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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/6/2026 and 5/18/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 20 February 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the specification.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-17, and 20 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of the Remarks, filed 20 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Zhu et al., US 20200278431 A1 in view of Kubota et al., US 20200292677 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.
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 1, 4-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al., US 20200278431 A1 (“Zhu”) in view of Kubota et al., US 20200292677 A1 (“Kubota”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a system, comprising:
an optical system configured to receive light from an environment through a field of view of the system (Fig. 2, LIDAR system 200, light beam 262, Paragraph [0044]);
a sensor configured to receive the light from the optical system and generate a plurality of sensor signals in response to the light (Fig. 3, photodetector 305, Paragraph [0049]), the sensor comprising a plurality of pixels (Fig. 3, photodetector 305, Paragraph [0049]), wherein a pixel of the plurality of pixels generates a sensor signal of the plurality of sensor signals (Fig. 3, photodetector 305, Paragraph [0049])
a readout system configured to:
generate a return signal based at least in part on a determination that a first temporal portion of the sensor signal satisfies a threshold level (Fig. 3, Photodetector 305, Receiver signal processing subsystem 310, Paragraph [0049]-[0050]), wherein the return signal is configured to indicate a reflection of an optical probe signal received from the environment (Fig. 5, operation 545, block 550, Paragraph [0061], [0073]), wherein the optical probe signal is generated by a first light source (Fig. 2, light source 220, Paragraph [0043]),
generate a background signal based at least in part on a second temporal portion of the sensor signal that is different from the first temporal portion of the sensor signal(Fig. 3, Photodetector 305, Receiver signal processing subsystem 310, Paragraph [0049]-[0050]; Fig. 5, operation 505, block 510, Paragraph [0061]-[0062]), wherein the background signal is configured to indicate an amount of light generated by a second light source different from the first light source (Fig. 5, operation 505, block 510, Paragraph [0061]-[0062]),
Zhu does not teach: generate a confidence signal based at least in part on the background signal, wherein the confidence signal is different from the threshold level, wherein the confidence signal indicates a probability that the return signal corresponds to the reflection of the optical probe signal, and
transmit the confidence signal and the return signal to a signal processing unit of the system.
However Kubota teaches a distance measuring device that detects both a return signal and a background signal from ambient light. The signal processor contains a reliability degree generator that generates a confidence signal for the peaks in the return signal (Fig. 7, reliability degree generator 222, Paragraph [0063]). The reliability degree (i.e. confidence signal) of a peak in the signal corresponding to noise is generally smaller than the reliability degree of a peak corresponding the return signal from a measurement object (Expression 1, Paragraph [0089]), indicating the probability that the return signal corresponds to the reflection of the optical probe. The reliability signal in part depends on the background signal (Paragraph [0077], [0083]) and is transmit with the return signal to the measurement processing circuit (Fig. 7, measurement processor 224, reliability degree R1, luminance value Lumi, Paragraph [0102]).
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 Zhu’s processing system by a reliability degree generator to generate a confidence signal, which is disclosed by Kubota. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve distance measurements in environments where noise is predominant, as suggested by Kubota (Paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the readout system generates the background signal based at least in part on another sensor signal of the plurality of sensor signals (Zhu, Fig. 5, operation 505, block 510, Paragraph [0061]-[0062]: operation 505 performed before a receive window).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second light source comprises another light emitting system, or sun light (Zhu, Fig. 3, Photodetector 305, Paragraph [0049]-[0050]; See also: Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the readout system generates the confidence signal further based on another background signal generated using another sensor signal of the plurality of sensor signals (Kubota, Paragraph [0077]: ambient light from present frame f(m) and preceding frame f(m-1)).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the readout system further generates the confidence signal based on the return signal or another return signal generated using another sensor signal of the plurality of sensor signals (Kubota, Paragraph [0077]: luminance value Lumi).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the readout system further generates another background signal based at least in part on another sensor signal of the plurality of sensor signals (Kubota, Paragraph [0077]: ambient light from present frame f(m) and preceding frame f(m-1)), generates another confidence signal based at least in part on the other background signal (Kubota, Paragraph [0077], Expression 1), and generates an overall confidence signal based on the confidence signal and the other confidence signal (Kubota, Paragraph [0077], Expression 1: reliability degree R1 based on first reliability degree R11 and second reliability degree R12).
Claims 9 and 12-15 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 5-8 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 contain the same claim limitations and claims 1 and 5-6 with the addition of the limitation: at least one non-transitory storage media storing machine-executable instructions that, when executed by a readout system comprising at least one processor. Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 5-6, with additional support from Zhu Paragraph [0034], which discloses the limitations being stored in a machine-readable medium and performed on a processor.
Regarding claim 17, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the at least one non-transitory storage media of claim 16, wherein the machine-executable instructions cause the at least one processor (Paragraph [0034]) to generate the background signal at least partially based on a portion of the light received from the optical system having wavelengths different from a wavelength of the optical probe signal (Zhu, Fig. 5, operation 505, block 510, Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the at least one non-transitory storage media of any of claim 16, wherein the confidence signal indicates a false alarm rate of the system (Kubota, Expression 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Kubota in further view of Pacala, US 20220291387 A1 (“Pacala”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, discloses the system of claim 1.
Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota, does not teach: wherein the readout system generates the background signal based at least in part on a reference sensor signal received from a reference pixel or a reference sub-pixel.
However, Pacala teaches a sensor array where individual sensors are either LIDAR sensors or ambient-light sensors (i.e. reference pixels) (Fig. 10, sensor array 1000, lidar sensor 1002, ambient-light sensors 1006, Paragraph [0121]-[0122]).
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 Zhu’s photodetector by adding distinct reference pixels, which is disclosed by Pacala. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to measure color or other optical properties of ambient light, as suggested by Pacala (Paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu, as modified in view of Kubota and Pacala, discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the reference sensor signal is at least partially associated with a portion of the light received from the optical system comprising wavelengths different from a wavelength of the optical probe signal (Zhu, Fig. 5, operation 505, block 510, Paragraph [0062]).
Claims 10-11 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 2-3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 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