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 26 March 2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 15 were amended. Claims 2-3 were cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-15 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 LaChapelle, US 20180284275 A1 in view of Kapusta et al., US 20210156973 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, 5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle, US 20180284275 A1 (“LaChapelle”) in view of Kapusta et al., US 20210156973 A1 (“Kapusta”).
Regarding claim 1, LaChapelle discloses A LiDAR system, comprising:
M emission units (Fig. 1, light source 110, Paragraph [0033]), M receiving units (Fig. 1, receiver 140, Paragraph [0033], Fig. 13, detector 602, Paragraph [0131]), NxM comparison units (Fig. 13, comparator 610, Paragraph [0133]), NxM timing units (Fig. 13, TDC 612, Paragraph [0133]), and a processing unit (Fig. 1, controller 150, Paragraph [0043]; Fig. 13, envelope detector 614, range detector circuit 616, Paragraph [0133]), wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1 and M is a positive integer greater than 0 (Figs. 1 and 13: one light source and detector and more than two comparators and TDCs), wherein
each emission unit is electrically connected to the processing unit and the N timing units separately (Paragraph [0070]-[0071]), each receiving unit is electrically connected to the N comparison units separately (Fig. 13, detector 602, comparator 610, Paragraph [0133]), each comparison unit is electrically connected to each timing unit correspondingly (Fig. 13, comparator 610, TDC 612, Paragraph [0133]), and the processing unit is electrically connected to the NxM timing units separately (Fig. 13, TDC 612, envelope detector 614, range detector circuit 616, Paragraph [0133]);
each emission unit is configured to emit a laser signal (Fig. 1, light source 110, Paragraph [0034]);
each receiving unit is configured to receive an echo signal corresponding to the laser signal (Fig. 1, receiver 140, Paragraph [0035]), and separately send the echo signal to the N comparison units corresponding to the receiving unit (Fig. 13, comparator 610, Paragraph [0134]), wherein the N comparison units corresponding to each receiving unit are separately corresponding to N different thresholds (Fig. 14, thresholds T--1-T6, Paragraph [0134]);
each comparison unit is configured to convert the echo signal into a digital signal based on thresholds separately corresponding to the comparison units, and send the digital signal to a timing unit corresponding to the comparison unit (Fig. 13, comparator 610, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]-[0136]);
each timing unit is configured to perform timing based on the laser signal and the digital signal, and send a timing result and the digital signal to the processing unit (Fig. 13, TDC 612, Paragraph [0136]-[0137]); and
the processing unit is configured to process the timing result and the digital signal (Fig. 13, envelope detector 614, range detector circuit 616, Paragraph [0140]);
wherein the M emission units comprise a first emission unit (Fig. 1, light source 110, Paragraph [0034]), the N comparison units and the N timing units corresponding to a first receiving unit respectively comprise a first comparison unit and a first timing unit (Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), and the first comparison unit is electrically connected to the first timing unit and comprises a first threshold (Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, threshold T-1, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
wherein the first comparison unit is configured to convert the echo signal into a first digital signal based on the first threshold, and send the first digital signal to the first timing unit (Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, threshold T-1, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
the first timing unit is configured to perform timing based on the first digital signal, and send a first timing result and the first digital signal to the processing unit (Fig. 13, TDC 612, Paragraph [0136]); and
the processing unit is further configured to perform ranging processing based on the first timing result and the first digital signal (Fig. 13, envelope detector 614, range detector circuit 616, Paragraph [0140]); and
wherein the N comparison units and the N timing units corresponding to the first receiving unit respectively comprise a second comparison unit and a second timing unit (Fig. 13, comparator 610B+, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), and the second comparison unit is electrically connected to the second timing unit and comprises a second threshold (Fig. 13, comparator 610B+, threshold T-2, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
wherein the second comparison unit is configured to convert the echo signal into a second digital signal based on the second threshold, and send the second digital signal to the second timing unit (Fig. 13, comparator 610B+, threshold T-2, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
the second timing unit is configured to perform timing based on the second digital signal, and send a second timing result and the second digital signal to the processing unit (Fig. 13, TDC 612, Paragraph [0136]); and […].
LaChappelle does not teach: the processing unit is further configured to, based on the .
However, Kapusta teaches a LIDAR with multiple detection paths in the receiver circuit. One detection path sends a digital signal to a saturation determination unit to determine if the output of the first receiving unit is in a saturation state (Fig. 3, saturation determination unit 340, Paragraph [0044]).
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 LaChapelle’s controller by adding a saturation determination unit, which is disclosed by Kapusta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of distance measurements by compensating for saturated signals, as suggested by Kapusta (Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 1,wherein
the processing unit is configured to, based on the second timing result, determine whether the second digital signal comprises a signal segment satisfying that duration of the signal segment with a value of 1 exceeds a first duration threshold (LaChapelle, Fig. 13-14, comparator 610, TDC 612, envelope detector 614, Paragraph [0135], [0138]-[0139]); and
if yes, determine that the first receiving unit is in the receiving saturation state (Kapusta, Fig. 3, saturation determination unit 340, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, discloses an echo signal processing method, applied to the LiDAR system according to claim 1, the echo signal processing method comprising:
obtaining at least two digital signals and at least two timing results respectively corresponding to echo signals based on at least two thresholds (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, comparator 610B+, threshold T-1, threshold T2, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), wherein the thresholds, the digital signals, and the timing results are in one-to-one correspondence (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, comparator 610B+, threshold T-1, threshold T2, TDC 612, Paragraph [0135] – [0136]); and
processing the echo signal based on the at least two digital signals and the at least two timing results (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, envelope detector 614, range detector circuit 616, Paragraph [0140]).
Regarding claim 15, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, discloses an echo signal processing apparatus applied to the LiDAR system according to claim 1, comprising:
an obtaining module, configured to obtain at least two digital signals and at least two timing results respectively corresponding to echo signals based on at least two thresholds (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, comparator 610B+, threshold T-1, threshold T2, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), wherein the thresholds, the digital signals, and the timing results are in one-to-one correspondence (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610A+, comparator 610B+, threshold T-1, threshold T2, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]); and
a processing module, configured to process the echo signals based on the at least two digital signals and the at least two timing results (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, envelope detector 614, range detector circuit 616, Paragraph [0140]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Kapusta in further view of Mandai et al., US 20180081061 A1 (“Mandai”).
Regarding claim 4, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 1.
LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, does not teach: wherein after determining that the first receiving unit is in the receiving saturation state, the processing unit is further configured to indicate reducing emission power of the first emission unit.
However, Mandai teaches comparing the number of firing detectors to a threshold in order to determine if the detector has been saturated. If the comparison indicates a saturation, the controller lowers the laser power until the detector is no longer saturated (Paragraph [0023]).
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 LaChapelle’s light source by lowering the laser power if the detector is saturated, which is disclosed by Mandai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “[support] accurate readings of the scene reflectivities measured by the LiDAR”, as suggested by Mandai (Paragraph [0018]).
Claims 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Kapusta in further view of Takatsuka et al., US 20240302504 A1 (“Takatsuka”).
Regarding claim 6, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the N comparison units and the N timing units corresponding to the first receiving unit respectively comprise a third comparison unit and a third timing unit (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), and the third comparison unit is electrically connected to the third timing unit, wherein the third comparison unit comprises a third threshold (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
the third comparison unit is configured to convert the echo signal into a third digital signal based on the third threshold, and send the third digital signal to the third timing unit (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0135]);
the third timing unit is configured to perform timing based on the third digital signal, and send a third timing result and the third digital signal to the processing unit (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, TDC 612, Paragraph [0136]); […].
LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, does not teach: and the processing unit is further configured to, based on the third timing result and the third digital signal, determine whether there is ambient noise in the echo signal.
However, Takatsuka teaches a subtraction determining section that uses comparators to determine if a count value is larger than a threshold. If the count value is larger, then a predetermined value is subtracted from the count values using a subtraction controller. (Fig. 5, subtraction determining section 36, comparator circuits CP1A, CP1B, CP1C, and CP1D, threshold THA, subtraction controller 37, Paragraph [0092]-[0093]). The light component that is subtracted when the threshold is reached is the ambient light component (Fig. 8A-8D, ambient light component C2, threshold THA, Paragraph [0113]-[0117]).
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 LaChapelle’s controller by using a comparator and corresponding threshold to determine if the ambient light component is large, which is disclosed by Takatsuka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance detection accuracy, as suggested by Takatsuka (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta and Takatsuka, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 6, wherein after determining that there is ambient noise in the echo signal, the processing unit is further configured to perform noise reduction processing on the first digital signal (Takatsuka, subtraction determining section 36, subtraction controller 37, Paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 8, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta and Takatsuka, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 6, wherein
the processing unit is configured to, based on the third timing result, determine whether the third digital signal comprises a signal segment satisfying that duration of the signal segment with a value of 1 exceeds a second duration threshold and a number of signal segments satisfying that the duration of the signal segments with values of 1 exceeds the second duration threshold exceeds a number threshold (LaChapelle, comparator 610, TDC 612, envelope detector 614, Paragraph [0135], [0138]-[0139]); and
if both yes, determine that there is ambient noise in the first digital signal (Takatsuka , Fig. 8A-8D, ambient light component C2, threshold THA, Paragraph [0113]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 13, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta and Takatsuka, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 6, wherein the N comparison units corresponding to each receiving unit comprise a third comparison unit (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0135]), the third comparison unit comprises a third threshold (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, Paragraph [0135]), and the number of third comparison units is M (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, Paragraph [0135]]).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Kapusta in further view of Nomura, US 20190178996 A1 (“Nomura”).
Regarding claim 9, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the N comparison units and the N timing units corresponding to the first receiving unit respectively comprise a fourth comparison unit and a fourth timing unit (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), and the fourth comparison unit is electrically connected to the fourth timing unit and comprises a fourth threshold (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
wherein the fourth comparison unit is configured to convert the echo signal into a fourth digital signal based on the fourth threshold, and send the fourth digital signal to the fourth timing unit (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610N+, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]);
the fourth timing unit is configured to perform timing based on the fourth digital signal, and send a fourth timing result and the fourth digital signal to the processing unit (LaChapelle, TDC 612, Paragraph [0136]); […].
LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta, does not teach: and the processing unit is further configured to, based on the first timing result, the first digital signal, the second timing result, and the second digital signal, or based on the first timing result, the first digital signal, the fourth timing result, and the fourth digital signal, determine whether there is echo superposition in the echo signal.
However, Nomura teaches a distance measuring device that uses a comparator and a number of thresholds that each correspond to a reference distance. The multiple thresholds and reference distances allow the device to determine if the signal is from an object at a certain distance. A plurality of values are gotten from the different thresholds and the distance measurement can be made by combining the values with weights. (Fig. 8, TH1>TH2>TH3>TH4>TH5, D1<D2<D3<D4<D5, Paragraph [0079]-[0080]; See also: Fig. 3A-C and Fig. 5, P14-18).
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 LaChapelle’s fourth comparator by using a fourth threshold to determine if the analog signal contains multiple pulses from objects at different distances, which is disclosed by Nomura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make the distance measurement more accurate, as suggested by Nomura (Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 10, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta and Nomura, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 9, wherein the processing unit is further configured to, based on the first timing result, the first digital signal, the second timing result, and the second digital signal, or based on the first timing result, the first digital signal, the fourth timing result, and the fourth digital signal (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), compensate for the first digital signal, after determining that there is echo superposition in the echo signal (Nomura, Paragraph [0080]: “combining the valid values by weighting”).
Regarding claim 11, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta and Nomura, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 10, wherein the processing unit is configured to compensate for the first digital signal by: multiplying amplitude data of the echo signal determined as experiencing the echo superposition by a compensation coefficient less than 1 (Nomura, Paragraph [0080]: “combining the valid values by weighting”).
Regarding claim 12, LaChapelle, as modified in view of Kapusta and Nomura, discloses the LiDAR system according to claim 9, wherein
based on the first timing result, the first digital signal, the second timing result, and the second digital signal, or based on the first timing result, the first digital signal, the fourth timing result, and the fourth digital signal (LaChapelle, Fig. 13, comparator 610, threshold T-n, TDC 612, Paragraph [0134]), when determining whether there is echo superposition in the echo signal, the processing unit is configured to:
determine whether receiving time of a first digital signal segment with a value of 1 is overlapped with receiving time of a fourth digital signal segment with a value of 0 (Nomura, Fig. 3B-C, S1Hg, S1Lg, S2Lg, Paragraph [0045]-[0046]), and overlapped duration exceeds a third duration threshold (Nomura, Fig. 5, P14-P18, Paragraph [0053]-[0054]), or whether receiving time of a fourth digital signal segment with a value of 1 is overlapped with receiving time of a second digital signal segment with a value of 0 (Nomura, Fig. 3B-C, S1Hg, S1Lg, S2Lg, Paragraph [0045]-[0046]), and overlapped duration exceeds a fourth duration threshold (Nomura, Fig. 5, P14-P18, Paragraph [0053]-[0054]); and if at least one yes, determine that there is echo superposition in the echo signal (Nomura, Paragraph [0079]-[0080]).
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