP6336 Datasheet (Onsemi), April 2014.
Regarding claim 13, Gokturk, in view of Sharma, Gaalema and Moore, fails to explicitly teach the LiDAR device of claim 8, wherein the delay signal is in a range of 0.6 to 1 .5 V.
Moore in fig. 1, col 29-56 teaches a pulse shaper circuitry where the pulse width is adjusted by a bias voltage applied to a transistor (i.e. teaches adjusting the pulse width of the electrical pulse output by varying a gate/bias voltage which is covered varying pulse width (adjust delay/pulse via a voltage)) but does not give the exact numeric 0.6-1.5V.
However, Onsemi in page 1 and page 12 (detailed description and output voltage “Output voltage level can be programmed in the 0.6 V to 1.5 V range by10 mV steps”) shows many ICs use a 0.6V to 1.5V programmable range for control/regulation which is consistent with industry practice for control voltages used to tune timing/delay/threshold functions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gokturk, in view of Gaalema and Moore to select a delay signal is in a range of 0.6 to 1 .5 V because this voltage range corresponds to the standard CMOS logic level swing widely used in delay circuits, time generators, and pulse shaping electronics. Thus, adopting a 0.6 to 1 .5 V control voltage would have been a predictable design choice to optimize timing resolution and reduce power consumption in a TOF sensor delay circuit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645