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. Priority The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 07/07/2023 , claims foreign priority to KR Application No. 10-2023-0036732 , filed on 03/21/2023 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements ( lDS ) submitted on 07/07/2023, 08/13/2024 and 04/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. Claim Objections Claims 1-9 and 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 2, “external” should perhaps read --external area--. Claim 1, line 5, “external” should perhaps read --external area--. Claim 1, line 12, “external arbitrary area” should perhaps read --external area--. Claim 1, line 13, “arbitrary area” should perhaps read --external area--. Claim 3, line 2, “an additional classification necessary type” should perhaps read --the additional classification necessary type--. Claim 3, lines 2-3, “an additional classification on a pixel” should perhaps read --the additional classification on a pixel--. Claim 3, lines 3-4, “an additional classification necessary type” should perhaps read --the additional classification necessary type--. Claim 12, lines 2-3, “an additional classification necessary type” should perhaps read --the additional classification necessary type--. Claim 12, lines 3-4, “an additional classification on a pixel” should perhaps read --the additional classification on a pixel--. Claim 12, lines 4-5, “an additional classification type” should perhaps read --the additional classification necessary type --. Claims 2-9 and 13-19 are objected to by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 1 -2 , 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamitani (US20110246116A1) . Regarding claim 1, Kamitani discloses a lidar apparatus (Fig. 1, scanning rangefinder 1), comprising: an optical transmitter configured to transmit a laser light for external detection (Fig. 1, light emitting unit 3 including infrared semiconductor laser 3a outputting pulse measurement beam S2; ¶ 53); an optical receiver configured to receive the laser light reflected from the external (Fig. 1, light receiving unit 5 including avalanche photodiode 5a receiving reflected beam S3; ¶ 54); and a signal processor configured to detect the laser light received by the optical receiver (Fig. 5, signal processor 23 processing digital reflection signal S4; ¶¶ 55, 61, 63-64), wherein the signal processor is configured to: generate information including coordinates of a plurality of points including at least one point on a rising edge, a start point of a peak, an end point of the peak, and at least one point on a falling edge of a received waveform of the laser light reflected from the external arbitrary area as pixel information about a pixel corresponding to the arbitrary area (Figs. 2B, 3B, 4B; ¶¶ 65, 71-72, 88-89; the first-order-differential waveform represented by successive sampling points extending from before threshold exceedance to the first point dropping below threshold, i.e. , across the rise, peak region, and fall, as shown for the single-return condition of Fig. 3B and the overlapping-return condition of Fig. 4B); and classify the pixel according to whether the start point of the peak and the end point of the peak are the same (Fig. 3B; ¶¶ 88-89; a single return yields one first-order-differential peak, corresponding to the same start/end peak condition, as distinguished from the possible return overlap condition associated with a “two-mountain” first-order -differential waveform of Fig. 4B). Regarding claim 2 , Kamitani discloses the lidar apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein if the coordinates of the start point of the peak and the end point of the peak included in the pixel information are not the same (Fig. 4B; ¶¶ 89-89; a “two-mountain” first-order-differential waveform), the signal processor classifies the corresponding pixel as an additional classification necessary type (¶¶ 89-91; first-order-differential alone “may not clearly indicate” return overlap and the waveform is subjected to additional signal processing, i.e. , second order differential-based determination). Claims 10-11 are method s corresponding to the apparatus of claim s 1-2 . Accordingly, claim s 10 and 11 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim s 1 and 2, respectively . Claim 20 is a computer product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 . Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 1 . 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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitani in view of Hernandez-Marin ( “Spatial modelling of multi-layered LiDAR images using reversible jump MCMC,” published 2007 ) . Regarding claim 3 , Kamitani discloses the lidar apparatus of claim 2, however does not disclose: wherein when the pixel is classified as the additional classification necessary type, the signal processor performs the additional classification on the pixel classified as the additional classification necessary type (Fig. 4B; ¶¶ 89-93, presence of a second rise time on the second-order -differential waveform indicates an overlapping return signal), […]. Kamitani does not disclose: [the signal processor performs the additional classification] based on pixel information of a plurality of neighboring pixels adjacent to the pixel. However, Hernandez-Marin teaches in p. 3, § 1. Introduction, application “to single pixels a Bayesian statistical approach” for determining return overlap, where p.6, § 4. Data Analysis, determines “proposed values for the amplitude and the position of the new peak are drawn from two mixture distributions whose elements incorporate spatial information from neighbouring pixels” as supported in Equation 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the signal processor of Kamitani in view of the teachings of Hernandez-Marin using neighboring-pixel information with a reasonable expectation of success because such spatially informed processing would have yielded improved reliability in resolving overlapping returns and reduced false return signaling, thereby providing for a more robust and reliable measurement system (Hernandez-Marin, p. 1, Abstract; p. 10, § 6. Conclusions). Claim 12 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim s 3 . Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 3 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 - 9 and 13 - 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows. With respect to claim 4, Kamitani in view of Hernandez-Marin does not teach or suggest determining whether a distance between a rising-edge point of the subject pixel and a corresponding adjacent pixel is within a predetermined criterion when performing the additional classification (“ wherein the signal processor determines whether a distance between rising edges, which is a distance between a point on a rising edge included in pixel information of the pixel classified as the additional classification type and a corresponding point on a rising edge included in pixel information of each of the plurality of neighboring pixels, is within a predetermined criterion when performing the additional classification ”). The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include: Pacala (US20220043128A1) discloses a lidar system that forms histograms of photon counts for individual pixels and identifies return signal peaks, including by combining histogram information from spatially adjacent pixels to improve distance measurement confidence. However, Pacala does not disclose determining whether a distance between a rising-edge point of a subject pixel and a corresponding rising-edge point of a neighboring pixel falls within a predetermined criterion, as recited in claim 4. Murakami ( JP2014130086A ) discloses a time-of-flight distance image sensor that identifies adjacent pixels and uses neighboring/connected pixel information to correct distance measurements at object edges. However, Murakami does not disclose generating waveform point coordinates, nor the determination of whether a distance between a rising-edge point of the subject pixel and a corresponding rising-edge point of a neighboring pixel falls within a predetermined criterion, as covered under claim 4. Wang (US20210389462A1) discloses a lidar system that generates histograms of photon return events for individual pixels and combines histogram information from neighboring pixels to improve SNR, peak detection, and time-of-flight estimation. However, Wang does not disclose evaluating whether the separation distance between a rising-edge point of a subject pixel and a corresponding rising-edge point of a neighboring pixel satisfies a predetermined criterion, as covered in claim 4. Asanuma ( JP2014196989A ) discloses a time-of-flight distance image sensor that generates per-pixel distance information and employs information from boundary pixels in order to correct corresponding distance measurement s . However, Asanuma does not disclose waveform -based pixel classification using rising/falling edge and peak points, nor determining whether a distance between a rising-edge point of the subject pixel and a corresponding rising-edge point of a neighboring pixel statistics a predetermined criterion, as recited in claim 4. Retterath (US20150293228A1) discloses a lidar system that samples reflected light across multiple frames and applies volumetric analysis and segmentation to derive object information such as points, edges, corners, and surface slope. However, Retterath does not disclose the specific neighbor pixel rising-edge analysis as covered by claim 4, including determining whether a distance between a rising-edge point of a subject pixel and a corresponding rising-edge point of a neighboring pixel falls within a predetermined criterion. Wallace (“Full Waveform Analysis for Long-Range 3D Imaging Laser Radar , ” published 2010 ) discloses a full-waveform lidar system that analyzes per-pixel photon-count waveforms to identify one or more return peaks and estimate range information for multilayer 3D imaging. However, Wallace does not disclose determining whether a distance between a rising-edge point of a subject pixel and a corresponding rising-edge point of a neighboring pixel falls within a predetermined criterion, as recited in claim 4. In sum, the prior art of record lacks any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the features of claim 4 , thereby failing to render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 13 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 4 and would be allowable for the same reason if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims . Claims 5-9 and 14 - 1 9 would be allowable by virtue of dependency. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1078 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT YUQING XIAO can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /ZHENGQING QI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645