DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 24 Nov 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 1-11 and 13-20; and cancelled Claim 12. The Office rejects pending Claims 1-11 and 13-20 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites in error “wherein wherein [<< duplicated wherein] the circuitry has a data compression/decompression function…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf et al. - U.S. Pub. 20190271767 - in view of Patanwala et al. - U.S. Pub. 20190257950 [IDS Entry] +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Keilaf teaches a light receiving circuit that has a plurality of photon counting type light receiving elements, wherein the plurality of photon counting type light receiving elements is configured to receive light from an object, and the received light is reflected light from the object based on a pulsed light from a light source (¶65|1: “In one embodiment, the at least one sensor includes a SiPM (Silicon photomultipliers) which is a solid-state single-photon-sensitive device built from an array of avalanche photodiode (APD), single photon avalanche diode (SPAD), serving as detection elements on a common silicon substrate.”); and circuitry configured to: add values of the plurality of photon counting type light receiving elements at a determined time to output a sum as a pixel value (¶112|11: ”Accordingly, the number of detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be constant, or may vary, and differing detectors 410 in a common array may have a different number of detection elements 402. The outputs of all detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be summed, averaged, or otherwise combined to provide a single pixel-output value.”); […] and control a distance measurement calculation based on the […] data to calculate a distance to the object (¶77|1: According to some embodiments, scanning the environment around LIDAR system 100 may include illuminating field of view 120 with light pulses. The light pulses may have parameters such as: pulse duration, pulse angular dispersion, wavelength, instantaneous power, photon density at different distances from light source 112, average power, pulse power intensity, pulse width, pulse repetition rate, pulse sequence, pulse duty cycle, wavelength, phase, polarization, and more.” Further, (¶51|12) “By way of example only, the determined distance may include a line of flight distance between the LIDAR system and another tangible object in a field of view of the LIDAR system.”) Keilaf doesn’t explicitly teach the remailing limitations.
But Patanwala teaches transform[ing] the pixel value obtained as a result of the addition into a logarithmic value to obtain a resultant as logarithmic representation data (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”)
It 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 to combine Keilaf and Patanwala because doing logarithmic transformations on the summed received pixel data normalizes disparate values.
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to transform a value obtained by subtracting a determined value from the pixel value into the logarithmic value to use the resultant as the logarithmic (Patanwala) representation data used for the distance measurement calculation (¶112|11: ”Accordingly, the number of detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be constant, or may vary, and differing detectors 410 in a common array may have a different number of detection elements 402. The outputs of all detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be summed, averaged, or otherwise combined to provide a single pixel-output value.”)
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 2, Keilaf teaches wherein in a case where the determined value is larger than the pixel value, the circuitry is further configured to perform a transformation process with the value obtained as a result of the subtraction as zero (0) (¶112|11: ”Accordingly, the number of detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be constant, or may vary, and differing detectors 410 in a common array may have a different number of detection elements 402. The outputs of all detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be summed, averaged, or otherwise combined to provide a single pixel-output value.”)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 3, Keilaf teaches further comprising, in a case where the determined value is an ambient light intensity estimate that is obtained by adding a determined addend to a value obtained by multiplying arithmetic mean of ambient light by a determined multiplier, the circuitry is further configured to: based on the pixel value, calculate the arithmetic mean of the ambient light in logarithmic representation to estimate ambient light intensity and subtract, from the pixel value, the estimated ambient light intensity (¶185|12: “As also demonstrated in FIG. 71, areas corresponding to ambient light sources may possibly be allocated with relatively small pixels and/or subtracted from larger pixels, in order to limit the flooding of light arriving from such sources, to blind only small parts of the detection array.”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to subtract data obtained as a result of transformation from a determined value into the logarithmic value from data obtained as a result of the transformation from the pixel value into the logarithmic value, and use the resultant as the logarithmic representation data used for the distance measurement calculation (¶77|1: According to some embodiments, scanning the environment around LIDAR system 100 may include illuminating field of view 120 with light pulses. The light pulses may have parameters such as: pulse duration, pulse angular dispersion, wavelength, instantaneous power, photon density at different distances from light source 112, average power, pulse power intensity, pulse width, pulse repetition rate, pulse sequence, pulse duty cycle, wavelength, phase, polarization, and more.” Further, (¶51|12) “By way of example only, the determined distance may include a line of flight distance between the LIDAR system and another tangible object in a field of view of the LIDAR system.”)
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 5, Keilaf teaches further comprising, in a case where the determined value is an ambient light intensity estimate that is obtained by adding a determined addend to a value obtained by multiplying geometric mean of ambient light by a determined multiplier, the circuitry is further configured to: based on the pixel value, calculate the geometric mean of the ambient light in logarithmic representation to estimate ambient light intensity and transform the ambient light intensity into the logarithmic value (¶185|12: “As also demonstrated in FIG. 71, areas corresponding to ambient light sources may possibly be allocated with relatively small pixels and/or subtracted from larger pixels, in order to limit the flooding of light arriving from such sources, to blind only small parts of the detection array.”)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 2, Patanwala teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: correlate a flight time from emission of the pulsed light by the light source to return of the reflected light as a bin of a histogram; and store the logarithmic representation data calculated using the pixel value sampled at each time as a count value of the bin corresponding to the time (¶21|1: “In operation of an embodiment, a pixel occupancy histogram may be generated as an output of the TOF image processing system 100 to be exploited by an actuating system, such as the system 200”)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 7, Patanwala teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to add the logarithmic representation data of each time of the reflected light from the object to be measured based on emission of the pulsed light applied a plurality of times by the light source to the count value of the bin corresponding to the time and update the histogram (¶40|1 : “At 612, the method 600 creates or updates a histogram by storing count information in a plurality of bins. This may be done, for example, under control of the control circuitry 110 by storing count information in the memory 112. Each of the plurality of bins stores counts associated with a respective distance range, and a size of a bin in the plurality of bins is a function of the respective distance range.”)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 8, Patanwala teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the histogram obtained by accumulating count values calculated using the pixel value obtained by receiving the reflected light based on the emission of the pulsed light applied the plurality of times by the light source (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”)
As for Claim 10, which depends on Claim 8, Keilaf teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: subtract, from the pixel value, a value calculated using pixel values sampled at the plurality of times in a determined measurement period as the determined value; and add the logarithmic representation data calculated by the subtraction as the count value of the bin of the histogram (¶185|12: “As also demonstrated in FIG. 71, areas corresponding to ambient light sources may possibly be allocated with relatively small pixels and/or subtracted from larger pixels, in order to limit the flooding of light arriving from such sources, to blind only small parts of the detection array.”)
As for Claim 13, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: transform a sum total obtained by summing pixel values sampled at a plurality of times in a determined measurement period into the logarithmic value; and output an image in which the logarithmic representation data transformed is used as the pixel value (¶112|11: ”Accordingly, the number of detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be constant, or may vary, and differing detectors 410 in a common array may have a different number of detection elements 402. The outputs of all detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be summed, averaged, or otherwise combined to provide a single pixel-output value.”)
As for Claim 14, which depends on Claim 1, Patanwala teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: calculate an approximate value of the logarithmic value of a sum total of pixel values while maintaining logarithmic representation of the logarithmic representation data obtained by transforming pixel values sampled at a plurality of times in a determined measurement period into logarithmic values using a determined approximate expression; and output an image in which the approximate value is used as the pixel value (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”)
As for Claim 15, which depends on Claim 1, Patanwala teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to further logarithmically transform and compress a cumulative histogram of logarithmic representation (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”)
As for Claim 16, which depends on Claim 1, Patanwala teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to further logarithmically transform and compress a cumulative histogram of logarithmic representation after subtraction with a minimum value of the cumulative histogram (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”)
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 1, Patanwala teaches [wherein] the circuitry has a data compression/decompression function by differential encoding before and after a memory that stores the logarithmic representation data (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”)
As for Claim 18, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf teaches wherein each of the plurality of photon counting type light receiving elements includes an avalanche photodiode that operates in Geiger mode (¶65|1: “In one embodiment, the at least one sensor includes a SiPM (Silicon photomultipliers) which is a solid-state single-photon-sensitive device built from an array of avalanche photodiode (APD), single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) [i.e., Geiger mode avalanche diode], serving as detection elements on a common silicon substrate.”)
Claims 19-20 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
+-_+_+_+-_+_+_+-_+_+_+-_+_+_+-_+_+_+-_+_+_+
+_+_+ Claim 11 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keilaf and Patanwala in view of Wang et al. - U.S. Pub. 20200033456 +_+_+
As for Claim 11, which depends on Claim 1, Keilaf and Patanwala don’t explicitly teach all the claim elements.
But Wang teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: detect a peak of each reflected light by performing magnitude comparison between count values of a histogram with logarithmic representation used; and calculate a distance based on a time corresponding to a bin at a start of a rise of the peak (¶204|6: “A histogram of photo-detection times may be formed and the bin corresponding to the peak number of detected photos may be used to estimate the surface reflectance S of the object at the point where a light pulse has been reflected. Alternatively, the histogram for a pixel may be convolved with the trigger waveform output from a SPAD, and the maximum detected photon count is then selected.” That is, distance can be calculated by identifying the peak of the scaled histogram data indicating when the pulsed signal was received at the photodetector.)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine Keilaf and Patanwala with Wang because determining the tof/distance is a critical function of a lidar system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 Nov 2025 relate to newly amended claims and are not addressed in this section; the rejections above, however, address the latest version of the claims in detail.
Nevertheless, the Examiner will address Applicant's main argument related to the amended independent claim, as the Office finds them unpersuasive.
Applicant Argument:
Applicant argues (Remarks, P12/13) the following “Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Keilaf and Patanwala does not teach, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of ‘transform the pixel value obtained as a result of the addition into a logarithmic value to obtain a resultant as logarithmic representation data; and control distance measurement calculation based on the logarithmic representation data to calculate a distance to the object,’ as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner Response:
The Office finds this argument unpersuasive. Keilaf clearly teaches adding multiple pixel values to get a single pixel value [which is used to calculate distance] (¶112|11: ”Accordingly, the number of detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be constant, or may vary, and differing detectors 410 in a common array may have a different number of detection elements 402. The outputs of all detection elements 402 in each detector 410 may be summed, averaged [i.e., scaled], or otherwise combined to provide a single pixel-output value.”) That summed value can then be averaged “or otherwise” combined to get the single output value. Patanwala is used to show that “or otherwise” can include specifically using a logarithmic scaling function on detected values (¶28|1: “FIG. 3 illustrates an ideal counter bit depth using logarithmic scaling as compared to an equal counter bit depth. In an embodiment, the counter bin bit depth is based on an ideal counter bit depth plus margin bits, with the ideal counter bit depth being based on a logarithmic function of a distance associated with a range of distances associated with the counter bin. Other distance-based scaling functions may be employed, e.g., linear scaling functions, etc., and margin bits may be employed with various scaling functions.”) The combination of which is reasonable, as “doing a logarithmic transformation normalizes disparate values.”
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.
Applicants should direct any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications to CLINT THATCHER at phone 571.270.3588. Examiner is normally available Mon-Fri, 9am to 5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645