DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/26/2025has been entered.
Claims 32,48,64-65 are amended.
Claims 32-35,37-51,53-65 are pending.
Claims 1-31,36,52, are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 32, 34-35,37-40,45-46,48,50-51,53-56,61-62, 64-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120038903 A1 (Weimer et al.) in view of EP 2395368 A1 (Mack ) further in view of JP H04366785 A (OKAMOTO).
Claim 32 and 48 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer teaches a computer-implemented method for expanding a dynamic range (para 14 note dynamic range) of a light detector of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning system, the method comprising:
receiving, using the light detector of the LiDAR scanning system configured to scan a plurality of transmitted pulse signals (para 53 note scan patterns can be produced), one or more returned pulse signals corresponding to a plurality of transmitted pulse signals, wherein at least two of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals have different power levels (abstract note different areas of the scene can be provided with different levels of illumination, para 24 note changing intensity);
selecting a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals, wherein the selected returned pulse signal is within the dynamic range of the light detector (para 24 note Light 120 reflected from the second rock 140b may be within the dynamic range of the LIDAR system 104 detector.);
identifying a transmitted pulse signal of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals that corresponds to the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal (para 24 note light 120);
and calculating a distance based on the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal and the identified transmitted pulse signal (para 24 note range).
Weimer fails to explicitly teach but Mack teaches at least two of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals have different power levels and are sent to the same object (para 34 note pulses 42,44 hit same object ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Weimer and Mach and modify the method such that at least two of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals
Weimer fails to explicitly teach but OKAMOTO teaches selecting a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals by identifying the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal in time from the one or more returned pulse signals (see abstract, para 15-17 and para 18 )
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Weimer and OKAMOTO and modify the method such that it can select a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals by identifying the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal in time from the one or more returned pulse signals. The motivation to so would be to reduce ranging error which arises from size of reflectance of an object (OKAMOTO para 18).
Claim 34 and 50 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer teaches wherein the selected returned pulse signal is a first returned pulse signal, wherein the one or more returned pulse signals further comprise a second returned pulse signal that exceeds the dynamic range of the light detector (para 46 note exceeds dynamic range).
Claim 35 and 51 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer teaches wherein the one or more returned pulse signals are above a noise level of the light detector (para 24 note Light 120 reflected from the second rock 140b may be within the dynamic range of the LIDAR system 104 detector, also claim 6 note greater than threshold).
Claim 37 and 53 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer teaches wherein selecting a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals comprises:
determining that there is only one returned pulse signal corresponding to the plurality of transmitted pulse signals and above a noise level of the light detector (para 24 note Light 120 reflected from the second rock 140b may be within the dynamic range of the LIDAR system 104 detector, also claim 6 note greater than threshold).
Claim 38 and 54 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32 . Weimer teaches wherein the plurality of transmitted pulse signals is a first plurality of transmitted pulse signals and the one or more returned pulse signals are first returned pulse signals, the method further comprising:
receiving one or more second returned pulse signals corresponding to a second plurality of transmitted pulse signals (para 46); determining that none of the one or more second returned pulse signals are within the dynamic range of the light detector (para 46); and after the determination, transmitting a third plurality of transmitted pulse signals, the third plurality of transmitted pulse signals being different from the second plurality of transmitted pulse signals in one or more of: the number of pulses, the peak power level of pulses, or a combination thereof (para 46).
Claim 39 and 55 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer teaches wherein the plurality of transmitted pulse signals forms a sequence of transmitted pulse signals having increasingly greater power levels (para 24 note increasing intensity).
Claim 40 and 56 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 39. Weimer teaches wherein the selected returned pulse signal is the only returned pulse signal of the one or more returned pulse signals that is above a noise level of the light detector (claim5 note threshold).
Claim 45 and 61 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer teaches wherein the plurality of transmitted pulse signals are configured to have power level differences among at least some neighboring transmitted pulse signals of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals (para 24-25 note intensity is changed among pulses).
Claim 46 and 62 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 45. Weimer teaches further comprising:
decoding, based on the power level differences, a plurality of returned pulse signals to identify the one or more returned pulse signals corresponding to the plurality of transmitted pulse signals (para 24-25 note intensity is changed among pulses, when transmitted signals have power level difference, the lidar will inherently decode based on the differences.).
Claim 41 and 57 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 39. Weimer teaches wherein the one or more returned pulse signals comprise two or three returned pulse signals above a noise level (para 24 Light 120 reflected from the second rock 140b may be within the dynamic range of the LIDAR system 104 detector. At least some of the light 120 reflected from the cliff 124 may be within the dynamic range of the LIDAR system 104 detector). Weimer fails to explicitly teach wherein the earliest received returned pulse signal of the two or three returned pulse signals is the selected returned pulse signal. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is obvious to take the earliest return and calculate distance as this will create a high speed lidar system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Weimer such that the earliest received returned pulse signal of the two or three returned pulse signals is the selected returned pulse signal for the purpose of creating a high speed lidar system.
Claim 64 and 65 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer teaches a computer-implemented method for expanding a dynamic range (para 14 note dynamic range) of a light detector of a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, the method comprising:
receiving, using the light detector of the LiDAR system, one or more returned pulse signals corresponding to a plurality of transmitted pulse signals forming a sequence (para 19-28 the pattern includes a plurality of closely spaced beams), wherein at least two of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals within the sequence have different power levels (abstract note different areas of the scene can be provided with different levels of illumination, para 24 note changing intensity),
selecting a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals, […],wherein the selected returned pulse signal is within the dynamic range of the light detector (para 24 note Light 120 reflected from the second rock 140b may be within the dynamic range of the LIDAR system 104 detector.);
identifying a transmitted pulse signal of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals that corresponds to the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal (para 24);
and calculating a distance based on the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal and the identified transmitted pulse signal (para 24).
Weimer fails to explicitly teach but Mack teaches at least two of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals have different power levels and are sent to the same object (para 34 note pulses 42,44 hit same object ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Weimer and Mach and modify the method such that at least two of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals
Weimer fails to explicitly teach but Okamoto teaches selecting a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals by identifying the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal in time from the one or more returned pulse signals (see abstract, para 15-17 and para 18).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Weimer and OKAMOTO and modify the method such that it can select a returned pulse signal from the one or more returned pulse signals by identifying the last received non-saturated returned pulse signal in time from the one or more returned pulse signals. The motivation to so would be to reduce ranging error which arises from size of reflectance of an object (OKAMOTO para 18).
Claim(s) 33,49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120038903 A1 (Weimer et al.) in view of EP 2395368 A1 (Mack ) further in view of US 10557940 B2 (Eichenholz et al) further in view of JP H04366785 A (OKAMOTO).
Claim 33 and 49 (mutatis mutandis). Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer fails to teach wherein a power ratio between two neighboring pulse signals of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals does not exceed the dynamic range of the light detector. However, Eichenholz teaches (col 4, lines 51-55) light source may produce a free-space output beam having any suitable average optical power, and the output beam may have optical pulses with any suitable pulse energy or peak optical power. Since Eichenholz teaches that the beam can have any suitable power therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art can create pulses such that the power ratio between two neighboring pulse signals of the transmitted sequence of pulse signals does not exceed the dynamic range of the detector. A person of ordinary skill in the art can do this without undue experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the references of Weimer, Mack, Okamoto and Eichenholz and modify the lidar system such that a power ratio between two neighboring pulse signals of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals does not exceed the dynamic range of the light detector. The motivation to do so would be to prevent saturation of detector which results in a loss of information as taught by Weimer (para 45).
Claim(s) 42-44,58-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120038903 A1 (Weimer et al.) in view of EP 2395368 A1 (Mack ) further in view of JP H04366785 A (OKAMOTO) further in view of US 20170219695 A1 (Hall et al).
Claim 42 and 58 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer fails but Hall et al. teaches wherein the plurality of transmitted pulse signals are encoded using different delays among at least some neighboring transmitted pulse signals of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals (para 59 note delay, abstract and para 65 note encoded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the references of Weimer, Mack, Okamoto and Hall et al. and modify the Lidar system such that the plurality of transmitted pulse signals is encoded using different delays among at least some neighboring transmitted pulse signals of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals. The motivation to do so would be to distinguish the measurement pulse sequence from exogenous signals as taught by Hall et al. (abstract).
Claim 43 and 59 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack, Okamoto and Hall et al. teaches the method of claim 42, further comprising:
decoding, based on the different delays, a plurality of returned pulse signals to identify the one or more returned pulse signals corresponding to the plurality of transmitted pulse signals (Hall para 59 note delay, abstract note decoded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the references of Weimer, Mack, Okamoto and Hall et al. and modify the Lidar system such that it can decode, based on the different delays, a plurality of returned pulse signals to identify the one or more returned pulse signals corresponding to the plurality of transmitted pulse signals. The motivation to do so would be to distinguish the measurement pulse sequence from exogenous signals as taught by Hall et al. (abstract).
Claim 44 and 60 (mutatis mutandis), Weimer as modified in view of Mack, Okamoto and Hall et al. teaches the method of claim 43, further comprising discarding, based on decoding results, return returned signals associated with associated with one or more other LiDAR system (Hall et al. abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the references of Weimer, Mack, Okamoto and Hall et al. and modify the Lidar system such that it can discard, based on decoding results, return returned signals associated with associated with one or more other LiDAR system. The motivation to do so would be to distinguish the measurement pulse sequence from exogenous signals as taught by Hall et al. (abstract).
Claim(s) 47,63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120038903 A1 (Weimer et al.) in view of EP 2395368 A1 (Mack ) further in view of JP H04366785 A (OKAMOTO) further in view of US 20130083316 A1 ( Mimeault et al.).
Claim 47 and 63 (mutatis mutandis). Weimer as modified in view of Mack and Okamoto teaches the method of claim 32. Weimer fails but Mimeault teaches the method further comprising:
providing a reference signal to the light detector, wherein calculating the distance is further based on a delay between the providing of the reference signal and the transmitting of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals (para 55 note reference signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have combined the references of Weimer, Mack, Okamoto and Mimeault and modify the Lidar system such that it can provide a reference signal to the light detector, wherein calculating the distance is further based on a delay between the providing of the reference signal and the transmitting of the plurality of transmitted pulse signals. The motivation to do so would be have a more accurate measurement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645