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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
This acknowledges that as of the date of this office action, no Information Disclosure Statement has been submitted by the applicant.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 9 June 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14 and 20, specifically (Remarks, pgs. 10-11) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09 June 2026 amended independent claims 1, 14 and 20 and introduced new limitations which, upon further consideration, required a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of further search and consideration and newly found prior art references.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-20 refer to “The LiDAR apparatus”, but amendments made to claim 1 introduce “A flash LiDAR apparatus”, and for consistency claims 1-20 should reference the updated flash LiDAR apparatus instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 includes the limitation “…the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser, and wherein the first transmitted beamlet group corresponds to the first laser beam transmitted via the first laser and the second transmitted beamlet group corresponds to a second laser beam transmitted via the second laser.”, and depends on claim 1. Amendments have introduced the following limitation to claim 1: “…transmit, via the at least one laser, a first laser beam through the at least one diffractive optical element to generate a first transmitted beamlet group and a second transmitted beamlet group from the same first laser beam…”.
Based on the amendments to claim 1, both a first transmitted beamlet group and a second transmitted beamlet group are required to be formed from the same first laser beam, however claim 5 now contradicts this as it states the second transmitted beamlet group is formed from a second laser beam via a second laser. While it is understood from the specification that more than one individual emitter may form the at least one laser and therefore contribute to the “first laser beam”, this is currently indefinite as claimed. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted to read “…the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser, and wherein the first transmitted beamlet group corresponds to a beam transmitted via the first laser and the second transmitted beamlet group corresponds to a beam transmitted via the second laser.”
Claims 6-9 are similarly rejected as they are dependent upon claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20230130993 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Finkelstein anticipates a flash light detection and ranging (LiDAR) apparatus and method ([0007]) having a field of view, comprising:
at least one laser ([0071]; Fig. 2A, 10, emitter (102) may be a VCSEL array);
at least one diffractive optical element ([0064], [0110] - [0111]; Figs. 2A, 20A-E, 25A, where carrier (104) includes steering optical elements (130) which may be diffractive optical elements (DOE)) ;
a plurality of light sensors ([0068], [0071]; Fig. 2A, sensor array (202));
at least one memory comprising instructions ([0199]);
and at least one processor coupled to the at least one laser, the plurality of light sensors, and the at least one memory ([0175] - [0180]),
wherein the at least one diffractive optical element is configured to create collimated beamlets arranged to illuminate the entire field of view with a single pulse of the at least one laser ([0007], [0110] - [0111], [0196]; Fig. 20B, where DOE forms beamlets which are directed to illuminate a portion of the FOV or relevant zone in a pulse), and the plurality of light detectors are configured to simultaneously detect reflected light from the tightly collimated beamlets within the entire field of view ([0068], where the detector array provides zone-by-zone/FOI/ FOV acquisition of reflected signals),
and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions and cause the LiDAR apparatus to:
transmit, via the at least one laser, a first laser beam through the at least one diffractive optical element to generate a first transmitted beamlet group and a second transmitted beamlet group from the same first laser beam, wherein the first transmitted beamlet group and second transmitted beamlet group illuminate the entire field of view ([0007], [0110] - [0111], [0196]; Fig. 20B, where DOE forms beamlets which are directed to illuminate a portion of the FOV or relevant zone in a pulse and differing emitters may be activated or given voltages based on corresponding zones in the FOV);
receive, via a first portion of the plurality of light sensors, a first set of reflected light signals from the entire field of view corresponding to the first transmitted beamlet group;
receive, via a second portion of the plurality of light sensors, a second set of reflected light signals from the entire field of view corresponding to the second transmitted beamlet group ([0011], [0106] - [0112]; where each DOE for steering emitted light (130) may direct to a corresponding zone of the FOV, and a receiving DOE may be adapted to steer incoming light from the corresponding zone to the sensor (202) so the sensor detects on a zone by zone basis);
and determine a distance between the LiDAR apparatus and at least one object based on at least one of the first set of reflected light signals and the second set of reflected light signals ([0011], [ 0171], [0183]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Finkelstein anticipates the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser, and wherein the first transmitted beamlet group corresponds to the first laser beam transmitted via the first laser and the second transmitted beamlet group corresponds to a second laser beam transmitted via the second laser ([0077], [0110] - [0111]; Fig. 20B, C, where multiple emitters emit beams to a diffractive optical element (DOE) and where each beam forms multiple beamlets and emitters may be controlled individually).
Regarding claim 7, Finkelstein anticipates the LiDAR apparatus of claim 5, wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to cause the LiDAR apparatus to: configure a first transmission power for the first laser beam and a second transmission power for the second laser beam, wherein the first transmission power is different than then second transmission power ([0077], [0110] - [0111]; Fig. 20B, C, where multiple emitters in the array may be controlled individually such that two emissions have differing powers based on voltage or location in the regions of the field of view).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Finkelstein anticipates the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one beamlet steering device configured to steer the first transmitted beamlet group in a first direction and the second transmitted beamlet group in a second direction,
wherein the at least one beamlet steering device includes at least one of a Risley prism, a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) mirror, a tuning fork, a voice coil mirror (VCM), and a metasurface scanner ([0191]; Fig. 38, where system may further include a mirror subsystem (3804) such as a MEMS to direct pulses into the environment).
Regarding claim 12, Finkelstein anticipates the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the at least one laser corresponds to a vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) array ([0074]).
Regarding claim 13, Finkelstein anticipates the LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of light sensors corresponds to a plurality of single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) ([0071], [0170]; where detector (202) elements may include multiple SPADs).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20230130993 A1) in view of Donovan et al. (hereinafter Donovan, US 20200041614 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Finkelstein teaches the flash lidar apparatus and method of operation of claims 1 and 14, respectively, but is silent on the specifics of the light sensor having two portions, where at least one signal from the second set of reflected signals is detected by a sensor in a first portion, and where cross-talk is detected.
Donovan teaches a LIDAR system with a plurality of emitters and detectors, where the system is configured to receive, via a first light sensor from the first portion of the plurality of light sensors, at least one reflected light signal from the second set of reflected light signals corresponding to the second transmitted beamlet group;
and determine that the at least one reflected light signal from the second set of reflected light signals was received by the first light sensor due to a crosstalk condition, wherein the crosstalk condition includes at least one of electrical crosstalk, optical crosstalk, and light sensor saturation ([0076] - [0080], [0083] - [0084]; system has transmitters (1906, 1908) and receivers (1902, 1904) with an overlap region, and where emissions from both first and second transmitters may be reflected by an object in the environment, and both pulses would be observed at a single detector during a single measurement, leading to optical cross-talk if controller does not maintain mapping).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Donovan to utilize a system with a detector array separated into two portions, which may be used to determine noise and crosstalk received with a reasonable expectation of success. Donovan discusses that specific orientations of emitter and receivers, FOVs, emission wavelengths and controller settings all may impact cross-talk within a LIDAR system ([0005], [0041], [0062]) and so integration into the system of Finkelstein would have predictable results of controlling, and detecting, cross-talk between signals caused by detections of a second wavelength signal by a first sensor. These detections allow for the system to compensate for such cross-talk, allowing for reductions in noise and increases in signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Finkelstein teaches the flash lidar apparatus and method of operation of claims 5 and 14, respectively, but is silent on specifics of interleaving of the emission patterns.
Donovan teaches a LIDAR system with a plurality of emitters and detectors, where one or more beamlets from the first transmitted beamlet group are interlaced with one or more beamlets from the second transmitted beamlet group ([0076] - [0077]; Figs. 8B, 16 where beam sets emitted by the first 2D VCSEL array (852) are interspersed with those emitted by the second 2D VCSEL array (854)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Donovan to intersperse emitted beams while illuminating an environment with a reasonable expectation of success. As Donovan notes, interleaving emission patters from two (or more) transmitters allows the system to minimize optical cross-talk between the transmitters/modules while still maintaining eye-safety ([0076]).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20230130993 A1) in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang, US 20240036202 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Finkelstein teaches the flash LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the LiDAR apparatus to: transmit, via the at least one laser, a second laser beam through the at least one diffractive optical element to generate a third transmitted beamlet group and a fourth transmitted beamlet group ([0077], [0110] - [0111]; Fig. 20B, C, where multiple emitters emit beams to a diffractive optical element (DOE) and where each beam forms multiple beamlets and emitters may be controlled individually), but is silent on the specifics of the pulse interval between pulses.
Yang teaches a LIDAR system which is configured to generate a trigger signal based on a time sequence random number, such that a pulse interval between the first laser beam and the second laser beam is a random amount of time ([0090] - [0091]; Fig. 5, where system control device (12) and random number generator (15) can create random firing delays between laser emitters (111-1) to (111-n)).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Yang to utilize random firings between pulses emitted by different laser sourced with a reasonable expectation of success. Yang teaches that adopting a random firing timeline between emitters allows a system to reduce interference between signals, especially when used in combination with pulse coding and modulation ([0005] – [0006]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Finkelstein as modified above teaches the flash LiDAR apparatus of claim 3, but is silent on the timing of emissions and receiving reflected signals.
Yang teaches a LIDAR system which is configured to transmit he second laser beam prior to receiving the first set of reflected light signals corresponding to the first transmitted beamlet group ([0119] - [0123]; where a system generates timing sequences for the at least one emitter to drive the at least one emitters (s102) and which occurs before receiving an echo signal of the laser pulse signal (s103) ).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Yang to utilize specific timings of laser emission between pulses with a reasonable expectation of success. Yang teaches that a maximum time of flight will be about 1.33
μ
s
, and so keeping the maximum time between emissions to approximately
0.17
μ
s
will ensure normal operation of the system’s next detection ([0088]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein et al. (hereinafter Finkelstein, US 20230130993 A1) in view of Campbell et al. (hereinafter Campbell, US 10061019 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Finkelstein teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 5, but is silent on the specifics of receiver gain.
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system, where a processor is further configured to cause the LiDAR apparatus to: configure a first receiver gain for the first portion of the plurality of light sensors and a second receiver gain for the second portion of the plurality of light sensors, wherein the first receiver gain is different than the second receiver gain (Col. 29, line 63 - Col. 30, line 30; where gain values for transimpedance amplifiers within system may be set to values based on required signal-to noise ratios, such that differing emitted beams have associated different gains).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to utilize specific gains for separate portions of a sensor with a reasonable expectation of success. As noted, Campbell teaches that specifying amplification values for specific sub-sets of receivers in a detector array assists in meeting specific signal-to-noise ratios (Col. 29, line 63 - Col. 30, line 30.)
Regarding claim 9, Finkelstein teaches the LiDAR apparatus of claim 5, but is silent on the specifics of timing emission of first and second beams.
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system, where the at least one processor is further configured to cause the LiDAR apparatus to: transmit, via the first laser, the first transmitted beamlet group at a first time; and transmit, via the second laser, the second transmitted beamlet group at a second time occurring after the first time (Col. 23 lines 36-67; Fig. 9, where at different times pulses emitted from the at least one source create different pairs of emitted beams from the diffractive element (DOE) illuminating different FOVs).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to utilize specific timings for the emission of two lasers in the system with a reasonable expectation of success. As is known in the art of LiDAR, emission control between emitters in an array allows for variations in emission power, patterns and timing control.
Regarding claim 20, Finkelstein teaches a flash light detection and ranging (LiDAR) apparatus ([0007]) having a field of view, comprising:
a plurality of vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) elements arranged in a VCSEL array, each of the plurality of VCSEL elements being electronically addressable such that each element of the plurality of VCSEL elements may emit a laser beam independently of other elements of the plurality of VCSEL elements , the VCSEL array being configured to illuminate the entire field of view with a single pulse of at least a portion of the plurality of VCSEL elements ([0061], [0074], [0077], [0110] - [0111]; Fig. 20B, C, where multiple emitters emit beams to a diffractive optical element (DOE) and where each beam forms multiple beamlets and emitters may be controlled individually for a flash illumination of a FOV or portion of the environment);
a plurality of light sensors configured to detect reflected light from within the field of view ([0068], [0071]; Fig. 2A, sensor array (202));
at least one memory comprising instructions ([0199]);
and at least one processor coupled to the VCSEL array, the plurality of light sensors, and the at least one memory, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to cause the LiDAR apparatus to ([0175] - [0180]):
receive, via a first portion of the plurality of light sensors, a first set of reflected light signals from the entire field of view corresponding to the first transmitted beamlet group;
receive, via a second portion of the plurality of light sensors, a second set of reflected light signals from the entire field of view corresponding to the second transmitted beamlet group ([0011], [0106] - [0112]; where each DOE for steering emitted light (130) may direct to a corresponding zone of the FOV, and a receiving DOE may be adapted to steer incoming light from the corresponding zone to the sensor (202) so the sensor detects on a zone by zone basis);
and determine a distance between the LiDAR apparatus and at least one object based on at least one of the first set of reflected light signals and the second set of reflected light signals ([0011], [ 0171], [0183]).
Finkelstein does not explicitly teach separating emission of the VCSEL array by sets of array elements.
Campbell teaches transmitting, via a first set of VCSEL array elements of the plurality of VCSEL elements from the VCSEL array, a first transmitted beamlet group illuminating the entire field of view and transmitting, via a second set of VCSEL array elements of the plurality of VCSEL elements from the VCSEL array, a second transmitted beamlet group illuminating the entire field of view (Col. 10, lines 5-43, Col. 22, line 40- Col. 23, line 36;Fig. 8, where beams leaving a DOE are due to differing emitters aimed in differing directions towards the environment/field of regard and where one or more light sources may be VCSELs from an array.).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Finkelstein to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to utilize specific emission/timing control for the emission of two groups of VCSELs within an array with a reasonable expectation of success. Finkelstein teaches that the VCSELs within the array can be individually controlled for purposes of power control and safety as well as to reduce the chance of damaging the receiver array ([0008], [0077]), and so separating the emitter array into two groups as taught by Campbell would have a predictable result of further control over emissions into an environment around a LIDAR system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mheen et al. (US 20170261371 A1) teaches an optical receiver and a laser radar, wherein the system emits a first and second laser beam into the environment, where each beam may be split before emission, and where receivers detect signals reflected by objects in an environment and portions of the environment map to portions of the detector.
Li et al. (US 20220107394 A1) teaches a LIDAR device where the receiver includes multiple sensor plates, which each include multiple sensor groups, and where electromagnetic shielding may occur along with other means to reduce crosstalk among receiver signal channels.
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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights