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 14 April 2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 were amended. Claim 4 was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-18 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the Remarks, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Steigemann in view of Hinderling and Sonn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sonn does not teach or suggest the limitations amended into claims 11 and 15. However, Sonn teaches an image sensor with a row selection/ line driver and control signal lines that selects at least two photosensitive cells, for example a row, to activate during a gating period (Fig. 19, row selection/line driver (RSLD) 511, pixel elements 500, control signal lines 514A-D, Paragraph [0320]). The row selection/ line driver and the multiple control lines function as a gating circuit that controls the activation of photosensitive cells. Thus, Sonn teaches the amended limitations of claims 11 and 15, and the rejection will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sonn et al., US 20190056498 A1 (“Sonn”).
Regarding claim 15, Sonn discloses a detection apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory (Fig. 1, processors 122, memories 124, Paragraph [0166]), wherein the processor is configured to invoke a program stored in the memory to perform a detection method comprising:
configuring a plurality of gating modes (Fig. 10, sequences IV to VII, Paragraph [0247]);
driving a light source to emit a laser beam (Fig. 1, light sources 112, Paragraph [0158]);
during a gating period of each gating mode, enabling a photosensitive cell gated in the gating mode to receive an echo light signal of the laser beam (Figs. 7A-D, pixel elements PE1-PE4, Paragraph [0235]-[0236]), wherein at least one gating circuit of a plurality of gating circuits (Fig. 19, row selection/line driver (RSLD) 511, control signal lines 514A-D, Paragraph [0320]) controls gating of at least two photosensitive cells of a plurality of photosensitive cells during the gating period (Fig. 19, row selection/line driver (RSLD) 511, pixel elements 500, control signal lines 514A-D, Paragraph [0320]);
and analyzing an echo electrical signal output by the gated photosensitive cell, and combining the echo electrical signal into an imaging parameter of one pixel (Fig. 10, sequence VIII, Paragraph [0247]).
Regarding claim 16, Sonn discloses the detection apparatus according to claim 15, wherein a plurality of gating modes are combined into full-range gating for one ranging (Fig. 3, slices 1-4, Paragraph [0185]-[0186]).
Regarding claim 17, Sonn discloses the detection apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the gating period of each gating mode comprises a plurality of gating time periods (Fig. 10, sequences IV to VII, Paragraph [0247]); and in a gating time period, a photosensitive cell corresponding to a gating mode receives an echo light signal (Figs. 7A-D, pixel elements PE1-PE4, Paragraph [0235]-[0236]).
Regarding claim 18, Sonn discloses the detection apparatus according to claim 15, wherein a quantity of photosensitive cells gated in one gating mode is greater than or equal to 2 (Figs. 7A-D, pixel elements PE1-PE4, Paragraph [0235]-[0236]).
Claims 11-14 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 15-18. Claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons.
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steigemann et al., US 20200174120 A1 (“Steigemann”) in view of Hinderling et al., US 20180356502 A1 (“Hinderling”) and Sonn.
Regarding claim 1, Mase discloses a laser radar system, comprising a light source , a scanning unit, a receiving lens,
wherein the light source is configured to output a laser beam (Fig. 8, illuminator 238, Paragraph [0078]);
the scanning unit is configured to guide the laser beam to a specified region (Paragraph [0084]: may include MEMS scanner);
the receiving lens is configured to converge an echo light signal formed through reflection of the laser beam (Fig. 8, lens 226, Paragraph [0083]);
[…];
the photosensitive pixel of the light detection unit comprises a plurality of photosensitive cells (Fig. 8, SPAD array 224, Paragraph [0080]), the plurality of photosensitive cells are used to convert the received echo light signal into an echo electrical signal (Fig. 8, timing circuit 222, Paragraph [0080]), and the plurality of photosensitive cells are controlled by a (Fig. 8, gating circuit 232, Paragraph [0080]),[…]; and
the processing unit is configured to analyze an echo electrical signal output by the plurality of photosensitive cells in a gating period (Fig. 8, histogram hardware 218, digital signal processor 216, Paragraph [0080]).
Steigemann does not teach:
the homogenizing unit is configured to uniformly emit the converged echo light signal onto a photosensitive pixel of the light detection unit; and
wherein at least one gating circuit of the plurality of gating circuits controls gating of at least two photosensitive cells of the plurality of photosensitive cells during a gating period.
However, Hinderling teaches a homogenizing unit consisting of square fiber that generates a homogenous light distribution over a SPAD array (Fig. 12, square fiber 44, Paragraph [0134]-[0135]).
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 Steigemann’s LIDAR system by adding Hinderling’s square fiber in front of the SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to average out the effect of a position dependent signal response, as suggested by Hinderling (Paragraph [0133]).
In addition, Sonn teaches a plurality of gating circuits where one gating circuit controls the gating of at least two photosensitive cells during a gating period (Fig. 19, row selection/line driver (RSLD) 511, pixel elements 500, control signal lines 514A-D, Paragraph [0320]).
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 Steigemann’s gating circuit by replacing it with Sonn’s gating circuit, and the results of the substitution would have yielded a SPAD array with row-based pixel activation (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 2, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 1, wherein a size of a light spot of the echo light signal converged by the receiving lens is not greater than a size of a light incident surface of the homogenizing unit (Hinderling, Fig. 12, square fiber 44, entrance surface 47, Paragraph [0134]-[0135]; light entering surface smaller than surface width), and an emergent light spot of the homogenizing unit covers a photosensitive surface of the light detection unit (Hinderling, Fig. 12, square fiber 44, Paragraph [0134]-[0135]).
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 Steigemann’s LIDAR system by adding Hinderling’s square fiber in front of the SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to average out the effect of a position dependent signal response, as suggested by Hinderling (Paragraph [0133]).
Regarding claim 3, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 1, wherein the homogenizing unit comprises one of the following: a homogenizing prism, a homogenizing rod, and a diffuser (Hinderling, Fig. 12, square fiber 44, Paragraph [0134]-[0135]; See also Paragraph [0131]).
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 Steigemann’s LIDAR system by adding Hinderling’s square fiber in front of the SPAD array. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to average out the effect of a position dependent signal response, as suggested by Hinderling (Paragraph [0133]).
Regarding claim 5, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the light source and the scanning unit to perform two- dimensional region scanning (Steigemann, Fig. 8, illuminator 238, Paragraph [0078], Paragraph [0084]: may include MEMS scanner).
Regarding claim 6, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to control one or more gating circuits (Steigemann, Fig. 8, gating circuit 232, controller unit 212, Paragraph [0080]), and a photosensitive cell gated during a gating period receives an echo light signal and performs optical-to-electrical signal conversion (Steigemann, Fig. 8, SPAD array 224, Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to perform the following steps: configuring a plurality of gating modes (Steigemann, Fig. 8, gating circuit 232, controller unit 212, Paragraph [0080]; See also Fig. 4, Paragraph [0054]); driving the light source to emit then laser beam (Steigemann, Fig. 8, illuminator 238, Paragraph [0078]); during a gating period of each gating mode, enabling a photosensitive cell gated in the gating mode to receive an echo light signal of the laser beam (Steigemann, Fig. 8, SPAD array 224, Paragraph [0080]); and analyzing an echo electrical signal output by the gated photosensitive cell, and combining the echo electrical signal into an imaging parameter of one pixel (Steigemann, Fig. 8, histogram hardware 218, digital signal processor 216, Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 8, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 7, wherein a plurality of gating modes are combined into full-range gating for one ranging (Steigemann, Fig. 4, waveform diagrams 140, 142, 144, and 146, Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 7, wherein the gating period of each gating mode comprises a plurality of gating time periods (Steigemann, Fig. 4, waveform diagrams 140, 142, 144, and 146, Paragraph [0054]); and in a gating time period, a photosensitive cell corresponding to a gating mode receives an echo light signal (Steigemann, Fig. 8, gating circuit 232, SPAD array 224, Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 10, Steigemann, as modified in view of Hinderling and Sonn, discloses the laser radar system according to claim 7, wherein a quantity of photosensitive cells gated in one gating mode is greater than or equal to 2 (Steigemann, Fig. 8, gating circuit 232, SPAD array 224, Paragraph [0080]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iguchi, US 20200137373 A1 discloses an image sensor with a gating circuit that controls the gating of multiple SPADs during a gating period.
Mase et al., US 20170115392 A1 discloses a selecting unit that controls the gating of multiple photodetector pixels during a gating period.
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