Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/917,321

LIDAR SENSOR, IN PARTICULAR A VERTICAL FLASH LIDAR SENSOR

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 06, 2022
Examiner
LUU, THANH X
Art Unit
2878
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Robert Bosch GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
1051 granted / 1346 resolved
+10.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1376
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1346 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what it means for “the pixel detector being configured tp evaluate the at least two macropixel arrays at each of its measuring points.” First, the pixel detector is simply a detector, it is unclear how it “evaluates” anything. Second, it is unclear what it means to “evaluate” pixel arrays at measuring points. Third, it is unclear how macropixel arrays have “measuring points” or what “measuring points” are. Regarding claim 10, “the at least two evaluated macropixel arrays” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear how many macropixel arrays are in the invention. Regarding claim 15, “the at least two evaluated macropixel arrays” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear how many macropixel arrays are in the invention. Claims 9, 11-14 are indefinite based on their dependencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Sakimura et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0413108). Regarding claims 8-15, Sakimura et al. disclose (Figs. 1-6) a LiDAR sensor, comprising: a laser source (2) configured to emit a laser signal in a transmission path; and a pixel detector (11) including at least two macropixel arrays (MP1, MP2 for each RL/SL), which is configured to detect a reflected laser signal in a receiving path, the pixel detector being configured to evaluate (13, 14) the at least two macropixel arrays at each of its measuring points. Sakimura et al. further disclose (Figs. 5, 6) different widths matched to the reflected laser signal (RL). Furthermore, as understood, since the structure of the apparatus is the same, the detection is in a plateau of the reflected laser signal or measurement data is output in parallel in a point cloud or is output according to predefined conditions. Claim(s) 8, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Sakaguchi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0348416). Regarding claims 8, 9, 15, Sakaguchi et al. disclose (Figs.) a LiDAR sensor, comprising: a laser source (13) configured to emit a laser signal in a transmission path; and a pixel detector (14) including at least two macropixel arrays (31), which is configured to detect a reflected laser signal in a receiving path, the pixel detector being configured to evaluate (Fig. 5) the at least two macropixel arrays at each of its measuring points. Furthermore, as understood, since the structure of the apparatus is the same, the sensor is a vertical flash LIDAR sensor or measurement data is output in parallel in a point cloud or is output according to predefined conditions as claimed. Claim(s) 8, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Song (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0208257). Regarding claims 8, 9, 15, Song discloses (Figs.) a LiDAR sensor, comprising: a laser source (104) configured to emit a laser signal in a transmission path; and a pixel detector (117) including at least two macropixel arrays (220, 222, etc.), which is configured to detect a reflected laser signal in a receiving path, the pixel detector being configured to evaluate (213, 215, 217; 107) the at least two macropixel arrays at each of its measuring points. Furthermore, as understood, since the structure of the apparatus is the same, the sensor is a vertical flash LIDAR sensor or measurement data is output in parallel in a point cloud or is output according to predefined conditions ([0038]-[0039]) as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM. 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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. /THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 06, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601815
OSCILLATOR ASSEMBLY WITH COUNTER-ROTATING MASS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578440
INDIRECT TIME-OF-FLIGHT (ITOF) SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578439
INCREASING RESOLUTION IN IMAGING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571883
LIDAR ECHO SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE, COMPUTER DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572066
EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET SOURCE TEMPERATURE MONITORING USING CONFOCAL SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1346 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month