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 . Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending. Cancellation of claims 2-3 and 11 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 9 of the response that “Yin does not disclose the concept of cancellation residue or any similar concept”. Examiner notes that the instant specification fails to provide a definition for cancellation residue and that Applicant’s arguments fail to specifically point out the desired or intended scope of the term cancellation residue. Applicant’s response, goes on to acknowledge that Yin teaches obtaining a corrected signal waveform curve by subtracting a reference waveform curve from a signal waveform curve.
While Yin does not utilize a shaded reference sensor to collect the reference signal at the same time as the signal waveform, both Yin and Jiang subtract a reference waveform from a signal waveform to remove noise from signal returns and so constitute analogous art. Examiner would like to point out that claim 1 as it is currently pending doesn’t even require the second current signal to be captured at the same time as the first current signal. Consequently, it appears that Applicant’s statement that Yin does not teach cancellation residue or any similar concept is not supported by evidence.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the combination of Jiang and Yin does not teach acquiring rising times of cancellation residues of at least two adjacent detection periods and determining glare noise based on such rising times. Examiner appreciates that Applicant addressed both Jiang and Yin when making this statement but the support for this argument is brief and only mentions the failures of Yin rather than addressing the failure of the combination of Jiang and Yin. Examiner also notes that Applicant points out that Yin fails to teach comparing rising times across adjacent detection periods but claim 1 as is currently pending does not require a comparison of rise times only that the existence of glare noise be determined when the rise times are the same.
Examiner notes that Jiang teaches the same sensor configuration as the instant application with one signal collecting sensor for producing a signal waveform and one shaded sensor for producing a reference waveform that is subtracted from the signal waveform. Jiang is silent as to how often signals are emitted and how or whether they would be modulated. However, analogous reference Yin teaches the emission of a series of distance detection signals (see FIG. 8 of Yin with overlapping detection periods T1 to T4 and pulses P1 – P4, each with the same signal intensity {same amplitude depicted in FIG. 8} and in [0035] describes applying the signal waveform correction {i.e., analogous cancellation residue processing} to each of the reflected signals carrying pulses P1 – P4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have improved Jiang with the teachings of Jin by modifying Jiang to include a configuration allowing for the consideration of two or more pulses emitted in adjacent detection periods in order to get more data regarding whether or not the LIDAR system is being negatively affected by noise.
More specifically to Applicant’s argument, adjacent sampling of a scene, taught by the combination of Jiang and Yin, would generate multiple cancellation residues covering adjacent or overlapping periods of time (see FIG. 8 of Yin). When the rising times of adjacent detection periods with different emission times are the same, this would indicate substantially different distance readings from the same detected object indicative of a transient source of noise (analogous to glare noise). This noise would be present in the cancellation residue since the reference sensor taught by Jiang is shaded and configured to block out glare noise preventing the glare noise from being removed from the cancellation residue. According to the teachings of Jiang this would, depending on a magnitude of the noise, be detected and result in a change to the voltage bias since second processing circuit 124, which is responsible for handling bias voltage adjustments, relies upon the cancellation residue output from cancellation and transimpedance amplifying circuit 123 as shown in FIG. 4 (see Jiang at page 8 lines 26-29).
Since an interview has not been held in this round of prosecution, Examiner suggests that an after final interview may be helpful in sorting out differences between our understanding of the references and overcoming the current grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite the limitation "acquiring times when the laser emitter emits the pulse laser beams in the at least two adjacent detection periods". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least two adjacent detection periods” limitation in claim 1. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for two separate instances of the newly added limitation “acquiring rising times of the cancellation residues” since previously claim 1 only describes determining a single cancellation residue.
Claim 10 is also rejected for having insufficient antecedent basis for the claim limitations “the at least two adjacent detection periods” and “the cancellation residues” for the same reasons listed under claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-9 are also rejected under 35 USC 112 for depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110244311A (hereinafter Jiang) in view of US20220011158 (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang teaches a method for improving ranging capability of a LiDAR system, wherein the LiDAR system comprises: a laser emitter (LIDAR transmitting apparatus, see FIG. 1) for emitting pulse laser beams, a receiving sensor (photosensor 11, see FIG. 4) for receiving echo lights, and a reference sensor (reference photosensor 14, see FIG. 4) in a shading state (page 8, line 15 describes reference photosensor 14 being in a light blocking state), and wherein the receiving sensor and the reference sensor are arranged at a receiving end (FIG. 1 shows a lidar receiving apparatus that is described as including photosensor 11 and reference photosensor 14 at one end of the laser ranging system shown in FIG. 1) and of the LiDAR system, the method comprising:
acquiring a first current signal (iA, see FIG. 5a) output by the receiving sensor and a second current signal (iB, see FIG. 5a) output by the reference sensor;
determining a cancellation residue (cancelling and trans-impedance amplifying (TIA) circuit 123 outputs a voltage signal analogous to the claimed cancellation residue) based on the first current signal and the second current signal (voltage signal amounts to a difference between the first signal and second signal);
determining whether glare noise exists in the echo lights based on the cancellation residue; and
if the glare noise exists in the echo lights, adjusting a bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system (page 8 lines 26 – 29, describes how the second processing circuit 124 as shown in FIG. 4 is connected to the cancellation and TIA circuit 123 for controlling the bias voltage applied to detection photosensor 11 based on the voltage signal obtained from cancellation and TIA circuit 123)
wherein determining whether glare noise exists in the echo light based on the cancellation residue comprises at least one of the following conditions. Jiang does not specifically teach the remaining rejections.
However, Yin teaches acquiring times when the laser emitter emits the pulse laser beams in the at least two adjacent detection periods (FIG. 8 of Yin shows identification of adjacent detection periods T1 – T4) and also teaches when powers of the pulse laser beams emitted by the laser emitter in the at least two adjacent detection periods are the same (FIG. 8 of Yin shows pulses P1, P2, P3 and P4 having the same amplitudes),
acquiring rising times of the cancellation residues (see FIG. 7C of Yin at time ta) of the at least two adjacent detection periods when emission times of the laser emitter emitting the pulse laser beams in the at least two adjacent detection periods are different, and determining that the glare noise exists in the echo light when the rising times of the cancellation residues of the at least two adjacent detection periods are the same ([0035] of Yin describes applying the signal waveform correction {i.e., analogous cancellation residue processing} to each of the reflected signals carrying pulses P1 – P4, & when the rising times in cancellation residue from adjacent detection periods with different emission times are the same, this would indicate substantially different distance readings from the same detected object indicative of a transient source of noise, i.e. glare noise); or
when powers of the pulse laser beams emitted by the laser emitter in the at least two adjacent detection periods are different (a rejection of the remainder of the following second condition is unnecessary as the first condition is rendered obvious by Yin),
acquiring rising times of the cancellation residues of the at least two adjacent detection periods when emission times of the laser emitter emitting the pulse laser beams in the at least two adjacent detection periods are the same, and determining that the glare noise exists in the echo light when the rising times of the cancellation residues of the at least two adjacent detection periods are different.
Jiang and Yin are analogous art since both address the problem of handling noise in Avalanche sensor configured LIDAR systems by measuring a difference between sensor events including laser ranging emissions and ambient noise and sensor events limited only to ambient noise to help identify the laser ranging emissions.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Jiang with the teachings of Yin to include the emission of two or more pulses emitted in adjacent detection periods in order to get more data regarding whether or not the LIDAR system is actually being negatively affected by noise.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Jiang and Yin teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, before acquiring the first current signal output by the receiving sensor and the second current signal output by the reference sensor, the method further comprises:
turning off the laser emitter (the specification is silent as to the exact meaning of turning off the laser emitter. Given that the laser emitter described by Jiang is a pulse type emitter it can be considered off between pulse emissions, thereby satisfying this limitation); and
applying a preset bias control signal to the receiving sensor and the reference sensor, wherein the preset bias control signal controls the bias voltage of the receiving end to be smaller than a breakdown voltage in a stray light period (see FIG. 7 and page 10 lines 41-44), and to be greater than the breakdown voltage in an echo light period (see FIG. 7 and page 10 lines 46-51) .
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Jiang and Yin teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system comprises:
determining whether the glare noise exists in echo lights of n continuous detection periods when the glare noise is detected to exist in the echo lights (see page 11 lines 37 – 39 discussing taking multiple noise measurements to identify the timing corresponding to T0 to Tbr shown in FIG. 7); and
if the glare noise exists in the echo lights of the n continuous detection periods, adjusting the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system (page 11 lines 37-45 describe maintaining the bias voltage below the breakdown voltage over the times T0 to Tbr that correspond to the detected spurious echo signal reception time).
Regarding Claim 6, Jiang teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein, if the glare noise exists in the echo lights of the n continuous detection periods, adjusting the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system comprises:
adjusting, based on a voltage reduction threshold (breakdown voltage, Vbr, operates as a voltage reduction threshold from time Tbr to T1 as described on page 10 lines 44-51, also reference FIG. 7), the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system in m continuous detection periods (page 11 lines 44-45 describe how the bias voltage is maintained below Vbr for all the continuous detection periods between T0 and Tbr and therefore the adjustments are based on the voltage reduction threshold, Vbr).
Regarding Claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110244311A (hereinafter Jiang) in view of US20200314375 (hereinafter Nishino).
Regarding Claim 7, Jiang teaches the method according to claim 5, but fails to teach wherein adjusting the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system further comprises: acquiring a temperature or a current of the receiving sensor; determining a target bias voltage according to the temperature or the current; and adjusting a voltage value applied to at least one of an anode or a cathode of the receiving sensor according to the target bias voltage.
However, Nishino teaches wherein adjusting the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system further comprises: acquiring a temperature or a current of the receiving sensor (temperature sensor 220, see FIG. 32 and [0185] describing controlling a photodiode 262 according to temperature); determining a target bias voltage according to the temperature or the current (FIG. 32 shows how readings from temperature sensor 220 after being compared at 215 with a fixed value are received at controller 213 to determine a target bias voltage); and adjusting a voltage value applied to at least one of an anode or a cathode of the receiving sensor according to the target bias voltage (the target bias voltage is output to power IC 214 to change a bias voltage applied to the SPAD).
Jiang and Nishino are analogous art since they both apply to the field of LIDAR sensing and to helping identify targets by adjusting bias voltage of SPAD sensors. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Jiang to incorporate the temperature correction teachings of Nishino, because as described in [0185] of Nishino, the sensitivity of a photodiode fluctuates due to temperature change. This would clearly improve the operation of Jiang, which focuses on fine tuning the sensitivity of a sensor in order to overcome issues with noise, since correcting for temperature effects would allow for more accurate fine tuning of the sensitivity of the LIDAR sensor.
Regarding Claim 8. The combination of Jiang and Nishino teach the method according to claim 7, wherein adjusting the voltage value applied to at lease one of the anode or the cathode of the receiving sensor according to the target bias voltage further comprises:
determining whether the temperature or the current of the receiving sensor meets a preset adjustment (temperature sensor 220, depicted in FIG. 32, is configured to take readings for determining whether a preset adjustment is met) (Examiner notes that the instant specification provides no criteria for what amounts to a preset adjustment, so Nishino’s teaching of detecting temperature changes constitutes determining a preset adjustment);
if yes, determining a duty ratio of a modulation signal applied to at least one of a negative electrode or a positive electrode of a power supply module according to the target bias voltage (Nishino describes as noted above with respect to Claim 7, adjusting the voltage supplied to the SPAD according to a desired voltage output. Examiner notes that so given that changes in duty ratio necessary to change the bias voltage to a target voltage is inherently Nishino) ; and
if no, determining a switching signal applied to a high-voltage amplifier of the power supply module according to the target bias voltage (FIG. 32 shows transmission of a switching signal to controller 213 from comparison unit 215 in order to output a voltage to the SPAD), wherein the high-voltage amplifier switches gears (the claim term switching gears is being interpreted as switching the power to a different output voltages, which is clearly taught by the Nishino reference in response to temperature changes of the sensor as described in the text accompanying FIG. 32) according to the received switching signal to output different positive voltage values.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110244311A (hereinafter Jiang) in view of WO2018127789 (hereinafter Day).
Regarding Claim 9, Jiang teaches the method according to claim 1 but fails to specifically teach wherein after adjusting the bias voltage at the receiving end of the LiDAR system, the method further comprises: performing point cloud filtering on the glare noise.
However, Day at [0323] describes the use of confidence levels to determine whether or not to filter out detections in a point cloud. [0019] of Day describes the confidence level as being defined by one or more detection characteristics that can include ambient illumination (this would include sun glare).
Since Jiang and Day are both directed to techniques for improving LIDAR performance in the presence of ambient light interference, these references are analogous art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the point filtering process described by Day to the system disclosed in Jiang as doing so would reduce the incidence of false returns and increase the reliability of the system taught by Jiang.
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 BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645