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 13 May 2026.
Claims 17, 28, and 31 were amended. Claims 1-16, 23, 25, and 33 were cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 17-22, 24, 26-32, and 34-39 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12 of the Remarks, filed 13 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 17, 28, and 31 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Sugimoto, US 20180246213 A1 in view of Li, L.; Yang, F.; Zhu, H.; Li, D.; Li, Y.; Tang, L. An Improved RANSAC for 3D Point Cloud Plane Segmentation Based on Normal Distribution Transformation Cells. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 433.
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 17, 26-28, 31 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto, US 20180246213 A1 (“Sugimoto”) in view of Li, L.; Yang, F.; Zhu, H.; Li, D.; Li, Y.; Tang, L. An Improved RANSAC for 3D Point Cloud Plane Segmentation Based on Normal Distribution Transformation Cells. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 433. (“Li”).
Regarding claim 17, Sugimoto discloses A solid-state lidar device, comprising:
a laser generator configured to generate a pulsed laser beam that is directed on a target (Fig. 6, emission unit 22, laser diode 22A, Paragraph [0124]);
an optical lens arrangement configured to collect the laser beam after it is reflected by the target to form a reflected laser beam (Fig. 5, lens unit 16, imaging lens 50, Paragraph [0141]-[0142]), the optical lens arrangement having a focal length and providing a rear focal plane (Fig. 5, lens unit 16, imaging lens 50, Paragraph [0141]-[0142]; See also [0194]);
a solid-state sensing array positioned at the rear focal plane of the optical lens arrangement, the solid-state sensing array comprising at least a first sensor and a second sensor configured to detect the reflected laser beam (Fig. 5, imagining element 60, Paragraph [0148]), wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are spaced from each other by a first sensor distance (Fig. 5, imagining element 60, Paragraph [0148]; See also [0194]); and
at least one processor configured to:
obtain multiple measured distances of the target from pulsed time-of-flight measurements utilizing the laser generator and a plurality of sensors of the solid-state sensing array, each measured distance of the multiple measured distances corresponding to a different sensor of the solid-state sensing array (Fig. 13, in-provisional-image irradiation positions X.sub.1, X.sub.2, and X.sub.3 and distances D.sub.1, D.sub.2, and D.sub.3, Paragraph [0209]); and
obtain at least one spatial coordinate for the target from the multiple measured distances using a calibration parameter indicative of a ratio of the first sensor distance and the focal length (Fig. 21, Expression (5), Paragraph [0254], [0270]), comprising:
initializing the calibration parameter to a first provisional value (Fig. 18, step 240, Paragraph [0251]);
obtaining provisional spatial coordinates for the target using the multiple measured distances of the target and the first provisional value (Fig. 18, step 242, Paragraph [0259]);
[…];
obtaining the at least one spatial coordinate for the target using the second value of the calibration parameter (Fig. 17, step 242, Paragraph [0259]; Note: Fig. 17, step 256 which reiterates previous steps if condition is not met, Paragraph [0295]).
Sugimoto does not teach:
fitting a fitting function to a point cloud function that comprises the provisional spatial coordinates;
calculating a cost function indicative of a deviation between the fitting function and the point cloud function:
determining, based on the cost function, the fitting is not completed:
in response to determining the fitting is not completed, changing the provisional value of the calibration parameter to an updated value, and re-performing obtaining provisional spatial coordinates based the undated value, re-performing fitting the fitting function to a point cloud function that comprises updated provisional spatial coordinates, re-calculating the cost function, and re-determining whether the fitting is completed based on the re-calculated cost function, until a determination is made that the fitting is completed, where a second value of the calibration parameter is used as a provisional value of the calibration parameter when the determination is made that the fitting is completed.
However, Li teaches a method to fit a 3D point cloud to a plane. Specifically Li teaches an algorithm to:
fit a fitting function to a point cloud function that comprises the input spatial coordinates (page 8, 4th paragraph; page 9, Algorithm 3, calculate mean, covariance, and eigen-decomposition of plane point cloud);
calculate a cost function indicative of a deviation between the fitting function and the point cloud function (page 8, equation 7; page 9, Algorithm 3, ri);
determine, based on the cost function, if fitting is complete (page 9, 1st paragraph, convergence threshold; Algorithm 3, convg < γ):
in response to determining the fitting is not completed, changing the parameters of the model to an updated value (page 9, Algorithm 3, update normal parameter nold=n), and re-performing the previous steps of leading up and including fitting a point cloud to a plane model and computing a cost function (page 9, Algorithm 3, recompute calculation of plane model parameters X-k, C, and n and cost function ri), until a determination is made that the fitting is completed (page 9, 1st paragraph, convergence threshold; Algorithm 3, convg < γ to terminate iterations), where an updated value is used in the iterative steps when the determination is made that the fitting is completed (page 9, Algorithm 3, update normal parameter nold=n).
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 Sugimoto’s measurement process by adding the steps of fitting the measured coordinates to a plane, calculating the cost function, and repeating the fitting steps until a threshold condition related to the cost function is satisfied, as disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a plane fitting result more robust to outliers, as suggested by Li (page 9, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 26, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17, wherein the fitting function is a linear function representable as a flat plane (Li, page 8, 4th paragraph; page 9, Algorithm 3, calculate mean, covariance, and eigen-decomposition of plane point cloud).
Regarding claim 27, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17, wherein obtaining the at least one spatial coordinate for the target further comprises modifying at least one measured distance by at least one additional sensor-specific calibration parameter indicative of inaccuracy for the at least one measured distance for at least one sensor of the solid-state sensing array (Sugimoto, Fig. 17, step 242, Paragraph [0259]; Fig. 21, Expression (5), Paragraph [0254]).
Claims 28, 31 and 36-37 are a method claim corresponding to apparatus claims 17 and 26-27. Claims 28, 31 and 36-37 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18-22, 32, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Li in further view of Niclass et al., US 20120075615 A1 (“Niclass”).
Regarding claim 18, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) arranged on a common substrate of the solid-state sensing array.
However, Niclass teaches a distance measurement device with a 2D sensor array composed of SPADs (Fig. 2, APD 201, Paragraph [0054]: APD may operate in Geiger mode).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced Sugimoto’s solid states sensor with Niclass’ SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 19, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li and Niclass, discloses the device according to claim 18, wherein the solid-state sensing array further comprises a third sensor configured to detect the reflected laser beam (Niclass, Fig. 2, photo sensitive area 200, APD 201, Paragraph [0049]), and wherein the first sensor, the second sensor and the third sensor are arranged in a one-dimensional arrangement (Niclass, Fig. 2, photo sensitive area 200, APD 201, pixel 230, 3 pixels aligned in one row or column, Paragraph [0049]; See also Paragraph [0048]: receiver embodiments may be a line of detectors).
Regarding claim 20, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: wherein the solid-state sensing array further comprises a third sensor configured to detect the reflected laser beam, and wherein the first sensor, the second sensor and the third sensor are arranged in a one-dimensional arrangement.
However, Niclass teaches a distance measurement device with a 2D sensor array composed of SPADs. A first sensor, the second sensor and the third sensor are arranged in a one-dimensional arrangement (Fig. 2, APD 201, Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced Sugimoto’s solid states sensor with Niclass’ SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 21, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li and Niclass, discloses the device according to claim 20, wherein the second sensor and the third sensor define a second sensor distance that is equal to the first sensor distance (Niclass, Fig. 2, photo sensitive area 200, APD 201, peripheral circuit, each pixel 230 has same layout, Paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 22, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: wherein the solid-state sensing array further comprises a third sensor configured to detect the reflected laser beam, and wherein the second sensor and the third sensor define a second sensor distance that is equal to the first sensor distance.
However, Niclass teaches a distance measurement device with a 2D sensor array composed of SPADs. A second sensor and a third sensor define a second sensor distance that is equal to the distance between a first sensor and a second sensor (Niclass, Fig. 2, photo sensitive area 200, APD 201, peripheral circuit, each pixel 230 has same layout, 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 replaced Sugimoto’s solid states sensor with Niclass’ SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale B).
Claims 32 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claims 18. Claims 32 is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 38, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: further comprising a diffuser, configured to spread out the laser beam from the laser generator.
However, Niclass teaches a distance measurement device with a diffuser that spreads out the laser beams from the laser diodes. (Fig. 1, diffuser 10, Paragraph [0048]).
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 Sugimoto’s laser generator by adding a diffuser, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enlarge the size of the apparent source, which is preferable for eye safety, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 39, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: wherein the solid-state sensing array comprises a two-dimensional arrangement of sensors.
However, Niclass teaches a distance measurement device with a 2D sensor array composed of SPADs (Fig. 1, 2D array of photodetectors 100, Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced Sugimoto’s solid states sensor with Niclass’ SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale B).
Claims 24, 29-30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Li in further view of Kusevic et al., US 20100157280 A1 (“Kusevic”).
Regarding claim 24, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the device according to claim 17.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not disclose the following, however Kusevic does teach: wherein the fitting function is a linear function representable as a straight line. (Kusevic, Fig. 5, steps 514 to 520, Paragraph [0029]: “for three distances the fit would be a linear model”).
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 distance measurement device and method, disclosed by Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, by performing a least squares adjustment to determine the best fit parameters, which is disclosed by Kusevic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to correct for alignment differences, as suggested by Kusevic (abstract).
Regarding claim 29, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the method according to claim 28.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: wherein the target comprises a flat surface facing the laser generator, and wherein the laser beam is reflected at the flat surface.
However, Kusevic teaches using flat wall with positioned targets to determine correction parameters for a LIDAR reference coordinate system (Fig. 2, target surface 140, scanning targets 142, 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 the distance measurement device and method, disclosed by Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, by setting up calibration targets along a flat wall, which is disclosed by Kusevic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to correct for alignment differences, as suggested by Kusevic (abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, discloses the method according to claim 28.
Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, does not teach: wherein the scanning is performed with a major surface of the solid-state sensing array being positioned non-parallel with respect to the target.
However, Kusevic teaches using flat wall with positioned targets to determine correction parameters for a LIDAR reference coordinate system. The camera is vertically offset from the scanner. (Fig. 2, target surface 140, scanning targets 142, 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 the distance measurement device and method, disclosed by Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li, by setting up calibration targets along a flat wall, which is disclosed by Kusevic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to correct for alignment differences, as suggested by Kusevic (abstract).
Claim 34 is method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 24 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 35, Sugimoto, as modified in view of Li and Kusevic, discloses the method according to claim 34, wherein obtaining the at least one spatial coordinate for the target further comprises modifying at least one measured distance by at least one additional sensor-specific calibration parameter indicative of inaccuracy for the at least one measured distance for at least one sensor of the solid-state sensing array (Sugimoto, Fig. 17, step 242, Paragraph [0259]; Fig. 21, Expression (5), Paragraph [0254]).
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
Prosecution Insights