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
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 9 April 2026.
Claims 1 and 21 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-18 and 20-21 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 13-18 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Spector and Marra do not teach “synchronously control the light receiver to move the plurality of driving lenses to a first (second) detection position on each respective photodetection element at which light reflected from the respective first (second) transmission positions is focused.” As evidence, Applicant states “the entire detection options of Spector is stationary, and is required to be stationary in order for the detector to function as described in Fig. 9 of Spector” (page 16 of the Remarks). However, this is a misunderstanding of Spector. In paragraph [0028], Spector clearly states “The arrayed micro-optic 14 and the receiver optics 16 are synchronously scanned so that correspondence is maintained between the spots in the two dimensional array and the optical detection sites.” Figs. 1 and 5A also show a scanner that includes actuators to move the receiver optics. Therefore, Spector does teach synchronous movements of the receiving lens in response to the scanned transmission sub-beams. Thus, the rejection over Spector in view of Marra is maintained.
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, 2, 10-15, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector, US 20180259626 A1 ("Spector") in view of Marra et al., US 20190376782 A1 (“Marra”).
Regarding claim 1, Spector discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device comprising:
[…]; and
split each of the plurality of beams into a plurality of sub-beams and transmit the plurality of sub-beams to a plurality of subregions of a target region at each of the different times (Fig. 1, arrayed micro-optic 14, Paragraph [0023], Fig. 9, Paragraph [0030]);
a light receiver comprising:
a plurality of photodetection pixels, each of the plurality of photodetection pixels comprising a photodetection element and a circuit element configured to process an output signal of the photodetection element (Fig. 1, pixelated optical sensor array 20, range finder timer 38, LiDAR controller 34, Paragraph [0027], Paragraph [0031]); and
a plurality of driving lenses respectively provided on the plurality of photodetection pixels (Fig. 1, receiver optics 16, Paragraph [0027]: receiver optics functions like arrayed micro-optic 14 which may be a plurality of lenses 14a as in Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]) […];
and a processor configured to control time-division driving on the light transmitter to transmit the plurality of beams at the different times (Fig. 1, pulse generator 36, clock 32, Paragraph [0031]), and control a movement of the plurality of driving lenses in synchronization with the time-division driving (Fig. 1, scan controller 30, LiDAR controller 34, Paragraphs [0028], [0030]-[0031]),
wherein each subregion of the plurality of subregions comprises a first transmission position and a second transmission position adjacent to the first transmission position and spaced apart from the first transmission position by a same predetermined interval (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0030]: Scanner 22 moves array of light spots in raster pattern to scan scene. Each light spot scans a sub-region. Each light spot projected to first and second transmission position when scanning raster path.),
wherein the processor is further configured to:
control the light transmitter to transmit a first sub-beam of the plurality of sub- beams to the first transmission position of a first subregion of the plurality of subregions (Fig. 9, one of light spots represented by a dot, Paragraph [0030]), transmit a second sub-beam of the plurality of sub-beams to the first transmission position of a second subregion of the plurality of subregions (Fig. 9, another of light spots represented by a dot, Paragraph [0030]), and synchronously control the light receiver to move the plurality of driving lenses to a first detection position on each respective photodetection element at which light reflected from the respective first transmission positions is focused (Fig. 1, scanner 22, receiver optics 16, scan controller 30, LiDAR controller 34, Paragraphs [0028], [0030]-[0031]; Fig. 10A, step 140, Paragraph [0032]), and
control the light transmitter to respectively direct the first sub-beam of the plurality of sub-beams to the second transmission position of the first subregion of the plurality of subregions (Fig. 9, next scanner position along raster path for first spot, Paragraph [0030]; Fig. 10A, step 110 scanner repositioned, Paragraph [0032]), direct the second sub-beam of the plurality of sub-beams to the second transmission position of the second subregion of the plurality of subregions (Fig. 9, next scanner position along raster path for second spot, Paragraph [0030]; Fig. 10A, step 110 scanner repositioned, Paragraph [0032]), and synchronously control the light receiver to move the plurality of driving lenses to a second detection position on each respective photodetection element at which light reflected from the respective second transmission positions is focused (Fig. 1, scanner 22, receiver optics 16, scan controller 30, LiDAR controller 34, Paragraphs [0028], [0030]-[0031]; Fig. 10A, step 140, Paragraph [0032]), and
wherein the first transmission position and the second transmission position of each of the plurality of subregions occupy identical relative positions within each of the plurality of subregions (Fig. 9, each first and second transmission position along raster path is the same for each subregion, Paragraph [0030]).
Spector does not teach:
a light transmitter configured to: generate a plurality of beams to be transmitted at different times, respectively -and
a plurality of driving lenses configured to move with respect to a corresponding photodetection pixel to focus the plurality of sub-beams that are reflected from the plurality of subregions of the target region on a respective photodetection element.
However, Marra teaches a light transmitter being a VSCEL array whose individual light elements can be activated individually or group-wise with a desired illumination pattern (Fig. 1, light transmitter 12, Paragraph [0040]). Marra also teaches reception optics that is attached to an optics adjustment that can move the optics laterally in the XY direction (Fig. 1, reception optics 22, optics adjustment 28, Paragraph [0042]).
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 Spector’s LIDAR system by substituting Spector’s single light source with Marra’s VCSEL array. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified Spector’s receiver optics by separating them from the sensor array such that they move with respect to the array, which is disclosed by Marra. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modification in order to increase scanning resolution and implement only minimal changes through inexpensive actuators to have a make a desired change in location, as suggested by Marra (Paragraphs [0020] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the light transmitter comprises: a light source array including a plurality of light sources (Marra, Fig. 1, light transmitter 12, Paragraph [0040]); and an optical element configured to split light from the light source array into the plurality of beams (Spector, Fig. 1, arrayed micro-optic 14, Paragraph [0023]).
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 Spector’s LIDAR system by substituting Spector’s single light source with Marra’s VCSEL array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modification in order to increase scanning resolution, as suggested by Marra (Paragraphs [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein a size of a driving lens among the plurality of driving lenses corresponds to a size of a region of a corresponding photodetection pixel among the plurality of photodetection pixels (Spector, Paragraph [0027]: one-to-one correspondence between optical detection sites and light spots).
Regarding claim 11, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of driving lenses are integrally connected to each other to be moved together (Spector, Fig. 1, 2D motor/scanner 22, receiver optics 16, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of photodetection pixels is equal to a number of the plurality of subregions (Spector, Paragraph [0027]: one-to-one correspondence between optical detection sites and light spots).
Regarding claim 13, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 12, wherein the plurality of photodetection pixels are arranged two-dimensionally in a 24x24 to 64x64 array (Spector, Paragraph [0027]: Merlin 32×32 free-running LiDAR camera).
Regarding claim 14, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 13, wherein the plurality of subregions are arranged two-dimensionally in a 24x24 to 64x64 array (Spector, Paragraph [0027]: “Merlin 32×32 free-running LiDAR camera” and “one-to-one correspondence between the light spots in the two dimensional array and the optical detection sites”).
Regarding claim 15, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein a number of states in which the plurality of driving lenses are driven to obtain information of the target region is equal to a number of the plurality of beams (Spector, Paragraph [0028]: receiver optics synchronously scanned to maintain correspondence between the spots and the optical detection sites).
Regarding claim 17, Spector, as modified in view of Marra discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Spector, as modified in view of Marra does not teach: wherein the photodetection element comprises at least one of a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor (CIS), an Avalanche photo diode (APD), or a single photon Avalanche diode (SPAD).
However, Marra teaches a light receiver that is configured as a SPAD array (Fig. 1, light receiver 24, Paragraph [0041]).
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 Spector’s LIDAR system by substituting Spector’s sensor array with Marra’s SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modification in order to design a particularly compact sensor, as suggested by Marra (Paragraphs [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to control the light transmitter to provide one set of the plurality of sub-beams to the target region (Spector, Fig. 1, light source 12, arrayed micro-optic 14, Paragraph [0023]) and start the time-division driving when the one set of the plurality of sub- beams that are reflected from the target region is detected by the light receiver (Spector, Fig. 1, LiDAR controller 34, pulse generator 36, Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses an electronic apparatus comprising; the LiDAR device of claim 1; a memory (Spector, Fig. 1, memory 40, Paragraph [0031]); wherein the processor and/or another processor is configured to load a command or data received from the LiDAR device to the memory and process the command or data stored in the memory (Spector, Fig. 1, controller 34; Fig. 10A, three-dimensional reconstruction 160, Paragraph [0031]-[0032]).
Claim 21 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. It is rejection for the same reason
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector, as modified in view of Marra, in further view of Oggier, US 20200256993 A1 ("Oggier").
Regarding claim 3, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 2.
Spector, as modified in view of Marra, does not teach: wherein the processor is further configured to divide the plurality of light sources into a plurality of groups and sequentially drive the plurality of groups.
However, Oggier teaches an array of emitters divided into a number of banks. A driver enables each VCSEL bank in alternation according to a time-multiplexed pattern (Fig. 2B, array 22, banks 52, Paragraph [0059]-[0060]).
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 illumination sequence, disclosed by Spector as modified by Marra, by alternating activation of banks of the VCSEL array to illuminate a target scene, which is disclosed by Oggier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enhance the flexibility of [the system] in terms of time-multiplexing of the optical and electrical power budgets, as well as processing resources” as suggested by Oggier (Paragraph [0063]).
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector, as modified in view of Marra, in further view of Yokogawa et al., US 20220244046 A1 ("Yokogawa").
Regarding claim 4, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Spector, as modified in view of Marra, does not teach: wherein the photodetection element is provided in a center region of each of the plurality of photodetection pixels, and the circuit element is provided in a peripheral region of each of plurality of the photodetection pixels to be parallel with the photodetection element.
However, Yokogawa teaches a layout for a unit pixel. A photodiode is located at the center of the unit pixel with readout circuits and other transistors located on the sides of the photodiode (Fig. 4, unit pixel 920, photodiode 21, two readout circuits 920A and 920B, Paragraph [0197]-[0200]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the known technique of arranging a unit pixel such that the photodiode is at the center of the pixel and the circuitry is on the sides, taught by Yokogawa, to the optical sensor array disclosed by Spector, as modified in view of Marra. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique in the same way to Spector’s optical sensor array, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 4, wherein-, in each of the plurality of photodetection pixels, a ratio of an area of the photodetection pixel occupied by the photodetection element is 20% or less (Spector, Paragraph [0027]: Princeton Lightwave cameras have fill factors less than 10%).
Regarding claim 6, Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 4, wherein, in each of the plurality of photodetection pixels, a ratio of an area of the photodetection pixel occupied by the photodetection element is 10% or less (Spector, Paragraph [0027]: Princeton Lightwave cameras have fill factors less than 10%).
Regarding claim 8, Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 4, wherein the circuit element comprises a time counter configured to measure a time of flight of light detected by the photodetection element (Spector, Fig. 1, range finder timer 38, LiDAR controller 34, Paragraph [0031]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, in further view of Zhu et al., US 10983197 B1 ("Zhu").
Regarding claim 7, Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 4.
Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, does not teach: wherein a size of each of the plurality of photodetection pixels is greater than or equal to 50 µm x50 µm.
However, Zhu teaches a SPAD detector array where the array may be designed to have a spacing of 50 µm or less between SPADs. The SPADs themselves have a size of about 10 µm (Fig. 2, SPAD array 211, Col. 14 lines 38 – 55, Col. 15 lines 5-7). Together, the size of the SPADs and spacing between SPADs would result in a pixel length greater than 50 µm.
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 optical sensor array, disclosed by Spector as modified by Marra and Yokogawa, by adding spacing between SPADs that are 50 µm, which is taught by Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to configure the spacing between active photosensors such that cross-talk can be reduced, as suggested by Zhu (Col. 15, lines 33-36).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, and in further view of Kim et al., US 20190079166 A1 ("Kim").
Regarding claim 9, Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 8.
Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, does not teach: wherein the circuit element further comprises: a current-to-voltage conversion circuit configured to convert current output from the photodetection element into voltage; an amplifier configured to amplify the voltage obtained through conversion by the current-to-voltage conversion circuit; and a peak detector configured to detect a peak of a signal amplified by the amplifier.
However, Kim teaches a light detector that includes a plurality of light detection elements, a plurality of current-to-voltage conversion circuits, a plurality of amplifiers, and a plurality of peak detectors (Fig. 4, light detection elements 122, current-to-voltage conversion circuits 123, amplifiers 124, peak detectors 125, Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the photodetection element and circuit disclosed by Spector, as modified in view of Marra and Yokogawa, with the specific circuit elements taught by Kim. In this combination, each element would perform the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination, a detector that processes a signal, were predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector, as modified in view of Marra, in further view of Pei et al., US 20180180722 A1 ("Pei").
Regarding claim 16, Spector, as modified in view of Marra, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 15, wherein the movement of the plurality of driving lenses comprises a horizontal movement (Spector, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, scanner / 2D motor 22, Paragraph [0030]; Marra, Fig. 1, reception optics 22, optics adjustment 28, Paragraph [0042]).
Spector, as modified in view of Marra, does not teach: a tilt movement, and a combination thereof.
However, Pei teaches a lidar system where the frame containing the lidar sensor is attached to three actuators. Two actuators simultaneously push and pull the frame to rotate it about an axis. The third actuator may move the internal frame along an axis. (Fig. 8, first actuator 762, second actuator 764, third actuator 766, Paragraph [0077], Paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Spector’s 2D scanner with two actuators to rotate the receiver optics about an axis, which is disclosed by Pei. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements to produce the predictable result of moving the receiver optics within at least two planes of motion.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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