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 This office action is in regards to application # 18/262,845 that was filed on 07/25/2023. Claims 16-30 are currently pending and are under examination. 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 16 -30 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 16 in line 2 recites the detection system comprising a detector, where the detector is "configured to provide" a received signal, which signal seems to be further processed. When the signal is further processed, then it is not sufficient that the detector "is configured to provide" a signal, but the detector must effectively deliver the signal. Therefore it is not clear how the detector is configured to provide just a received signal. Appropriate correction/clarification required. Claim 16 recites the processing circuit being "configured to provide" a plurality of quantized signals in line 3-4 and an encoded signal in line 8. When the signal is further processed, then it is not sufficient that the processor "is configured to provide" the signals, but the processor must perform the signal processing. Therefore it is not clear how the processing circuit is configured to provide just a plurality of quantized signals and an encoded signal. Appropriate correction/clarification required. Claim 30 also contain similar claim language as claim 16 and is also rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 16 above. Claim 16 defines to "perform a time-to-digital conversion" to provide a digitized signal. This digitized signal is associated with the signals ref.112. According to the general understanding, a time-to-digital converter is understood in the following sense: "In electronics time-to-digital converters (TDCs) or time digitizers are devices commonly used to measure a time interval and convert it into digital (binary) output." In other words: it is not clear in which way a time value is represented by the digital signal ref.112. Thus, the skilled man expects that the digital value of a time interval is provided by a time-to-digital converter. But as it appears from the entire present application (claims and specification), a one-bit analog-to-digital converted value is provided at the signal state ref.112, but not a time-to-digital conversion as defined. Using the term "time-to-digital converter" in such a misleading manner makes claim 1 6 (and also the further claims) unclear . Appropriate correction/clarification required. Claim 30 also contain similar claim language as claim 16 and is also rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 16 above. It is not clear from claim 16 what the difference between the “quantized signals” and “encoded signals”. From the claim wording the signals generally seems they are outcomes of a comparison to threshold values. Claim 30 also contain similar claim language as claim 16 and is also rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 16 above. Claim 21 defines a processing circuit configured to provide a cumulated signal based on the quantized signals and further again differentiate the cumulated signal. Does the processing circuit perform the processing on the signal or just provides it without processing. It is not clear what providing a cumulated signal by a processing circuit mean. It is not clear what are the reasons for and the benefits of such processing. Further, performing a differentiation after a cumulation has the identical input signal as result. Thus, the combined steps of cumulation and differentiation seem to be unnecessary. Claim 21 defines as a further alternative, by performing a cumulation after differentiation. It is also not clear what are the reasons for and the benefits of such processing. Further, performing a cumulation after a differentiation has the identical input signal as result. Thus, the combined steps of differentiation and cumulation seem to be unnecessary. Therefore the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim 22 defines to sum the outputs of the different comparators or to sum the differential signals. It is not clear from the claim in which way the signals relate to each other: are the sum signals are based on the comparator outputs or the quantized signals or the encoded signals? It is not clear from the claims and the specification what are the reasons for and the benefits of such processing. Therefore the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim 23 defines to differentiate signals by assigning a differential value. It is not clear what the difference between the first and second differential values when the cumulated signal is increasing and/or decreasing. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claims 24 and 25 define some further signal processing using rectification and digital signal conversion. Because the claims refer to the unclear signals of the preceding claims, the signals of claims 24 and 25 are even more unclear. It is not also clear what are the reasons for and the benefits of such processing. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim 26 defines to determine amplitude information by combining the digitized values to provide a cumulated summation signal. What is the "cumulated summation signal"? What exactly is the difference between cumulation and summing? Are the signals two times added (cumulated and summed)? It is also not clear what are the reasons for and the benefits of such processing. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim 27 defines to reconstruct the shape of the received signal, using digitized and/or cumulated summations signals, by comparing the signal to a plurality of known digitized signals. It is not clear i n wh at way a signal reconstruction can be performed by a signal comparison? It is further also not clear why the signal shape should be reconstructed at all? It is not clear what are the reasons for and the benefits of these processing steps. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim 28 defines multiple "and/or" processing step configurations. It is not clear in what way all the possible combinations are able to deliver the same signal processing result. It is also not clear what are the reasons for and the benefits of these processing steps. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. All the dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as their corresponding parent claims solely due to their dependency from the rejected parent claims. 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 -20 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by LaChapelle (US 10,732,281) (submitted on the IDS dated 07/25/2023) . Regarding Claim 16 , as best understood and broadly interpreted , LaChapelle discloses a detection system ( ‘lidar system’, abstract, Fig. 1 ) comprising: a detector ( 602, Fig. 16 ) configured to provide a received signal; and a processing circuit configured to: provide a plurality of quantized signals, each quantized signal being associated with a respective threshold level, and each quantized signal being representative of portions of the received signal in which a signal level of the received signal is greater than the respective threshold level; provide an encoded signal based on the plurality of quantized signals, the encoded signal comprising a first plurality of first encoded signal values being representative of the portions of the received signal in which the signal level of the received signal becomes greater than one of the threshold levels and a second plurality of second encoded signal values being representative of the portions of the received signal in which the signal level of the received signal becomes less than one of the threshold levels ( Fig. 13-16, Fig. 16: rising edge and falling edge ); and perform a time-to-digital conversion of the encoded signal to provide a digitized signal, the digitized signal comprising a first plurality of first digitized values associated with the first encoded signal values, and a second plurality of second digitized values associated with the second encoded signal values ( Fig. 13, 16; col. 30-32 ). Regarding Claim 17 , as best understood and broadly interpreted, LaChapelle discloses a detection system ( ‘lidar system’, abstract, Fig. 1 ) wherein the received signal comprises a received light signal, and wherein the detection system is a light detection system ( Fig. 1, ref. 140 ) . Regarding Claim 18 , as best understood and broadly interpreted, LaChapelle discloses a detection system ( ‘lidar system’, abstract, Fig. 1 ) wherein the processing circuit is configured to compare the signal level of the received signal with each threshold level to provide the plurality of quantized signals ( Fig. 13, 16; and corresponding texts; ‘quantized signals’ are considered as the comparator output signals ) . Regarding Claim 19 , as best understood and broadly interpreted, LaChapelle discloses a detection system ( ‘lidar system’, abstract, Fig. 1 ) wherein the processing circuit comprises a plurality of comparators each associated with a respective reference value, and wherein each comparator of the plurality of comparators is configured to provide a respective first output signal in case the signal level of the received signal is greater than the respective reference value and to provide a respective second output signal in case the signal level of the received signal is less than the respective reference value ( i.e. comparator output signals for rising edges and for falling edges ; Fig. 16 ) . Regarding Claim 20 , as best understood and broadly interpreted, LaChapelle discloses a detection system ( ‘lidar system’, abstract, Fig. 1 ) wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine a time-of-flight ( i.e. distance ) associated with the received signal by using an output signal of at least one comparator of the plurality of comparators (i.e. comparator output signal, Fig. 13 ) . Regarding Claim 29 , as best understood and broadly interpreted, LaChapelle discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 1 ) comprising: a light emission system configured to emit a light signal ( via light source 110, Fig. 1 ) ; and the detection system ( receiver, 140, Fig. 1 ) according to claim 16 configured to receive the emitted light signal. Regarding Claim 30 , as best understood and broadly interpreted, Claim 30 is a method claim that is rejected under the same rational as the rejection of apparatus/system claim 16. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6607 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joshua Huson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT Assres H. Woldemaryam Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics) Art Unit 3642 /ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642