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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 was received. The submission 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 address applicant’s amendments/ remarks dated October 23, 2025. Claims 9, 10, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 20-23 are new. Claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20-23 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed October 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 LaChapelle, US 20180306926 A1, (“LaChapelle”).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed October 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of LaChapelle, US 20180306926 A1, (“LaChapelle”).
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 1-7, 11-17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle, US 20180306926 A1, (“LaChapelle”) in view of Zhu.et.al., US 10473770 A1, (“Zhu”).
Regarding claim 1, LaChapelle teaches a LIDAR system (Abstract, [0018], [0157] lidar system 100), comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit an optical signal having a signature ([0157] light source 701, pulse encoder 702); a photodetector configured to detect a return signal and generate a captured signal representing the return signal ([0138] detector 602), wherein the return signal comprises a portion of the optical signal reflected by a surface in an environment of the LIDAR system ([0168] ..the output of the detector 602 includes one or more electrical signals produced as a result of the detection of light or photons arriving in the detector 602, and which are referred to herein as light detection signals); and a receiver configured to process the captured signal to determine a propagation time of the optical signal between the transmitter and the surface ([0146]), the receiver including signal processing components and timing circuitry ([0140] - [0144] amplitude detection circuits 608), wherein: the signal processing components include:
a plurality of trigger circuits each comprising a comparator and a register ([0141] TDCs 612),
the comparator being configured to detect whether the captured signal exceeds a threshold and the trigger circuit being configured to store in the register a timer value representing a hit time at which the captured signal exceeds the threshold ([0139] – [0142]);
a digitized signal generator configured to produce a digitized signal based on the timer values stored in the register ([0141] The TDCs 612 may output a digital signal indicating the one or more times that the incoming light detection signal met the threshold in the appropriate direction and these output signals are provided to the envelope detector 614);
LaChapelle fails to teach a filter circuit configured to determine, based on applying a match filter, whether the digitized signal matches the signature of the optical signal;
and the timing circuitry is configured to determine the propagation time of the optical signal between the transmitter and the surface based on the digitized signal and a result of applying the match filter when the digitized signal is determined to match the signature of the optical signal.
However, Zhu teaches a filter circuit configured to determine, based on applying a match filter, whether the digitized signal matches the signature of the optical signal (Column 10, Line 41-67, Column 11, Line 36-46);
and the timing circuitry is configured to determine the propagation time of the optical signal between the transmitter and the surface based on the digitized signal and a result of applying the match filter when the digitized signal is determined to match the signature of the optical signal (Column 10, Line 41-67, Column 11, Line 36-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify LaChapelle with the match filter processing of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of improving the SNR ratio by correlating the received signal with a filter, rather than simple signal comparison, thus enhancing the signal and minimizing noise.
Regarding claim 2, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter comprises a laser diode configured to emit the optical signal (LaChapelle [0062] light source 110).
Regarding claim 3, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, wherein the laser diode is a multi-mode, wavelength-locked laser diode (LaChapelle [0062] Fabry-Perot laser diode1).
Regarding claim 4, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the photodetector is an avalanche photodiode (APD) (LaChapelle [0122] receiver 140).
Regarding claim 5, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein a bias voltage applied to the APD is approximately between 8 volts and 16 volts less than a breakdown voltage of the APD (LaChapelle [0126] The APD 400 that is operated below a breakdown voltage may be referred to as a linear APD, and the output current generated by the APD 400 may be sent to an amplifier circuit (e.g., a transimpedance amplifier), [0130] examiner notes use of TIA 510 in APD 502, [0124]).
Regarding claim 6, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 5, wherein a gain of the APD is approximately between 80 and 100 (LaChapelle [0132] 40dB is 100 in linear factor).
Regarding claim 7, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, further comprising an optical filter disposed in an optical path of the photodetector, wherein the photodetector is configured to detect the return signal after the return signal passes through the optical filter (LaChapelle [0128] optical filter).
Claims 11-17 are method claims corresponding to system claims 1-7. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the digitized signal generator is further configured such that the digitized signal is a digital waveform in which each pulse corresponds to one of the hit times (LaChapelle, [0141]).
Regarding claim 21, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1.
LaChapelle fails to teach wherein the result of applying the match filter includes a correlation waveform and the timing circuitry is further configured to determine the propagation time of the optical signal based on a largest peak in the correlation waveform.
However, Zhu teaches wherein the result of applying the match filter includes a correlation waveform and the timing circuitry is further configured to determine the propagation time of the optical signal based on a largest peak in the correlation waveform (Column 10, Line 41-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify LaChapelle with the match filter processing of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of improving the SNR ratio by correlating the received signal with a filter, rather than simple signal comparison, thus enhancing the signal and minimizing noise.
Claims 22 and 23 are method claims corresponding to system claims 20 and 21. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Zhu, further in view of Eichenholz et.al., (US 20180286909 A1), (“Eichenholz”).
Regarding claim 8, LaChapelle, as modified by Zhu teaches the LIDAR system of claim 7.
Zhu fails to teach wherein the optical filter is a bandpass filter with a passband width between approximately 15 nm and 25 nm.
However, Eichenholz teaches wherein the optical filter is a bandpass filter with a passband width between approximately 15 nm and 25 nm (Eichenholz [0030] The notch filter may have an optical transmission of 90% or greater at in-band wavelengths (e.g., having a bandwidth of less than or equal to 40 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the bandpass filter of LaChapelle ([0128]) with the passband range taught by Eichenholz with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of further isolating desired returns at in-band wavelengths in order to determine the distance to the target based on the time of flight of the return light pulse, thus limiting further system processing of undesired returns.
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 8. It is rejected for the same reasons.
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 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 ANDREA MARIA BACA whose telephone number is (703)756-1255. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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.
/ANDREA MARIA BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Fabry-Perot laser diodes are multi-mode, wavelength-locked.
Prosecution Insights