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 06 August 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Respond to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 06 August 2026 with respect to Claims 1-13 have been fully
considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references
being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field et al. (US 10,838,048 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Field discloses a detection method of a lidar ([Col. 2, ll. 42-45] An apparatus has a beam steerable laser emitter and a detector array with array elements. A signal processing pipeline is connected to the detector array. The signal processing pipeline is configured to process first signals from first array elements corresponding to expected return signal paths and ignore second signals from second array elements corresponding to unexpected return signal paths), wherein the lidar comprises a detection part, and the detection part comprises a plurality of detection units ([Col. 2, l. 43] a detector array with array elements), wherein the plurality of detection units are capable of forming a plurality of output regions ([Col. 2, ll. 44-48] The signal processing pipeline is configured to process first signals from first array elements corresponding to expected return signal paths and ignore second signals from second array elements corresponding to unexpected return signal paths); and the method comprises the following operations:
selecting an output region from the plurality of output regions in the detection part according to current ambient light information ([Col. 3, l. 64- Col. 4, l. 9] In other words, the enabled array element configuration may be altered in response to a change in emissions from the solid state laser emitter or the environmental conditions of the LiDAR. If multiple detectors/pixels have a strong signal (i.e., high SNR) for a particular steering state, the signal from all pixels above a particular threshold can be combined to improve the detection SNR. This may be implemented in the signal processing pipeline 302. Pixels outside of the expected detection can be disabled and not combined so that SNR is not degraded by noise or ambient light from outside of the region of interest), wherein the plurality of output regions comprise a first output region and a second output region, each detection unit included in the first output region is also included in the second output region, and the second output region includes at least one additional detection unit not included in the first output region ([Col. 3, ll. 49-51] a detector array that can dynamically adjust whether pixels/sensors are active or inactive Examiner Note: The detector array as a whole is the second region and the active pixels are the first region, the active pixels are a subset of the entire detection array, as long as only one pixel is deactivated, there is at least one detection unit not included in the first output region that is within the second), and wherein selecting the output region comprises selecting the first output region or the second output region according to an intensity of the current ambient light ([Col. 4, ll. 6-9] Pixels outside of the expected detection can be disabled and not combined so that SNR is not degraded by noise or ambient light from outside of the region of interest);
obtaining echo information of the selected output region; and
performing detection according to the echo information of the selected output region ([Col. 2, ll. 44-49] The signal processing pipeline is configured to process first signals from first array elements corresponding to expected return signal paths and ignore second signals from second array elements corresponding to unexpected return signal paths).
Regarding the selection of a first output region and a second output region based on ambient light intensity (where the second region includes at least one additional detection unit not included in the first), while Filed does not explicitly label the active subset of pixels as a “first output region” and the larger/entire array as a “second output region,” Field explicitly teaches dynamically adjusting whether pixels or sensors are active or inactive in response to environmental conditions and ambient light to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to characterize or structure the active pixel configuration as a “first output region” and the broader array configuration as a “second output region” (wherein the second region includes at least one additional detection unit not in the first), and to select between these operational regions according to ambient light intensity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to dynamically balance sensor field-of-view and detection sensitivity against background optical noise, thereby optimizing signal quality and processing efficiency under varying environmental ambient light conditions.
Regarding Claim 8, Field teaches that each of the detection units comprises a plurality of detectors ([Col. 2, l. 43] a detector array with array elements).
Regarding Claim 9, Field teaches that each of the detectors consists of a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) ([Col. 1, ll. 18-22] The detector array may comprise, for example, Avalanche Photodiodes (APDs), PIN (p-type, intrinsic, n-type) photodiodes, Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs), or Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes (SPADs)).
Regarding Claim 10, Field teaches that each of the detection units is a SPAD array or a silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) ([Col. 1, ll. 18-22] The detector array may comprise, for example, Avalanche Photodiodes (APDs), PIN (p-type, intrinsic, n-type) photodiodes, Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs), or Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes (SPADs)).
Regarding Claim 12, Field teaches a lidar ([Col. 2, ll. 66] FIG. 2 illustrates a LiDAR detector array 200), comprising:
an emission unit, configured to emit a detection laser beam to detect a target object (Fig. 2 Examiner Note: Fig. 2, reproduced below, shows a laser emitter 100 that emits a beam 102 to scan a field of view to detect objects 104);
a detection part, configured to receive echoes reflected on the target object by the detection laser beam ([Col. 3, ll. 1-3] The LiDAR detector array 200 includes individual elements 202 that are selectively enabled to collect expected return signals 206) and output an echo signal ([Col. 3, ll. 17-19] Signals from the detector array are applied to a signal processing pipeline 302, which is preferably a hardware based signal processing pipeline); and
a processing unit, coupled to the detection part, and configured to perform the method according to claim 1 ([Col. 3, ll. 19-23] These operations are coordinated by a processor 304. The processor 304 has an associated memory 306, which stores instructions executed by the processor 304 to implement operations of the invention).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field et al. (US 10,838,048 B2) in view of Matsui et al. (US 11,762,070 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Field is not relied upon as teaching determining at least one comparison threshold according to the current ambient light information; and wherein selecting the output region from the detection part according to the current ambient light information comprises: selecting the output region from the detection part according to the intensity of the current ambient light and the at least one comparison threshold.
However, Matsui teaches determining at least one comparison threshold according to the current ambient light information ([Col. 11, ll. 55-61] For example, it is possible that the length of this period can be adjusted manually by the user, or that it is adjusted automatically depending on the brightness of the ambient light or the desired distance range to measure. Thus, it is possible to adjust the sensing conditions to the ambient light conditions, thereby improving the accuracy even further [Col. 12, ll. 40-48] A pixel 10 receiving only ambient light 18 is irradiated randomly by photons. Thus, when the detection portion 14 measures the presence of light at the first and second predetermined time intervals T.sub.M1-T.sub.M6 and T.sub.P1-T.sub.P6 and over a long enough time interval ΔT, statistically, the number of times that the detection portion 14 detects light at the first predetermined time intervals T.sub.M1-T.sub.M6 should be more or less equal to the number of times that it detects light at the second predetermined time intervals T.sub.P1-T.sub.P6); and
wherein selecting the output region from the detection part according to the current ambient light information comprises:
selecting the output region from the detection part according to the intensity of the current ambient light and the at least one comparison threshold ([Col. 13, ll. 3-10] When the result of this comparison is equal to or greater than a predetermined comparison threshold, for example greater than or equal to +2, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises measurement light 5. Otherwise, if the result of the comparison is smaller than the predetermined comparison threshold, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises only ambient light 18).
Field and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the output region selection scheme of Field to include determining at least one comparison threshold according to current ambient light information and selecting the output region according to the intensity of the current ambient light and the comparison threshold of Matsui with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to dynamically adjust sensing conditions to ambient light levels to improve detection accuracy and prevent false signals. By integrating Matsui’s teaching of adjusting parameters and applying comparison thresholds based on ambient light brightness into Field’s system for selecting output regions based on ambient light, the system can accurately select detection output regions by comparing measured ambient light intensity against defined comparison thresholds. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of a LiDAR system that reliably selects output regions using comparison thresholds adapted to real-time ambient light conditions.
Regarding Claim 3, Field is not relied upon as teaching that the at least one comparison threshold comprises a first comparison threshold and a second comparison threshold, wherein the first comparison threshold is greater than or equal to the second comparison threshold, and the selecting the output region from the detection part according to the intensity of the current ambient light and the at least one comparison threshold comprises: selecting the first output region when the light intensity of current ambient light is greater than the first comparison threshold; and selecting the second output region when the light intensity of the current ambient light is less than the second comparison threshold.
However, Matsui teaches that the at least one comparison threshold comprises a first comparison threshold and a second comparison threshold, wherein the first comparison threshold is greater than or equal to the second comparison threshold ([Col. 11, ll. 55-61] For example, it is possible that the length of this period can be adjusted manually by the user, or that it is adjusted automatically depending on the brightness of the ambient light or the desired distance range to measure. Thus, it is possible to adjust the sensing conditions to the ambient light conditions, thereby improving the accuracy even further [Col. 13, ll. 3-10] When the result of this comparison is equal to or greater than a predetermined comparison threshold, for example greater than or equal to +2, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises measurement light 5. Otherwise, if the result of the comparison is smaller than the predetermined comparison threshold, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises only ambient light 18), and
the selecting the output region from the detection part according to the intensity of the current ambient light and the at least one comparison threshold comprises:
selecting the first output region when the light intensity of current ambient light is greater than the first comparison threshold; and
selecting the second output region when the light intensity of the current ambient light is less than the second comparison threshold ([Col. 13, ll. 3-10] When the result of this comparison is equal to or greater than a predetermined comparison threshold, for example greater than or equal to +2, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises measurement light 5. Otherwise, if the result of the comparison is smaller than the predetermined comparison threshold, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises only ambient light 18).
Field and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the output region selection scheme of Field to include utilizing a first comparison threshold and a second comparison threshold to select between a first output region and a second output region based on ambient light intensity of Matsui with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide hysteresis or multi-tiered conditional switching between detection operational modes based on measured ambient light levels. By integrating Matsui’s teaching of evaluating measured signals against predetermined comparison thresholds to adjust sensing configurations into Field’s system for selecting output regions, the systems can selectively activate the first output region when ambient light exceeds an upper threshold and active the second output region when ambient light falls below a lower threshold. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of a LiDAR system that reliably selects distinct output regions across different ambient light conditions using dual comparison thresholds to prevent unwanted rapid switching between modes.
Regarding Claim 4, Field is not relied upon as teaching that the first comparison threshold is equal to the second comparison threshold.
However, Matsui teaches that the first comparison threshold is equal to the second comparison threshold ([Col. 13, ll. 3-10] When the result of this comparison is equal to or greater than a predetermined comparison threshold, for example greater than or equal to +2, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises measurement light 5. Otherwise, if the result of the comparison is smaller than the predetermined comparison threshold, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises only ambient light 18).
Field and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threshold comparison scheme of Field to include setting the first comparison threshold equal to the second comparison threshold of Matsui with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to simplify switching logic by using a single, unified threshold boundary for output region selection. By integrating Matsui’s teaching of evaluating light signals against a single predetermined threshold value into Field’s system for selecting output regions, the system can transition between selecting the first output region and the second output region across a single shared decision threshold. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of a LiDAR system that selects output regions based on whether ambient light intensity crosses a single, equal threshold boundary.
Regarding Claim 5, Field is not relied upon as teaching determining the plurality of output regions according to one or more historical light spot regions.
However, Matsui teaches determining the plurality of output regions according to one or more historical light spot regions (Col. 12, ll. 10-39] (53) FIG. 7E shows a table indicating the detection results of the detection portion 14. That is, the table shows for each of the first and second predetermined time intervals T.sub.M1-T.sub.M6 and T.sub.P1-T.sub.P6 whether light is received or not, i.e. whether the minimum number n of photons has been received. In FIG. 7E, “+1” indicates the first predetermined time intervals T.sub.M1-T.sub.M6 at which light is received at the pixel 10, “−1” indicates the second predetermined time intervals T.sub.P1-T.sub.P6 at which light is received at the pixel 10 and “0” indicates that no signal is received at the pixel 10. Assigning the number “+1” to first predetermined time intervals T.sub.M1-T.sub.M6 during which a signal is received at the pixel 10 corresponds to assigning a first weight (namely “+1”) to said first predetermined time intervals T.sub.M1-T.sub.M6. Assigning the number “−1” to second predetermined time intervals T.sub.P1-T.sub.P6 during which a signal is received at the pixel 10 corresponds to assigning a second weight (namely “−1”) to said second predetermined time intervals T.sub.P1-T.sub.P6. This weighting can be performed by a weighting portion (not shown). If no photon is received by the pixel 10 during the interval T, then it is assigned a weight of “0”. In FIG. 7E, the first row (“inside spot”) comprises an example of results from the detection portion 14 when the corresponding pixel 10 is inside the light spot 19 and irradiated by light comprising measurement light 5 (as shown in FIG. 7B), while the second row (“outside spot”) comprises an example of results from the detection portion 14 when the corresponding pixel 10 is outside the light spot 19 and is irradiated by light that only comprises ambient light 18 (as shown in FIG. 7C).
Field and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pixel array output detection system of Field to include determining the plurality of output regions according to one or more historical light spot regions of Matsui with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to dynamically distinguish measurement light from ambient light noise as a light spot shifts across the pixel array. By integrating Matsui’s teaching of evaluating a rolling window of historical time intervals and light pulses into Field’s pixel output selection mechanism, the system can dynamically update and select active output regions corresponding to moving light spots while suppressing background noise. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of accurately isolating active measurement pixels from ambient noise during real-time distance measurements.
Regarding Claim 6, Field is not relied upon as teaching obtaining a light spot region; and based on the light spot region, determining at least one output region corresponding to the light spot region; and wherein selecting the output region from the detection part according to current ambient light information comprises: selecting the output region from the plurality of output regions according to the current ambient light information, the selected output region being covered by the light spot region.
However, Matsui teaches obtaining a light spot region; and
based on the light spot region, determining at least one output region corresponding to the light spot region ([Col. 13, ll. 20-39] (59) An advantage of the present embodiment is that the discrimination between pixels 10 that receive measurement light 5 and pixels 10 that do not receive measurement light can be continued during the actual measurement. That is to say, the discrimination portion 11 can be configured to constantly monitor the pixel 10, so that only the signals from those pixel that actually receive measurement light 5 are taken into account for the calculation of the measurement result… Such a dynamic forwarding of the output of the pixels 10 is advantageous over an arrangement in which it is first determined which pixels are inside the spot, and then the pixels that are outside the spot are turned off, e.g. by interrupting the voltage supply to those pixels.); and
wherein selecting the output region from the detection part according to current ambient light information comprises:
selecting the output region from the plurality of output regions according to the current ambient light information, the selected output region being covered by the light spot region ([Col. 13, ll. 3-10] When the result of this comparison is equal to or greater than a predetermined comparison threshold, for example greater than or equal to +2, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises measurement light 5. Otherwise, if the result of the comparison is smaller than the predetermined comparison threshold, the detection portion 14 determines that the signal received by the pixel 10 comprises only ambient light 18).
Field and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pixel array output selection system of Field to include obtaining a light spot region, determining at least one output region corresponding to the light spot region, and selecting the output region according to current ambient light information wherein the selected output region is covered by the light spot region of Matsui with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to dynamically isolate and select active light spot pixel regions from background pixels based on real-time ambient noise conditions. By integrating Matsui’s teaching of evaluating light reception against ambient noise thresholds to select pixels within a light spot region into Field’s pixel output control mechanism, the system can selectively forward measurement signals only from active light spot regions while rejecting ambient light noise. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of enhancing distance measurement accuracy by dynamically restricting signal redout to ambient-filtered light spot regions.
Regarding Claim 7, Field is not relied upon as teaching updating the plurality of output regions according to a new light spot region.
However, Matsui teaches updating the plurality of output regions according to a new light spot region ([Col. 13, ll. 12-23] This calculation corresponds to summing up (integrating) the weighted counts in each row of the table of FIG. 7E. For example, for the row marked “inside spot”, the sum is +2, which is equal to the comparison threshold, so that the discrimination portion 11 regards the pixel 10 as being inside the spot and sends a corresponding discrimination result signal DR to the pixel output control portion 12. An advantage of the present embodiment is that the discrimination between pixels 10 that receive measurement light 5 and pixels 10 that do not receive measurement light can be continued during the actual measurement).
Field and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pixel array output control system of Field to include updating the plurality of output regions according to a new light spot region of Matsui with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to continuously track moving light spots across the pixel array during measurement operations. By integrating Matsui’s teaching of continuously monitoring pixels during measurement to dynamically adjust output signals as light spots move into Field’s pixel output selection mechanism, the system can automatically update enabled output regions to match newly formed light spot locations over time. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of maintaining accurate measurement output selection across dynamic, real-time spatial light spot changes.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field et al. (US 10,838,048 B2) in view of Nomura et al. (US 2022/0365403 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Field teaches processing an output of detection units corresponding to the selected output region ([Col. 2, ll. 44-49] The signal processing pipeline is configured to process first signals from first array elements corresponding to expected return signal paths and ignore second signals from second array elements corresponding to unexpected return signal paths).
Field is not relied upon as teaching obtaining a distance between the lidar and a target object according to an output of detection units.
However, Nomura teaches obtaining a distance between the lidar and a target object according to an output of detection units ([0182] The LiDAR system 300 includes the optical scanning device 100, an optical detector 400… The optical detector 400 outputs an electric signal corresponding to an amount of the received light. The signal processing circuit 600 calculates the distance to the object based on the electric signal output from the optical detector 400 and creates distance distribution data).
Field and Nomura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the signal processing pipeline of Field to include obtaining a distance between the lidar and a target object according to an output of detection units of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable target distance determination and ranging capabilities within the LiDAR system. By integrating Nomura’s teaching of calculating distance to an object based on the electric signal output from the optical detector into Field’s signal processing pipeline, the system can calculate object distance data using signals processed from selected detection units. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of a LiDAR system that processes signals from selected output detection regions and determines object distance from the resulting detection signals.
Regarding Claim 13, Field is not relied upon as teaching that the processing unit is further configured to:
calculate a distance between the lidar and the target object according to the output echo signal.
However, Nomura teaches that the processing unit is further configured to:
calculate a distance between the lidar and the target object according to the output echo signal ([0182] The LiDAR system 300 includes the optical scanning device 100, an optical detector 400… The optical detector 400 outputs an electric signal corresponding to an amount of the received light. The signal processing circuit 600 calculates the distance to the object based on the electric signal output from the optical detector 400 and creates distance distribution data).
Field and Nomura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing unit of Field to include calculating a distance between the LiDAR and the target object according to the output echo signal of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable target distance determination and generate spatial range data from received optical signals. By integrating Nomura’s teaching of calculating the distance to the object based on the electric signal output from the optical detector into Field’s processing unit, the system can determine object distance based on the output echo signals processed from the detector array. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of a LiDAR system configured to process echo signals to accurately calculate object distance and generate distance distribution data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights