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 6 January 2026.
No claims were amended. No claim was cancelled. New claims 4-6 were added. Therefore, claims 1-6 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Ma does not disclose “a controller configured to adjust the iFOV as a function of a time of flight of the light pulse generated by said laser”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant noted, in Paragraph [0049], Ma discloses “a processing circuit 13 synchronizes the trigger signals of the emitter 11 and the collector 12 to process the photon detection signals output by the pixels collecting photons.” In Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0052], Ma discloses the synchronously activated sampling area 204 that corresponds to a reflected light beam from the transmitter. After a calibration measurement, only sensing area 203 is activated. Thus, Ma discloses a processor which activates and adjusts the active sampling area, or iFOV, according to the expected time of flight of a light beam generated by the transmitter. The rejection is maintained.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al., CN 112198519 A ("Ma").
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a lidar system, comprising: a laser configured to generate a light pulse (Fig. 1, transmitter 11, light source 111, light beam 30, Paragraph [0046]-[0047]); transmit optics configured to receive the light pulse from said laser and direct the light pulse toward an external environment (Fig. 1, emitting optical element 112, Paragraph [0047]); receive optics separate from said transmit optics for receiving light from the light pulse reflected off of an object in the external environment (Fig. 1, receiving optical element 123, target 20, reflected light beam 40, Paragraph [0046], [0048]); an array of photodetectors positioned to receive the light from the receive optics (Fig. 1, pixel unit 121, Paragraph [0048]) and generate an image corresponding to an instantaneous field of view ("iFOV") of the external environment (Fig. 2, sampling area 204, three sensing areas 201, 202, 203, Paragraph [0052]); a controller configured to adjust the iFOV as a function of a time of flight of the light pulse generated by said laser (Fig. 1, processing circuit 13, Paragraph [0049]; See also Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses the lidar system as set forth in claim 1, wherein at least one of said photodetectors is a single-photon avalanche diode (Fig. 2, SPAD 205, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Ma discloses the lidar system as set forth in claim 1, wherein adjusting the iFOV as a function of a time of flight of the light pulse generated by said laser further comprises, for a shorter time of flight, adjusting the iFOV in accordance with a larger parallax, and, for a longer time of flight, adjusting the iFOV in accordance with a smaller parallax (Fig. 2, sampling area 204, three sensing areas 201, 202, 203, Paragraph [0052]; Note: the three sensing areas account for shifting from object at different distances).
Regarding claim 6, Ma discloses the lidar system as set forth in claim 1, wherein adjusting the iFOV as a function of a time of flight of the light pulse generated by said laser further comprises using time of flight to account for distortion due to parallax and defocusing (Fig. 2, sampling area 204, three sensing areas 201, 202, 203, Paragraph [0052]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of McCord et al., US 20190162858 A1 ("McCord").
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses the lidar system as set forth in claim 1.
Ma does not teach: wherein at least one of said photodetectors is a PIN photodiode.
However, McCord teaches a LIDAR sensor where the detector may comprise of a PIN diode (Fig. 1, detector 160a, Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the SPADs in Ma’s pixel array with McCord’s PIN diodes. The results of this simple substitution of known detector elements would have been predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Dussan et al., US 20170242108 A1 ("Dussan ").
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses the lidar system as set forth in claim 1.
Ma does not teach: wherein adjusting the iFOV as a function of a time of flight of the light pulse generated by said laser further comprises accounting for distortion by allowing a shape and a size of the iFOV to be a function of scan location.
However, Dussan teaches an adaptive ladar receiver that adapts the active region of the photodetector array. The pixels are activated based on the targeted range point and other parameters, such as potential off-axis beam aberrations (Fig. 12, step 1208, Paragraph [0097]; See also Fig. 11B, subset 1130).
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 Ma’s processor by adding functionality to adjust the active sensing area based on beam aberrations, which is disclosed by Dussan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “increase the size of the active sensor region based on the derived information”, as suggested by Dussan (Paragraph [0097]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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