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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment/remarks dated 05/08/2026 has been received and fully considered. Claims 1-15 remain cancelled. Claim 24 is amended. Claims 16-30 are currently pending and are under examination.
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) 16-25 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 10,473,770).
Regarding Claim 16, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system (col. 7, lines 13-39)) comprising:
a detector (260, Fig.2) configured to provide a received light signal; and
processing circuit configured to:
identify a number of peaks in the received light signal (Fig. 2, 220; col. 12, lines 1-16), and
estimate a signal-to-noise ratio associated with the received light signal based on the number of identified peaks (claim 1, broadly interpreted, the number of peaks used to calculate the ranges in 806, Fig. 8 affects the calculated SNR in 810, Fig. 8 since SNR is calculated for each peak; then. Therefore, broadly interpreted, calculating a signal-to-noise ratio associated with the received light signal are based on the number of/multiple/plurality of identified peaks).
Regarding Claim 17, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the processing circuit is configured to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio associated with the received light signal by using a preset difference between respective signal levels associated with different peaks in the received light signal (Fig. 7, col. 10, lines 51-57) .
Regarding Claim 18, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the received light signal comprises at least a first peak having a first peak power and a second peak having a second peak power different from the first peak power, and wherein the processing circuit is configured to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio associated with the received light signal by using a preset difference between the first peak power and the second peak power (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 19, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the processing circuit is configured to identify the number of peaks in the received light signal by comparing the received light signal with a threshold value (Fig. 2, 270, 280, col. 7, lines 13-23, lines 40-42).
Regarding Claim 20, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the processing circuit is configured to estimate an average signal level of noise associated with the received light signal, and wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine a threshold value for the received light signal by using the estimated average signal level of the noise (col. 3, lines 65-col. 4, lines 2).
Regarding Claim 21, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the processing circuit is further configured to estimate a signal level of at least one peak of the identified peaks in the received light signal (col. 3, lines 65-67, ‘amplitude’).
Regarding Claim 22, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the processing circuit is configured to estimate the signal level of the peak having a greatest signal level by using an estimated signal-to-noise ratio and an estimated average signal level of noise associated with the received light signal (col. 3, lines 61-col. 4, line 9).
Regarding Claim 23, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a light detection system wherein the detector comprises a photo diode configured to provide an analog signal in response to the received light signal impinging onto the photo diode (col. 7, lines 24-39).
Regarding Claim 24, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a system comprising: the light detection system according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above); and a light signal received at the light detection system (col. 7, lines 24-, “incoming return signal”).
Regarding Claim 25, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a system wherein the light signal comprises a plurality of light pulses, and wherein each light pulse of the plurality of light pulses is associated with a respective peak (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 29, broadly and reasonably interpreted, Zhu disclose a LIDAR system (col. 11, lines 4-6) comprising:
a light emission system configured to emit a light signal comprising a plurality of peaks (Fig. 2, 230, 232); and a light detection system comprising: a detector (col. 7, lines 13-39) configured to receive the light signal, and a processing circuit configured to identify a number of peaks in the received light signal( Fig. 2. 220; col. 12, lines 1-16), and to determine a signal-to-noise ratio associated with the received light signal based on the number of identified peaks (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 30, the method claim 30 is rejected under the same rational as the rejection of the apparatus claim 16.
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) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 10,473,770).
Regarding Claim 26, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Zhu disclose a system wherein the light signal comprises at least a first light pulse having a first amplitude and a first peak power, and a second light pulse having a second amplitude and a second peak power (Fig. 6).
As best understood and broadly interpreted, Zhu disclose a system discloses the claimed invention except that the first amplitude is greater than the second amplitude and/or that the first peak power is greater than the second peak power. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first amplitude is greater than the second amplitude and/or that the first peak power is greater than the second peak power, since applicant has not disclosed that making that the first amplitude greater than the second amplitude and/or that the first peak power greater than the second peak power solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the amplitudes disclosed in Zhu.
Regarding Claim 27, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Zhu disclose a system wherein the light signal comprises a third peak having a third amplitude and a third peak power (col. 10, lines 36-38, ‘two or more pulses’).
As best understood and broadly interpreted, Zhu disclose a system discloses the claimed invention except that the second amplitude is greater than the third amplitude and/or that the second peak power is greater than the third peak power. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the second amplitude is greater than the third amplitude and/or that the second peak power is greater than the third peak power, since applicant has not disclosed that making the second amplitude greater than the third amplitude and/or that the second peak power greater than the third peak power solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the amplitudes disclosed in Zhu.
Regarding Claim 28, As best understood and broadly interpreted, Zhu disclose a system discloses the claimed invention except that the difference between the first amplitude and the second amplitude is equal to the difference between the second amplitude and the third amplitude, and/or that a difference between the first peak power and the second peak power is equal to a difference between the second peak power and the third peak power It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the difference between the first amplitude and the second amplitude is equal to the difference between the second amplitude and the third amplitude, and/or that a difference between the first peak power and the second peak power is equal to a difference between the second peak power and the third peak power, since applicant has not disclosed that making a difference between the first amplitude and the second amplitude equal to the difference between the second amplitude and the third amplitude, and/or that a difference between the first peak power and the second peak power equal to a difference between the second peak power and the third peak power solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the proportions of amplitudes disclosed in Zhu.
Response to Arguments
In light of the applicant’s arguments and remarks, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 regards to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments on page 4 of the remarks that Zhu does not teach or suggest using the count of peaks as the primary input for an SNR estimation formula, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “…based the number of identified peaks”, in the claim is not interpreted to be a parameter/quantity of a mathematical equation, rather the examiner interpreted the limitation just to mean the plurality of identified peaks. The Zhu reference clearly show identifying a number of/plurality of received light signals (col. 12, lines 1-16) and the signal to noise ratio associated to the received signal based on the number/plurality of identified peaks (abstract, claim).
[Emphasis Added] If the applicant is referring the limitation as a parameter/quantity of measurement as a part of a mathematical relationship/equations, the claim has to be amended to clarify the argued limitation. It’s the examiner’s position that broadly interpreted, the claim limitation reads on the Zhu reference. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights