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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination/interpretation of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant asserts that Li does not teach “measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-center based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a center of the return pulse waveform calculated directly from sampled amplitude values of the return pulse”. It is noted that this limitation appears to be recited as a contingent limitation (MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS; under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, the claim recites either the pulse-center based method or the pulse-edge based method, so the pulse-center method is not required when the pulse-edge method is selected). Since Modified Subasingha teaches the pulse-edge method as explained in the office action below (Subasingha; pulse-edge based method 310B), then the pulse-center method is not required since it is contingent on whether the pulse-edge method has been selected or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subasingha US20210239806 in view of Li US20220334244 and Zhou CN114019459.
Regarding independent claim 1, Subasingha discloses, in Figures 1-8,
A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Subasingha; Fig. 1-8; LIDAR system 100), comprising: a beam steering system (Subasingha; Fig. 1; [0020] lenses/mirrors are used “to focus and direct light”; the assembly of lens 106 and 112); a light source (Subasingha; laser light emitter 102; [0030]) configured to emit outgoing light pulses that are steered by the beam steering system in accordance with a field of view of the LiDAR system; a detection system (Subasingha; the assembly of the light sensor/receiver 104, avalanche photodiode APD, transimpedance amplifier TIA, and ADC 124; [0038] refers to the APD, TIA, ADC, and supporting detection circuitry; [0030] “supporting circuitry”; [0043] “circuitry of the detector(s)”) configured to detect return pulses corresponding to the outgoing light pulses (Subasingha; Fig. 1); and a controller (Subasingha; Fig. 8; the assembly of processor 804 and memory 806; [0100]) comprising one or more processors (Subasingha; processor 804), a memory device (Subasingha; memory 806), and processor-executable instructions stored in the memory device, the processor-executable instructions comprising instructions for: obtaining an intensity of a return pulse of the detected return pulses (Subasingha; [0050] APD processes the light intensity), determining whether the intensity of the return pulse is within an intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708), based on the determination, selecting a pulse-center based method (MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS; under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, the claim recites either the pulse-center based method or the pulse-edge based method, so the pulse-center method is not required when the pulse-edge method is selected) or a pulse-edge based method for measuring a time-of-flight between the return pulse and the corresponding outgoing light pulse (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”), the time-of-flight being a time lapse between a timing of the return pulse and a timing of the corresponding outgoing light pulse, and measuring the time-of-flight based on the selected method (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; calculation operation 312; [0056]).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Subasingha’s Figure 1.
Subasingha is silent regarding wherein: measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-center based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a center of the return pulse waveform calculated directly from sampled amplitude values of the return pulse (MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS; under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, the claim recites either the pulse-center based method or the pulse-edge based method, so the pulse-center method is not required when the pulse-edge method is selected), and measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-edge based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a rising edge of the return pulse waveform calculated from at least two sampled edge data of the return pulse.
Li teaches wherein: measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-edge based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a rising edge of the return pulse waveform calculated from sampled edge data of the return pulse (Li; [0141] “to determine time of flight more precisely, the first timing point is usually selected from sampling points on the rising edge of the saturated sampling sequence”; [0150] “an appropriate timing point may be flexibly and dynamically selected on the rising edge of the saturated sampling sequence based on different degrees of saturation severity of the received saturated sampling sequence, to improve precision of determining time of flight, and further improve radar ranging precision”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the pulse-edge based method as taught by Subasingha with the pulse-edge based method based on a rising edge as taught by Li for the purpose of providing improvements in precision for time-of-flight determination (Li; [0150] “an appropriate timing point may be flexibly and dynamically selected on the rising edge of the saturated sampling sequence based on different degrees of saturation severity of the received saturated sampling sequence, to improve precision of determining time of flight, and further improve radar ranging precision”).
Modified Subasingha is silent regarding calculated from at least two sampled edge data of the return pulse.
Zhou teaches calculated from at least two sampled edge data of the return pulse (Zhou; Fig. 2; page 15/84 “Referring to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an echo waveform provided by the embodiment of the invention, the echo waveform of the coordinate system of the abscissa is time, and the ordinate is voltage. As shown in FIG. 2, supposing the threshold voltage is 30mv, then can obtain 3 sampling points (a, b, c) corresponding voltage greater than 30mv in the rising edge curve of the echo waveform and 1 sampling point (d) corresponding to the voltage less than 30mv. then performing quadratic polynomial fitting to the sampling points (a, b, c, d) by using the least square method to obtain the fitting curve equation. then, according to the curve fitting equation, solving the time point corresponding to the threshold voltage 30mv as 134.822ns, taking the 134.822ns as the first front edge value of the echo waveform.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the calculation of the sampled edge data as taught by Modified Subasingha to comprise at least two sampled edge data as taught by Zhou for the purpose of being able to perform curve fitting and thus obtain a fitting curve equation (Zhou; page 15/84 “then performing quadratic polynomial fitting to the sampling points (a, b, c, d) by using the least square method to obtain the fitting curve equation. then, according to the curve fitting equation, solving the time point… as the first front edge value of the echo waveform.”).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein selecting the pulse-center based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is within the intensity threshold, and wherein selecting the pulse-edge based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is not within the intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein selecting the pulse-center based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is not within the intensity threshold, and wherein selecting the pulse-edge based method is based on the determination that the intensity of the return pulse is within the intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the timing of the return pulse determined using the pulse-center based method is determined by finding a weighted mean of the return pulse (Subasingha; [0091] “weighted moving average”).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the timing of the return pulse determined using the pulse-edge based method is determined by finding a timing of an edge of the return pulse (Subasingha; Fig. 6A; [0036] “clock signals generated by the controller 116… determine the TDOA”; [0042] “receive a clock signal from the controller 116… and/or any other indication sufficient to determine a TDOA from which the detector may calculate the distance”; [0073-0074] received signal 600).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable instructions comprise further instructions for: adjusting the measured time-of-flight using an intensity to distance correction table (Subasingha; Fig. 4B; calibrator 428 comprises a lookup table of experimental values that associates an offset distance 424 for corresponding unsaturated signals and saturated signals; [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the intensity to distance correction table comprises parameters (Subasingha; Fig. 4B; offset distance 424; [0067-0068]) to be adjusted when the pulse-edge based method is selected (Subasingha; Fig. 4B; calibrator 428 comprises a lookup table of experimental values that associates an offset distance 424 for corresponding unsaturated signals and saturated signals; [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the detection system comprises: at least one receiving lens (Subasingha; light sensor/receiver 104); a detector comprising an avalanche photo diode (APD) detector (Subasingha; avalanche photodiode APD; [0038] refers to the APD); and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) (Subasingha; ADC 124; [0038] refers to the ADC).
Regarding independent claim 10, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1, and
A method for using a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Subasingha; Fig. 1-8; LIDAR system 100), comprising: transmitting outgoing light pulses (Subasingha; laser light emitter 102; [0030]) to a beam steering system (Subasingha; Fig. 1; [0020] lenses/mirrors are used “to focus and direct light”; the assembly of lens 106 and 112) that redirects the outgoing light pulses to a field of view of the LiDAR system; detecting return pulses corresponding to the outgoing light pulses (Subasingha; the assembly of the light sensor/receiver 104, avalanche photodiode APD, transimpedance amplifier TIA, and ADC 124; [0038] refers to the APD, TIA, ADC, and supporting detection circuitry; [0030] “supporting circuitry”; [0043] “circuitry of the detector(s)”); obtaining an intensity of a return pulse of the detected return pulses (Subasingha; [0050] APD processes the light intensity); determining whether the intensity of the return pulse is within an intensity threshold (Subasingha; Fig. 3-4A and Fig. 7A-7C; threshold magnitude 708); based on the determination, selecting a pulse-center based method (MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS; under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, the claim recites either the pulse-center based method or the pulse-edge based method, so the pulse-center method is not required when the pulse-edge method is selected) or a pulse-edge based method for measuring a time-of-flight between the return pulse and the corresponding outgoing light pulse (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; the classifier identifies an unsaturated signal which would then select a first detector that is a pulse-center based method 310A, while the classifier identifies a saturated signal which would then select a second detector that is an pulse-edge based method 310B; [0054-0055] operation 310A corresponds to “a peak in the reference signal and a peak in the received signal” while operation 310B corresponds to a “rising edge detection”), the time-of-flight being a time lapse between a timing of the return pulse and a timing of the corresponding outgoing light pulse; and measuring the time-of-flight based on the selected method (Subasingha; Fig. 3 shows the decision-tree flowchart; calculation operation 312; [0056]).
Subasingha is silent regarding wherein: measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-center based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a center of the return pulse waveform calculated directly from sampled amplitude values of the return pulse (MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS; under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, the claim recites either the pulse-center based method or the pulse-edge based method, so the pulse-center method is not required when the pulse-edge method is selected), and measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-edge based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a rising edge of the return pulse calculated from sampled edge data of the return pulse.
Li teaches wherein: measuring the time-of-flight using the pulse-edge based method comprises determining a timing of the return pulse based on a rising edge of the return pulse calculated from sampled edge data of the return pulse (Li; [0141] “to determine time of flight more precisely, the first timing point is usually selected from sampling points on the rising edge of the saturated sampling sequence”; [0150] “an appropriate timing point may be flexibly and dynamically selected on the rising edge of the saturated sampling sequence based on different degrees of saturation severity of the received saturated sampling sequence, to improve precision of determining time of flight, and further improve radar ranging precision”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the pulse-edge based method as taught by Subasingha with the pulse-edge based method based on a rising edge as taught by Li for the purpose of providing improvements in precision for time-of-flight determination (Li; [0150] “an appropriate timing point may be flexibly and dynamically selected on the rising edge of the saturated sampling sequence based on different degrees of saturation severity of the received saturated sampling sequence, to improve precision of determining time of flight, and further improve radar ranging precision”).
Modified Subasingha is silent regarding calculated from at least two sampled edge data of the return pulse.
Zhou teaches calculated from at least two sampled edge data of the return pulse (Zhou; Fig. 2; page 15/84 “Referring to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an echo waveform provided by the embodiment of the invention, the echo waveform of the coordinate system of the abscissa is time, and the ordinate is voltage. As shown in FIG. 2, supposing the threshold voltage is 30mv, then can obtain 3 sampling points (a, b, c) corresponding voltage greater than 30mv in the rising edge curve of the echo waveform and 1 sampling point (d) corresponding to the voltage less than 30mv. then performing quadratic polynomial fitting to the sampling points (a, b, c, d) by using the least square method to obtain the fitting curve equation. then, according to the curve fitting equation, solving the time point corresponding to the threshold voltage 30mv as 134.822ns, taking the 134.822ns as the first front edge value of the echo waveform.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the calculation of the sampled edge data as taught by Modified Subasingha to comprise at least two sampled edge data as taught by Zhou for the purpose of being able to perform curve fitting and thus obtain a fitting curve equation (Zhou; page 15/84 “then performing quadratic polynomial fitting to the sampling points (a, b, c, d) by using the least square method to obtain the fitting curve equation. then, according to the curve fitting equation, solving the time point… as the first front edge value of the echo waveform.”).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subasingha US20210239806 in view of Li US20220334244 and Zhou CN114019459 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhu US20220035035.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1.
Modified Subasingha does not disclose wherein the intensity threshold is about 8%.
Zhu teaches wherein the intensity threshold is about 8% (Zhu; [0078] “As shown in FIG. 5A in this example the threshold intensity value 535 is set at 20% of the maximum intensity 540, however one of skill in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will appreciate that threshold intensity value 535 can be set at any percentage of maximum intensity 540.”; the value of 20% is about 8%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the intensity threshold as taught by Subasingha to be about 8% as taught by Zhu for the purpose of optimizing the saturated/unsaturated decision process for identifying the saturated/unsaturated characteristic of the return light pulses.
Regarding claim 17, Subasingha teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 9/1/26
Prosecution Insights