Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/945,072

COMBINING DATA FROM DIFFERENT SAMPLE REGIONS IN AN IMAGING SYSTEM FIELD OF VIEW

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 14, 2022
Examiner
HULKA, JAMES R
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Silc Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
731 granted / 957 resolved
+24.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
994
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 957 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13, 26, and 28-39) in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-25 and 27 have been withdrawn (cancelled) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 December 2025. 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. Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 26, 28-37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Asghari (US 2020/0158830). Regarding Claim 1, Asghari discloses a LIDAR system, comprising: one or more cores that each outputs a system output signal that illuminates multiple sample regions in a field of view [0023-24], a reference one of the cores including a light combiner configured to generate a composite signal beating at a beat frequency [0023; 0033; 0048; 0119; 0130], and electronics configured to use a real Fourier transform to determine a beat frequency of the composite signal [0097; 0108; 0110; 0113-15], the electronics configured to use the beat frequency of the composite signal to calculate the magnitude of a radial velocity indicator for a reference one of the sample regions illuminated by the system output signal output from the reference core [0044; 0058; 0105; 0137], the radial velocity indicator indicating a radial velocity between the LIDAR system and an object in the reference sample region [0024; 0044; 0105; 0113-14], the electronics configured to identify a direction of the radial velocity indicator [0024; 0049], the identification of the direction including a comparison of the magnitude of the radial velocity indicator to data calculated for a subject sample region selected from among the sample regions [0049-51; 0075; 0102; 0104-06], the reference sample region being different from the subject sample region [0024; 0049; 0100-01; 0127; 0131]. Regarding Claim 26, Asghari discloses a method of operating a LIDAR system, comprising: illuminating multiple sample regions in a field of view with system output signals output from different cores [0023-24]; combining light signals so as to generate a composite signal beating at a beat frequency [0023; 0033; 0048; 0119; 0130]; using the value of the beat frequency of the composite signal to calculate a magnitude of a radial velocity indicator [0097; 0108; 0110; 0113-15] for a reference one of the sample regions illuminated by the system output signal output from the reference core [0044; 0058; 0105; 0137], the radial velocity indicator indicating a radial velocity between the LIDAR system and an object in the reference sample region [0024; 0044; 0105; 0113-14]; and identifying a direction of the radial velocity indicator [0024; 0049] by comparing the magnitude of the radial velocity indicator to data calculated for a subject one of the sample regions [0049-51; 0075; 0102; 0104-06], the reference sample region being different from the subject sample region [0024; 0049; 0100-01; 0127; 0131]. Regarding Claims 2 and 28, Asghari also discloses wherein the radial velocity indicator is a calculation of the radial velocity for the reference sample region [0024; 0044]. Regarding Claims 3 and 29, Asghari also discloses wherein the radial velocity indicator is the beat frequency of the composite signal that results from illumination of the reference sample region by one of the system output signals [0044; 0049-50]. Regarding Claims 4 and 30, Asghari also discloses wherein the data from the subject sample regions includes multiple possible LIDAR data solutions for the subject sample region [0049; 0106; 0113]. Regarding Claims 5 and 31, Asghari also discloses wherein each of the possible LIDAR data solutions for the subject sample region includes all or a portion of the components selected from the group consisting of an fr value, an fd value, a radial velocity value and a range value [0044; 0047; 0049], the fd value being a Doppler frequency shift [0104-07], the fr value being a frequency shift that results from a distance between the system and an object in the subject sample region [0049; 0105], the radial velocity value indicating a radial velocity between the system and the object in the subject sample region [0024; 0044; 0073; 0113-14], and the range value indicating a range between the system and the object in the subject sample region [0044; 0047; 0049]. Regarding Claims 6 and 32, Asghari also discloses wherein each of the possible LIDAR data solutions includes a comparative component selected from an fd value and a radial velocity value,the fd value being a Doppler frequency shift [0095; 0104-07] and the radial velocity value indicating a radial velocity between the system and an object in the subject sample region [0024; 0044; 0073; 0113-14]; and the comparison of the magnitude of the radial velocity indicator to data calculated for one or more reference sample regions includes comparing the magnitude of the radial velocity indicator to the comparative component [0055]. Regarding Claims 7 and 33, Asghari also discloses wherein the electronics identify the possible LIDAR solution with the comparative component that has a magnitude closest to the magnitude of the magnitude of the radial velocity indicator [0051; 0058; 0105]. Regarding Claims 8 and 34, Asghari also discloses wherein the electronics set the direction of the radial velocity indicator equal to a direction of the identified comparative component [0088; 0136]. Regarding Claims 9 and 35, Asghari also discloses wherein the reference sample region and the subject sample region at least partially overlap [0029; 0075; 0133; 0143]. Regarding Claims 10 and 36, Asghari also discloses wherein the reference sample region is the sample region that is closest to the subject sample region [0088; 0133]. Regarding Claims 11 and 37, Asghari also discloses wherein the one or more cores is multiple cores and the system output signal that illuminated the subject sample region is different from the system output signal that illuminated the sample region that is closest to the subject sample region [0024; 0088; 0131-33; 0137]. Regarding Claims 13 and 39, Asghari also discloses wherein the electronics use a real Fourier transform to calculate a value of the beat frequency [0105-06; 0113-15]. 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. Claim(s) 12 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asghari (US 2020/0158830), as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of Cai (US 2021/0325520). Regarding Claims 12 and 38, Asghari also teaches wherein the electronics estimate a range …calculated for multiple different sample regions selected from among the sample regions illuminated by system output signals from the one or more cores [0024; 0044; 0100; 0144]. Asghari does not explicitly teach – but Cai does teach estimate a range for the subject sample region by interpolating between ranges [0035-37; 0049-53; 0086; 0116]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Asghari to include estimating a range by interpolating as therefore the error introduced by interpolating between adjacent entries in the improved calibration map is generally significantly smaller. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm. 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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. JAMES R. HULKA Primary Examiner Art Unit 3645 /JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 14, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591050
TIME OF FLIGHT RANGING SYSTEM AND RANGING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571917
IMAGE SENSOR OPERATING BASED ON PLURALITY OF DELAY CLOCK SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571884
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR SINGLE PHOTON DEPTH IMAGING WITH IMPROVED EFFICIENCY USING COMPRESSIVE HISTOGRAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553994
AVALANCHE PHOTODIODE GAIN COMPENSATION FOR WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546895
DEVICE OF ACQUISITION OF A 2D IMAGE AND OF A DEPTH IMAGE OF A SCENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+11.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 957 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