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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/13/2026, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Ichiyanagi (US 20180364340 A1).
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, 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 20150260830 A1) in view of Ichiyanagi (US 20180364340 A1).
Claim 1: Ghosh teaches a LiDAR sensor for light detection and ranging, comprising:
- a light source comprising an array of light emitters (Fig. 4b, array of VCSELs 400),
wherein the light emitters are electrically interconnected as groups (Fig. 4b, sub-arrays 431),
and wherein the light emitters are operable to emit light away from the LiDAR senso (Fig. 7 optical source 730 emitting radiation pulses 745),
wherein at least two of the groups of light emitters form areas of the light source resembling different geometries from each other (Fig. 4b, different shapes of sub-arrays and [0063]),
- a driver circuit which is operable to address the groups of light emitters individually, such that the light emitters from a same group emit light with a same emission characteristic ([0063] - each sub-array having common bonding pad and addressable independently),
- a detector comprising an array of photodetectors, wherein each photodetector is operable to detect light emitted by the light source and being reflected by an object outside the LiDAR sensor and to generate a detector signal as a function of the detected light (Fig. 7, receiver 734 and [0076]), and
- a processing unit , which is operable to provide an output indicative of distance to the object based on the detector signals associated with a respective group of light emitters ([0082] - TOF).
Ghosh does not teach, but Ichiyanagi does teach, wherein the photodetectors (PD) are electrically interconnected as groups (Fig. 4, SPAD groups 7g each in a circuit and connected to individual trans impedance amplifiers 7b).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interconnected groups of photodetectors, as taught by Ichiyanagi, in the sensor as taught by Ghosh, because connecting groups of photodetectors in such a way allows for control over multiple photodetectors at once, reducing circuitry requirements, while still allowing for some flexibility (as not all photodetectors are controlled together).
Claim 2: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim 1, wherein the groups of the light emitters and/or groups of photodetectors, by way of their electrical interconnections, form contiguous areas of the array of light emitters or of the detector (Fig. 4d, sub-arrays 431 contiguous).
Claim 4: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim1, wherein:
- the processing unit is operable to provide a LiDAR image as output ([0094] - displaying image on screen), and
- the groups of light emitters are arranged according to regions of interest of the LiDAR image ([0014]-[0015] - illumination pattern based on objects of interest).
Claim 5: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim1, wherein the addressing of light emitters as groups is established by means of at least one of
a hardwired connection (Fig. 4d, conductor 426 connecting VCSELs 400 to bonding pads 427),
a programmable switch ([0095] – specific sequence of pulses implies programable switching),
and a dedicated power/control routing between a given group of light emitters and the driver circuit (Fig. 4d, conductor 426 connecting VCSELs 400 to bonding pads 427).
Claim 8: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim1, wherein the emission characteristic of a light emitter involves light intensity and/or light wavelength, according to one of the following:
- a given light emitter or group of light emitters, according to the emission characteristic used, emits light of a particular intensity and/or a particular wavelength ([0019] - different sections have different wavelengths and intensities), and/or
- a given light emitter or group of light emitters, according to the emission characteristic used, emits no light ([0095] - sequential implies some emitters are 'off' at a given time).
Claim 9: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim1, wherein the driver circuit comprises a plurality of driver channels , wherein
- each driver channel is associated to a section of the light source , and
- the driver channels are synchronized with respect to addressing the groups of light emitters ([0095]).
Claim 10: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim4, wherein
- the processing unit is operable to assign the regions of interest in the LiDAR image to the groups of light emitters ([0014]-[0015] - illumination pattern based on objects of interest), and
- the scanning process further defines a relative illumination of the regions of interest during the scanning process ([0013] - varying VCSEL modes).
Claim 11: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim1, wherein at least the detector, the at least one driver circuit and the processing unit are integrated in a common integrated circuit ([0020] - integrated VCSEL array chip).
Claim 12: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim1, wherein
- the light source comprises an array of VCSEL lasers (Fig. 4b, VCSELs 400), and
- the detector comprises an array of single-photon avalanche diodes, SPADs. ([0076] - array of photodetectors)
Claim 15: Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 16: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1, wherein the photodetectors are hardwired into groups (Ichiyanagi Fig. 4), and the light sources are hardwired into groups (Ghosh Fig. 4(d), conductor and bonding pads 427).
Claim 18: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim 2, wherein the contiguous areas of the detector formed by the groups of photodetectors do not overlap (Ichiyanagi Fig. 4, discreet detector groups).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 20150260830 A1) in view of Ichiyanagi (US 20180364340 A1) in view of Ko (US 20160182891 A1).
Claim 3: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. Ghosh does not teach, but Ko does teach wherein the area formed by at least one group of light emitters and/or photodetectors resembles a non-rectangular geometry (Fig. 2g).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date been obvious to use the non-rectangular geometry, as taught by Ko, in the LiDAR system as taught by Ghosh, as modified, because, as Ko teaches, this allows for different sized regions for illumination ([0047]). For instance, the geometry could be created with certain probable areas of interest in mind (such as the center of a FOV).
Claims 6 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 20150260830 A1) in view of Ichiyanagi (US 20180364340 A1) in view of Watnik (US 20160245902 A1).
Claim 6: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim 1, wherein
- the driver circuit is operable to address the groups of light emitters according to a scanning process ([0095] - sequence of pulses);
and wherein during the scanning process:
- one or more groups of light emitters emit light for a pre-determined period of time ([0095] - sequence of pulses and [0061] - predetermined sequence),
- one or more groups of light emitters emit light sequentially in a chronological order ([0095] - sequence of pulses).
Ghosh, as modified, does not teach, but Watnik does teach one or more groups of light emitters emit light constantly during the scanning process ([0024] – system with both pulsed and continuous wave laser beams).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the pulsed and continuous laser sources, as taught by Watnik. Combining the two would result in a system which has both the pulsed laser array, as taught by Ghosh, as modified, and also a continuous wave laser source which is constantly illuminating. It would be obvious to do so because, as Watnik teaches, this can illuminate an object or region of interest and mask other objects ([0030]), thus allowing for the object or region of interest to be more clearly detected and defined.
Claim 7: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR sensor according to claim 6, wherein the processing unit is operable to define the scanning process by setting the chronological order as to when and with which emission characteristic a given group of light emitters is to be addressed by means of the driver circuit ([0095]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 20150260830 A1) in view of Vaello (US 20230011969 A1) in view of Hsu (US 20160111561 A1).
Claim 13: Ghosh, as modified, teaches a LiDAR module, comprising:
- at least one LiDAR sensor according to claim1, and
[…] such that 561:
- the light emitters are operable to emit light away from the LiDAR module (Fig. 7, light 743-745 emitted away from system 710), and
- the photodetectors are operable to detect emitted light reflected by an object outside the LiDAR module (Fig. 7, light incident on detector 734 incident from object 720).
Ghosh does not teach, but Hsu does teach a package enclosing the LiDAR sensor with a light barrier optically shielding the light source from the detector ([0040] and Fig. 6, barrier 130 between emitter 110 and detector 120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the optical barrier, as taught by Hsu, in the sensor as taught by Ghosh, as modified, because this barrier would reduce interference between the emitter and detector (Hsu [0050]), thus reducing noise.
Claim 14: Ghosh, as modified, teaches a LiDAR enabled device, comprising at least one LiDAR module according to claim 13 embedded in a host system, the host system comprising one of:
- an assistance system for distance control, such as drive control, flight control, traffic control,
- an advanced driver assistance system, ADAS,
- a surveillance system (Ghosh [0088] - surveillance application),
- an industrial system, such as a logistics system,
- a mobile device,
- a navigation system, and/or
- a camera.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 20150260830 A1) in view of Ichiyanagi (US 20180364340 A1) in view of Sargent (US 9972652 B2).
Claim 17: Ghosh, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. Ghosh, as modified, does not teach, but Sargent does teach wherein at least two of the groups of photodetectors form areas of the detector resembling different geometries from each other (Figs. 4G-4L, showing pixel layouts).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layouts, as taught by Sargent, in the system as taught by Ghosh, as modified, because different pixel layouts would be well known in the art and yield predictable results (due to different amounts of light hitting each segment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific layout of the light source groups, as recited in Claims 19 and 20, was not found in prior art.
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights