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 5 December 2025 with regards to RCE filed 2 January 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 18.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of the Remarks, filed 5 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 20 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 of rejection is made in view of Niclass et al., US 20120075615 A1 in view of Oinoue et al., US 4443079 A.
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, 5, 9-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass et al., US 20120075615 A1 ("Niclass") in view of Oinoue et al., US 4443079 A (“Oinoue”).
Regarding claim 1, Niclass discloses a laser induced light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device comprising: a light source configured to output light (FIG. 1 LD 30, Paragraph [0048]); a light detection array comprising a plurality of light detection elements (Fig. 1, 2D array of photo detectors 100, Paragraph [0048]) and a plurality of dead zones alternately provided (Fig. 2, peripheral circuit 220, Paragraph [0049]), the plurality of light detection elements being configured to receive light that is output from the light source and reflected by an object and to convert the light into a corresponding electrical signal (FIG. 1, target object 70, LD 30, 2D array of photo detectors 100, Paragraph [0048]); a lens configured to focus the light reflected by the object on the plurality of light detection elements (Fig. 1, lens 90, Paragraph [0048]), a distance between the lens and the light detection array corresponding to a focal length of the lens (Fig. 1, lens 90, Paragraph [0047]); […]; and a processor configured to process the electrical signal, and obtain a time of flight (TOF) of the received light based on the processed electrical signal (Fig. 3, TDC 330, histogram circuit 340, signal processing circuit 350, Paragraph [0050], [0056]), wherein each of a first light detection element and a second light detection element among the plurality of light detection elements on each side of a dead zone among the plurality of dead zones is configured to receive a part of the split light (Fig. 2, photosensitive area 200, peripheral circuit 220, Paragraph [0049]).
Niclass does not teach: a prism provided between the lens and the light detection array, the prism being configured to split and change direction of the light output from the lens and direct the light to be incident on the light detection array.
However, Oinoue teaches a plurality of light receiving elements that are arranged in an array with space between each light receiving element, as shown in Fig. 2. A series of prisms are formed in one body above the light receiving elements. (Fig. 2, light receiving elements 6-1, 7-1; . . . ; 6-(N-1), 7-(N-1); 6-N, 7-N, prisms 4-1, . . . , 4-(N-1), 4-N, Col. 3, lines 35-68). The prisms can be arranged to distribute light equally on the light receiving elements (Fig. 3A, light receiving elements 6-1 and 7-1, 6-2 and 7-2, . . . , 6-5 and 7-5, five prisms 4-1.about.4-5, Col. 4 lines 9-22).
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 Niclass’ receiver by adding Oinoue’s prisms between the lens and photodetector array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “perform a focus detection in a highly accurate manner”, as suggested by Oinoue (Col. 1 lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 5, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the prism is spaced apart from the light detection array (Oinoue, Fig. 2, light receiving elements 6-1, 7-1; . . . ; 6-(N-1), 7-(N-1); 6-N, 7-N, prisms 4-1, . . . , 4-(N-1), 4-N, Col. 3, lines 35-68).
Regarding claim 9, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the light reflected by the object is received by at least two of the plurality of light detection elements (Oinoue, Fig. 3A, light receiving elements 6-1 and 7-1, 6-2 and 7-2, . . . , 6-5 and 7-5, five prisms 4-1.about.4-5, Col. 4 lines 9-22).
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 Niclass’ receiver by adding Oinoue’s prisms between the lens and photodetector array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “perform a focus detection in a highly accurate manner”, as suggested by Oinoue (Col. 1 lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 10, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1,wherein the processor is further configured to add electrical signals output by the first light detection element and the second light detection element (Niclass, Paragraph [0056]-[0057]: TOF read out from each pixel through read out circuitry).
Regarding claim 11, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the light detection array comprises a first column and a second column adjacent to each other (Niclass, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0049]), wherein at least one light detection element provided in each of the first column and the second column is further configured to receive a part of the split light (Niclass, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0049], [0056]), and wherein the processor is further configured to add electrical signals output by the at least one light detection element disposed in each of the first column and the second column (Niclass, Paragraph [0056]-[0057]: TOF read out from each pixel through read out circuitry).
Regarding claim 12, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light detection elements comprises at least one of an avalanche photodiode (APD) or a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) (Niclass, Fig. 2, avalanche photodiode 210, Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of light detection elements of the light detection array are provided in an N * M array, where N and M are an integer greater than or equal to 1 (Niclass, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0049]).
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, in further view of Baba et al., US 20220171101 A1 ("Baba").
Regarding claim 2, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: wherein the prism is a bi-prism or quad- prism.
However, Baba teaches a quadrangular prism that has 6 sides and two faces inclined towards each other (Fig. 11, prism lens body 22, facing planes 22a and 22b, Paragraph [0063]).
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 prisms disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, by substituting the shape of the prism to Baba’s prism lens body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to deflect light in an oblique direction, as suggested by Baba (Paragraph [0018]).
--Regarding claim 3, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue and Baba, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 2, wherein the prism is a hexahedron having at least one face comprising a trapezoid shape (Baba, Fig. 11, prism lens body 22, facing planes 22a and 22b, Paragraph [0063]).
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 prisms disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, by substituting the shape of the prism to Baba’s prism lens body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to deflect light in an oblique direction, as suggested by Baba (Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue and Baba, in further view of Gimpel, US 20200041617 A1 ("Gimpel") and Taboada et al., US 4523809 A ("Taboada").
Regarding claim 4, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue and Baba, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 3. (Gimpel, Paragraph [0066]).
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue and Baba, does not teach: wherein two angles of a bottom side of the trapezoid shape are 1 degree to 60 degrees, and wherein a height of the prism is 0.1 mm to 100 mm.
However, Taboada teaches a three facet prism where the angles at the two bottom corners of the trapezoid are less than 60 degree. (Fig. 4, prism 38, Col 4, lines 19-40).
In addition, Gimpel teaches a scattering optical element with a center thickness of 0.5 mm (Fig. 1, scattering optical element 28, Paragraph [0066]).
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 shape of the quadrangular prism disclosed by Niclass in view of Oinoue and Baba, by using the three facet prism disclosed by Taboada and making the prism small which is disclosed by Gimpel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make modification taught by Taboada in order to use off-the-shelf components, as suggested by Taboada (Col 4, lines 19-40). In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of using small optical elements, as taught by Gimpel, and the results would have predictably been a more compact device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, in further view of Ishibashi et al., US 6407868 B1 ("Ishibashi").
Regarding claim 6, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses The LiDAR device of claim 1.
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: wherein the prism comprises at least two prisms, and wherein the at least two prisms form a bi-prism or a quad prism.
However, Ishibashi teaches a dichroic prism that comprises four triangular prisms that form a quadrangular prism. (Fig. 1, dichroic prism 1, four triangular prisms 11, 12, 21, 22, Col. 4 lines 17-33).
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 prisms disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, by substituting the prisms for dichroic prisms, which is disclosed by Ishibashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a refractive index different between the triangular prisms, as suggested by Ishibashi (Abstract).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, in view of Hong et al., US 20200033454 A1 ("Hong").
Regarding claim 7, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: wherein the prism has a rotational phase of 0 degree to 90 degrees with respect to an optical axis of the lens.
However, Hong teaches a pair of Risley prisms that can rotate about a common axis for beam steering. The prisms are able to rotate 360 degrees (Fig. 2, prisms 211 and 212, Paragraph [0046], Paragraph [0050], Paragraph [0137]).
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 prisms disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, by allowing the prisms to rotate about an axis, which is disclosed by Hong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to steer a light beam (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: wherein the prism has a rotational phase of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to an optical axis of the lens.
However, Hong teaches a pair of Risley prisms that can rotate about a common axis for beam steering. The prisms are able to rotate 360 degrees (Fig. 2, prisms 211 and 212, Paragraph [0046], Paragraph [0050], Paragraph [0137]).
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 prisms disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, by allowing the prisms to rotate about an axis, which is disclosed by Hong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to steer a light beam (Paragraph [0046]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, in view of Pacala et al., US 20190011567 A1 ("Pacala").
Regarding claim 14, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: wherein pitches between adjacent light detection elements among the plurality of light detection elements of the light detection array are 50 um to 2,000 um, and wherein an area of the dead zone in the light detection array is 5% to 40% of an area of the light detection array.
However, Pacala teaches a SPAD pixel array with 256 x 128 pixels. The photosensor pitch ranges between 50 – 70 µm and the resulting sensor array is approximately 15mm x 7.6 mm. The pitch range is 2-3 orders of magnitude less than the size of the photosensor array, so dead zones would not constitute more than 40% of the area of the photosensor array. (Fig. 14, photosensor 1404, Paragraphs [0173]-[0174], Paragraph [0208]).
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 photodetector array disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, by substituting Pacala’s sensor array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to keep the size of the array compact while meeting the requirements of commercial LIDAR specifications, as suggested by Pacala (Paragraph [0208]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, in view of Marino, US 5892575 A ("Marino").
Regarding claim 15, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1.
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: wherein a lowest light reception efficiency of the LiDAR device is greater than or equal to 30%.
However, Marino teaches the single photon detection efficiency of a 20 mm RMD detector that consists of an APD array. For various voltage biases, the detection efficiency is above 30% (Table 2, Col. 15 lines 31-53).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the photodetector array disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, with Marino’s RMD detector. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one receiver for another and yielded the predictable result of a receiver array with a high single photon detection efficiency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, in further view of Gimpel.
Regarding claim 16, Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 1, wherein the prism is a prism array comprising a plurality of prism elements (Oinoue, Fig. 2, light receiving elements 6-1, 7-1; . . . ; 6-(N-1), 7-(N-1); 6-N, 7-N, prisms 4-1, . . . , 4-(N-1), 4-N, Col. 3, lines 35-68).
Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, does not teach: and wherein the plurality of prism elements correspond one-to-one to the plurality of light detection elements.
However, Gimpel teaches a matrix arrangement of light receiving elements each with a single scattering optical element for each receiving element (Fig. 6b, light receiving elements 32a, scattering optical elements 28a, Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the prism array disclosed by Niclass, as modified in view of Oinoue, with an arrangement where one prism corresponds to one light receiving element, which is disclosed by Gimpel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one reception arrangement for another and yielded the predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, and in further view of Taboada.
Regarding claim 17, Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 16.
Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, does not teach: wherein at least one of the plurality of prism elements has a shape of a frustum of a quadrangular pyramid cut along a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens.
However, Taboada teaches a three facet prism where the angles at the two bottom corners of the trapezoid are less than 60 degree. (Fig. 4, prism 38, Col 4, lines 19-40).
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 shape of the prisms in the prism array disclosed by Niclass and Oinoue, by using the three facet prism disclosed by Taboada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use off-the-shelf components, as suggested by Taboada (Col 4, lines 19-40).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, and in further view of Hong.
Regarding claim 18, Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 16.
Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, does not teach: wherein at least one of the plurality of prism elements has a rotational phase of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to an optical axis of the lens.
However, Hong teaches a pair of Risley prisms that can rotate about a common axis for beam steering. The prisms are able to rotate 360 degrees and can be set into an angular position by a controller (Fig. 2, prisms 211 and 212, Paragraph [0046], Paragraph [0050], Paragraph [0137]).
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 prisms disclosed by Niclass and Oinoue, by rotating the second optical elements in the array, which is taught by Hong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to steer a light beam (Paragraph [0046]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, and in further view of Pacala.
Regarding claim 19, Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, discloses the LiDAR device of claim 16.
Niclass, as modified in view Oinoue and Gimpel, does not teach: wherein the prism array contacts the light detection array.
However, Pacala teaches a receiver channel where the a converging lens set is connected to the photosensors (Fig. 23, Converging lens set 2324, photosensor 2326,Paragraph [0204]).
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 reception optics disclosed by Niclass and Oinoue, by placing the prism array in contact with the receiver array, which is taught by Pacala. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the pitch between SPADs or have a smaller aperture (Paragraph [0201]).
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