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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the pending claims are generic, the species are not patentably distinct, and no serious search or examination burden exists. This is found persuasive.
The requirement is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, and 14 recite, “the echo electrical signal has same signal strength”
This should be amended to recite, “the echo electrical signal has a/the same signal strength”
Claim 2 recites, “to input an echo optical signal into the second detector: and a second detector configured to”
This should be amended to recite, “to input an echo optical signal into a [[the]] second detector: and wherein the [[a]] second detector is configured to”
Claim 3 recites, “the second detector configured to output”
This should be amended to recite, “the second detector is configured to output”
Claim 14 recites, “output a branch of an electrical signa”
This should be amended to recite, “output a branch of an electrical signal”
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Delic discloses a signal receiving apparatus ([0150] a Flash LADAR system), comprising:
a first receiving branch comprising:
a first detector configured to output a branch of an echo electrical signal: and
at least one second receiving branch, comprising:
a light guiding apparatus configured to input an echo optical signal to a second detector, and
the second detector configured to output one branch of an echo electrical signal based on the echo optical signal ([0150] The system comprises a pulsed laser 1010, for example a 25-100 Hz Pulsed Green (532 nm) Laser, which fires a laser pulse 1012 at a target 1020 which is some distance 1022 from the laser, and which reflects light 1024 back to the SPAD array sensor chip 1040. Upon firing of the pulsed laser 1010 a SYNC signal 1014 is provided to the SPAD array sensor chip 1040 to reset SPADs and start counters. An optical assembly 1030 including a micro lens array 1032 focuses the reflected light from the target 1024 onto the SPAD array, triggering individual SPADs. Data from the SPAD array 1042 is sent to computing device 1050 over a bus 1044 and stored on the computer 1050).
Regarding Claim 6, Delic discloses that a light inlet of the light guiding apparatus is located in a receiving field of view of the first detector ([0105] An optical assembly 1030 including a micro lens array 1032 focuses the reflected light from the target 1024 onto the SPAD array, triggering individual SPADs).
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 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kapusta teaches a signal receiving apparatus ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310), comprising:
a first receiving branch ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310 configured to split the signal SIG between two or more signal processing paths 320A, 320B), comprising:
a first detector configured to output a branch of an echo electrical signal ([0020] The photodiode 112 can receive the light reflected from the object and can generate a current signal, for example. The TIA 114 can receive the current signal and output a voltage signal [0026] The first signal processing path 120A can include a filter circuit 122 and an echo discriminator circuit 124); and
a signal coupler configured to output at least two branches of the echo electrical signal based on the branch of echo electrical signal output by the first detector ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310 configured to split the signal SIG between two or more signal processing paths 320A, 320B) wherein a first branch of the echo electrical signal in the at least two branches of the echo electrical signals has same strength as the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector ([0044] The saturation determination circuit 340 can be coupled to an output of the ADC 116. If the saturation determination circuit 340 determines that the output of the ADC 116 is at or near full-scale, then the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320B to process a saturated signal. Otherwise, the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320A for processing a normal, unsaturated signal. In this manner, the receiver circuit 310 can switch back and forth between the signal processing paths 320A, 320B depending on whether the output of the ADC 116 is clipped or not Examiner Note: Fig. 3, reproduced below, shows that the saturation determination unit is one of the branched directly connected to the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Kapusta does not explicitly state that the split branch possesses an identical signal strength to the detector output, Kapusta explicitly teaches a receiver circuit (310) splitting a signal between processing paths (320A, 320B) directly coupled to the detector (FIG.3). To a person of ordinary skill in the art, configuring a splitter to route a signal without intentional attenuation or amplification, thereby preserving its strength, would be a routine optimization and standard circuit configuration to prevent unnecessary signal degradation before saturation evaluation by circuit (340), yielding the predictable result of analyzing the signal at an unaltered strength level.
Regarding Claim 14, Kapusta teaches a detection apparatus ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310), comprising:
a signal transmitting apparatus ([0019] [0019] The LIDAR system 100 can include a transmitter circuit 102 having an illumination controller circuit 104),
a signal receiving apparatus ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310) comprising:
a first receiving branch ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310 configured to split the signal SIG between two or more signal processing paths 320A, 320B) comprising:
a first detector configured to output a branch of an electrical signal ([0020] The photodiode 112 can receive the light reflected from the object and can generate a current signal, for example. The TIA 114 can receive the current signal and output a voltage signal [0026] The first signal processing path 120A can include a filter circuit 122 and an echo discriminator circuit 124), and
a signal coupler configured to output at least two branches of the echo electrical signal based on the branch of echo electrical signal output by the first detector ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310 configured to split the signal SIG between two or more signal processing paths 320A, 320B), wherein a first branch of the echo electrical signal in the at least two branches of echo electrical signals has same signal strength as the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector ([0044] The saturation determination circuit 340 can be coupled to an output of the ADC 116. If the saturation determination circuit 340 determines that the output of the ADC 116 is at or near full-scale, then the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320B to process a saturated signal. Otherwise, the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320A for processing a normal, unsaturated signal. In this manner, the receiver circuit 310 can switch back and forth between the signal processing paths 320A, 320B depending on whether the output of the ADC 116 is clipped or not Examiner Note: See Claim 1 for greater detail on the mapping for this limitation), and
a signal processor connected to the signal receiving apparatus and configured to:
select a target echo electrical signal based on at least one of signal strength of the echo electrical signal in the first receiving branch or a second receiving branch ([0044] The saturation determination circuit 340 can be coupled to an output of the ADC 116. If the saturation determination circuit 340 determines that the output of the ADC 116 is at or near full-scale, then the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320B to process a saturated signal. Otherwise, the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320A for processing a normal, unsaturated signal. In this manner, the receiver circuit 310 can switch back and forth between the signal processing paths 320A, 320B depending on whether the output of the ADC 116 is clipped or not); and
determine a feature of a target object based on the target echo electrical signal ([0046] As indicated above, the distance estimator circuit 128 can determine a peak of a return signal, which can indicate the location of the object).
Although Kapusta does not explicitly state that the split branch possesses an identical signal strength to the detector output, Kapusta explicitly teaches a receiver circuit (310) splitting a signal between processing paths (320A, 320B) directly coupled to the detector (FIG.3). To a person of ordinary skill in the art, configuring a splitter to route a signal without intentional attenuation or amplification, thereby preserving its strength, would be a routine optimization and standard circuit configuration to prevent unnecessary signal degradation before saturation evaluation by circuit (340), yielding the predictable result of analyzing the signal at an unaltered strength level.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1) in view of Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching at least one second receiving branch, comprising: a light guiding apparatus configured to input an echo optical signal into the second detector: and a second detector configured to output one branch of an echo electrical signal based on the echo optical signal.
However, Delic teaches at least one second receiving branch, comprising:
a light guiding apparatus configured to input an echo optical signal into the second detector: and
a second detector configured to output one branch of an echo electrical signal based on the echo optical signal ([0150] The system comprises a pulsed laser 1010, for example a 25-100 Hz Pulsed Green (532 nm) Laser, which fires a laser pulse 1012 at a target 1020 which is some distance 1022 from the laser, and which reflects light 1024 back to the SPAD array sensor chip 1040. Upon firing of the pulsed laser 1010 a SYNC signal 1014 is provided to the SPAD array sensor chip 1040 to reset SPADs and start counters. An optical assembly 1030 including a micro lens array 1032 focuses the reflected light from the target 1024 onto the SPAD array, triggering individual SPADs. Data from the SPAD array 1042 is sent to computing device 1050 over a bus 1044 and stored on the computer 1050).
Kapusta and Delic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR receiver systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver circuit of Kapusta to include the light guiding apparatus and second detector of Delic with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to capture and process multiple optical signals or provide redundant detection channels. By integrating Delic’s teaching of a light guiding apparatus and second detector into Kapusta’s receiver circuit, the system can independently guide and detect separate echo optical signals. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of enhanced multi-path signal processing capabilities.
Regarding Claim 5, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that a light inlet of the light guiding apparatus is located in a receiving field of view of the first detector.
However, Delic teaches that a light inlet of the light guiding apparatus is located in a receiving field of view of the first detector ([0105] An optical assembly 1030 including a micro lens array 1032 focuses the reflected light from the target 1024 onto the SPAD array, triggering individual SPADs).
Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic) and Delic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR receiver systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detector arrangement of Kapusta to include the light inlet location of Delic with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to effectively capture reflected target light within the detection field of view. By integrating Delic’s teaching of positioning a light inlet in a receiving field of view into Kapusta’s system, the system can efficiently collect optical echo signals. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of improved optical coupling and collection efficiency at the detector.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1) in view of Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Delic is not relied upon as teaching that the first receiving branch further comprises a signal coupler configured to output at least two branches of the echo electrical signal based on the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector, wherein a first branch of the echo electrical signal in the at least two branches of the echo electrical signal has same signal strength as the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector.
However, Kapusta teaches that the first receiving branch further comprises a signal coupler configured to output at least two branches of the echo electrical signal based on the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector ([0040] the LIDAR system 300 of FIG. 3 can include a receiver circuit 310 configured to split the signal SIG between two or more signal processing paths 320A, 320B), wherein a first branch of the echo electrical signal in the at least two branches of the echo electrical signal has same signal strength as the branch of the echo electrical signal output by the first detector ([0044] The saturation determination circuit 340 can be coupled to an output of the ADC 116. If the saturation determination circuit 340 determines that the output of the ADC 116 is at or near full-scale, then the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320B to process a saturated signal. Otherwise, the saturation determination circuit 340 can output a control signal to the multiplexer 232 to select the signal processing path 320A for processing a normal, unsaturated signal. In this manner, the receiver circuit 310 can switch back and forth between the signal processing paths 320A, 320B depending on whether the output of the ADC 116 is clipped or not Examiner Note: See Claim 1 for more detail on the claim mapping for this limitation).
Delic and Kapusta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR receiver systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing ate of the claimed invention to have modified the receiver branch of Delic to include the signal coupler and identical signal strength branching arrangement of Kapusta with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to split electrical signals for independent parallel processing pathways. By integrating Kapusta’s teaching of a signal coupler into Delic’s receiver system, the system can route split electrical signals while maintaining matching signal strength. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that his combination would yield the predictable result of coordinated multi-path signal analysis and saturation handling.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1) and Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1) in further view of Fest et al. (US 2011/0268453 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that the light guiding apparatus comprises a light pillar.
However, Fest teaches that the light guiding apparatus comprises a light pillar ([0033] Light pipe 200 comprises an input face 202 and a first reflective surface 204 in the transmitter FOV to intercept a portion 206 of a collimated transmit beam along a first axis 208 and re-direct the beam portion, a second reflective surface 210 and an output face 212 in the receiver FOV that re-directs the beam portion 206 along a second axis 214 towards the receiver to create a virtual object 216 in the receiver FOV and an optical channel 218 that guides the redirected beam portion 206 from the first reflective surface to the second reflective surface to offset the second axis 214 from the first axis 208).
Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic) and Fest are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light guiding apparatus of Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic) to include the light pillar of Fest with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to redirect and guide light beams along offset axes. By integrating Fest’s teaching of a light pillar into Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic)’s system, the system can efficiently route optical signals between different fields of view. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of improved spatial alignment and beam routing control.
Regarding Claim 10, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that a light inlet of the light pillar is a 45° inclined surface.
However, Fest teaches that a light inlet of the light pillar is a 45° inclined surface ([0033] For purposes of example only, in this specific embodiment the light pipe is 0.70'' in length, 0.15'' wide, 0.06'' thick and the reflective surfaces are formed at 45 degrees to the axis).
Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic and Fest) and Fest are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light pillar of Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic and Fest) to include a light inlet formed as a 45° inclined surface with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to effectively redirect and reflect light beams at a specific angular orientation. By integrating Fest’s teaching of a 45° inclined reflective surface into the light pillar, the system can precisely fold and route optical paths. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of controlled 90-degree redirection of the light beam.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1) in view of Fest et al. (US 2011/0268453 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Delic is not relied upon as teaching that the light guiding apparatus comprises a light pillar.
However, Fest teaches that the light guiding apparatus comprises a light pillar (([0033] Light pipe 200 comprises an input face 202 and a first reflective surface 204 in the transmitter FOV to intercept a portion 206 of a collimated transmit beam along a first axis 208 and re-direct the beam portion, a second reflective surface 210 and an output face 212 in the receiver FOV that re-directs the beam portion 206 along a second axis 214 towards the receiver to create a virtual object 216 in the receiver FOV and an optical channel 218 that guides the redirected beam portion 206 from the first reflective surface to the second reflective surface to offset the second axis 214 from the first axis 208).
Delic and Fest are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light guiding apparatus of Delic to include the light pillar of Fest with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to redirect and guide light beams along offset axes. By integrating Fest’s teaching of a light pillar into Delic’s system, the system can efficiently route optical signals between different fields of view. A person of ordinary skill int eh art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of improved spatial alignment and beam routing control.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1), Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1), and Fest et al. (US 2011/0268453 A1) in further view of Inoue et al. (US 2022/0373650 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that the light guiding apparatus further comprises a box; wherein a light inlet of the light pillar is located in the box; wherein a light inlet of the box is disposed on the box, and wherein the echo optical signal enters the light inlet of the light pillar through the light inlet of the box.
However, Inoue teaches that the light guiding apparatus further comprises a box ([0037] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the sensor module 1 includes a housing 1I and a translucent cover 12);
wherein a light inlet of the light pillar is located in the box; wherein a light inlet of the box is disposed on the box, and wherein the echo optical signal enters the light inlet of the light pillar through the light inlet of the box (Fig. 1 & [0045] The second optical fiber 155 is configured and disposed so as to guide the reflected light L2 that has passed through the second lens 154 to the light receiving element 156. Specifically, the reflected light L2 that has passed through the second lens 154 is incident on one end portion of the second optical fiber 155 Examiner Note: Fig. 1, reproduced below, shows the optical fiber inside the translucent box (12) which acts as a light inlet through which echo optical signal enters the light pillar. Furthermore, Applicant specification [00100] states, “The light pillar can alternatively be replaced with optical fibers” which suggests that the optical fibers acting as the light pillar of Inoue represent a simple substitution of known equivalents to yield predictable results).
PNG
media_image2.png
626
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic and Fest) and Inoue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical packaging system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light guiding arrangement of Kapusta (as previously modified by Delic and Fest) to include the housing and box structure of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enclose and protect optical components while maintaining controlled entry of optical signals. By integrating Inoue’s teaching of a hous8ing and cover into the combination, the system can house optical channels within a protective enclosure. A person of ordinary skill int eh art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of secure component packaging and protected light inlet routing.
Regarding Claim 12, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that a first lens group is disposed on the light inlet of the box, and wherein a first lens group is configured to converge the echo optical signal at the light inlet of the light pillar.
However, Inoue teaches that a first lens group is disposed on the light inlet of the box ([0051] Similarly, it is possible to alleviate the constraint on the positional relationship between the light receiving element 156 and the second lens 154. As long as the second lens 154 is disposed at a position allowing the passage of the reflected light L2 from the object 200 located in a prescribed area outside the vehicle 100, the position of the light receiving element 156 can be determined with high flexibility in accordance with the circumstances of the second lens 154. This is because the reflected light L2 that has passed through the second lens 154 can be guided to the light receiving element 156 so disposed by the second optical fiber 155 having flexibility and a length that can be freely determined. Examiner Note: The specific location of the lens group disposed on the light inlet of the box represents design choice as a rearrangement of parts because the lens can be positioned at any location allowing the passage of the reflected light from the object to focus on the end of the second optical fiber), and wherein a first lens group is configured to converge the echo optical signal at the light inlet of the light pillar ([0045] Specifically, the reflected light L2 that has passed through the second lens 154 is incident on one end portion of the second optical fiber 155).
Kapusta (as previously modified by Deli, Fest, and Inoue) and Inoue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical packaging system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the box and lens arrangement of Kapusta (as previously modified by Deli, Fest, and Inoue) to include a first lens group disposed on the light inlet of the box and configured to converge the echo optical signal at the light inlet of the light pillar with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to focus and converge incoming light efficiently into an optical guide or fiber. By integrating Inoue’s teaching of a lens disposed at the inlet box structure, the system can precisely focus reflected light. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of improved optical coupling and collection efficiency into the light pillar or fiber inlet.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delic et al. (US 2020/0326414 A1) and Fest et al. (US 2011/0268453 A1) in further view of Inoue et al. (US 2022/0373650 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Delic is not relied upon as teaching that an inner wall of a box can reflect an optical signal, and wherein the echo optical signal that enters a light inlet of the box passes by the inner wall of the box, and is reflected to a light inlet of the light pillar.
However, Inoue teaches that an inner wall of a box can reflect an optical signal ([0037] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the sensor module 1 includes a housing 1I and a translucent cover 12 Examiner Note: A translucent cover can partially reflect an optical signal), and wherein the echo optical signal that enters a light inlet of the box passes by the inner wall of the box (Fig. 1 & [0045] The second optical fiber 155 is configured and disposed so as to guide the reflected light L2 that has passed through the second lens 154 to the light receiving element 156. Specifically, the reflected light L2 that has passed through the second lens 154 is incident on one end portion of the second optical fiber 155 Examiner Note: Fig. 1, reproduced below, illustrates that the reflected light L2 (the echo optical signal) enters the light inlet of the box (the translucent cover) and passes by the translucent cover once entering the box on its way to the second lens)and is reflected to a light inlet of the light pillar ([0045] The second optical fiber 155 is configured and disposed so as to guide the reflected light L2 Examiner Note: The reflected signal is reflected by the object and makes it way to the second optical fiber. Therefore, it is reflected to a light inlet of the light pillar).
Delic (as previously modified by Fest) and Inoue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical packing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the box and optical routing arrangement of Delic (as previously modified by Fest) to include the reflecting inner wall of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to guide and redirect optical signals using internal housing surfaces. By integrating Inoue’s teaching of a reflective inner box wall into the system, the system can reflect and direct incoming optical signals toward a light pillar inlet. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of controlled optical signal reflection and efficient internal routing within the housing enclosure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1) in view of Koudar et al. (US 2021/0223398 A1) and Gassend et al. (US 2022/0155450 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that when selecting the target echo electrical signal, the signal processor is configured to:
select the target echo electrical signal based on a priority of a first-level echo electrical signal, a priority of a second-level echo electrical signal, and a priority of a third level echo electrical signal,
wherein a signal strength of the first-level echo electrical signal is less than or equal to a first strength threshold; wherein a signal strength of the second-level echo electrical signal is greater than or equal to the first strength threshold and less than or equal to a second strength threshold; wherein a signal strength of the third-level echo electrical signal is greater than or equal to the second strength threshold; and wherein the first strength threshold is less than the second strength threshold; and
wherein the priority of the second-level echo electrical signal is higher than the priority of the third-level echo electrical signal, and wherein the priority of the third-level echo electrical signal is higher than the priority of the first-level echo electrical signal.
However, Koudar teaches that when selecting the target echo electrical signal ([0044] to properly set the threshold for discrimination of valid pulse amplitude and thus more reliably detect targets), the signal processor is configured to:
select the target echo electrical signal based on a priority of a first-level echo electrical signal, a priority of a second-level echo electrical signal ([0044] The LiDAR system can use this information to properly set the threshold for discrimination of valid pulse amplitude and thus more reliably detect targets. In other words, the threshold is used to determine whether a received pulse is caused by light from ambient light source 124 (amplitudes below the threshold) or a reflection from obstacle 110 (amplitudes above the threshold)),
wherein a signal strength of the first-level echo electrical signal is less than or equal to a first strength threshold; wherein a signal strength of the second-level echo electrical signal is greater than or equal to the first strength threshold ([0044] The LiDAR system can use this information to properly set the threshold for discrimination of valid pulse amplitude and thus more reliably detect targets. In other words, the threshold is used to determine whether a received pulse is caused by light from ambient light source 124 (amplitudes below the threshold) or a reflection from obstacle 110 (amplitudes above the threshold))
wherein the priority of the second-level electrical signal is higher than the priority of the first-level echo electrical signal ([0044] The LiDAR system can use this information to properly set the threshold for discrimination of valid pulse amplitude and thus more reliably detect targets. In other words, the threshold is used to determine whether a received pulse is caused by light from ambient light source 124 (amplitudes below the threshold) or a reflection from obstacle 110 (amplitudes above the threshold)).
Koudar is not relied upon as teaching selecting the target echo electrical signal based on a priority of a second-level echo electrical signal and a priority of a third level echo electrical signal, a signal strength of the second-level echo electrical signal is less than or equal to a second strength threshold; wherein a signal strength of the third-level echo electrical signal is greater than or equal to the second strength threshold; and wherein the first strength threshold is less than the second strength threshold; and wherein the priority of the second-level echo electrical signal is higher than the priority of the third-level echo electrical signal, and wherein the priority of the third-level echo electrical signal is higher than the priority of the first-level echo electrical signal.
However, Gassend teaches selecting the target echo electrical signal based on a priority of a second-level echo electrical signal and a priority of a third level echo electrical signal ([0161] In this example, scan 504 may trigger detection of the onset of the saturation recovery period; whereas, scan 506 may not trigger such detection due to the maximum measured value at scan 506 being above the detection threshold (e.g., normalized value of approximately 0.9)),
a signal strength of the second-level echo electrical signal is less than or equal to a second strength threshold; wherein a signal strength of the third-level echo electrical signal is greater than or equal to the second strength threshold ([0161] In this example, scan 504 may trigger detection of the onset of the saturation recovery period; whereas, scan 506 may not trigger such detection due to the maximum measured value at scan 506 being above the detection threshold (e.g., normalized value of approximately 0.9)); and wherein the first strength threshold is less than the second strength threshold (Examiner Note: It is obvious that the detection threshold of Gassend would be above the ambient light threshold of Koudar); and
wherein the priority of the second-level echo electrical signal is higher than the priority of the third-level echo electrical signal, and wherein the priority of the third-level echo electrical signal is higher than the priority of the first-level echo electrical signal (Examiner Note: The first signal in this combination is ambient only light (lowest level priority), the second signal in this combination is the true signal (highest level priority), and the third signal in this combination is the signal above the maximum detection threshold which gives the system instructions to trigger the saturation recover period (medium priority)).
Kapusta, Koudar, and Gassend are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of LIDAR signal processing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the signal processor of Kapusta to incorporate the threshold discrimination of Koudar and the multi-tier saturation recovery priority scheme of Gassend with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to reliably discriminate between ambient light, valid target reflections, and saturation recovery states to optimize signal detection. By integrating Koudar’s ambient threshold and Gassend’s saturation detection levels into Kapusta’s system, the system can selectively prioritize echo electrical signals based on their amplitude tiers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of robust, multi-level signal filtering and prioritized target acquisition.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1) in view of Tennant et al. (US 6,448,572 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that when determining the feature of the target object based on the target echo electrical signal, the signal processor is configured to: determine a first integral area of the target echo electrical signal; determine, based on distance correction values corresponding to different integral areas, a first distance correction value corresponding to the first integral area; and correct, based on the first distance correction value, a distance of the target object determined based on the target echo electrical signal.
However, Tennant teaches that when determining the feature of the target object based on the target echo electrical signal ([Col. 7, ll. 34-37] The processor 46 then determines for each pixel based on the integrator voltage the time of travel for the light detected at that pixel and calculates the corresponding distance to the target portion imaged at that pixel (step 132)), the signal processor is configured to:
determine a first integral area of the target echo electrical signal ([Col. 7, ll. 31-33] The output of the receiver electronics latches the integrator (for each pixel, at various times, step 130) or otherwise stops the timing for each pixel);
determine, based on distance correction values corresponding to different integral areas, a first distance correction value corresponding to the first integral area; and
correct, based on the first distance correction value, a distance of the target object determined based on the target echo electrical signal ([Col. 7, ll. 33-44] The processor 46 then determines for each pixel based on the integrator voltage the time of travel for the light detected at that pixel and calculates the corresponding distance to the target portion imaged at that pixel (step 132). Based upon the calculated distances, the processor 46 then develops an image including the distance information and displays that image on the display device 48 (shown in FIG. 2). Note that a second pulse with a known different magnitude may be used to increase the precision of the distance measurement. This is done by examining the difference in delay between pulses of different magnitude).
Kapusta and Tennant are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR signal processing and ranging systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the signal processor of Kapusta to incorporate the integrator-based distance correction and pulse magnitude compensation teachings of Tennant with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase the precision of distance measurements by accounting for varying signal responses and time-walk errors across pixels. By integrating Tennant’s teaching of applying correction values derived from integrator responses into Kapusta’s system, the system can dynamically correct object distance calculations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of enhanced range accuracy and improved depth extraction from target echo signals.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapusta et al. (US 2021/0156973 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0033456 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kapusta is not relied upon as teaching that when determining the feature of the target object based on the target echo electrical signal, the signal processor is configured to: determine a first integral area of the target echo electrical signal; determine, based on signal strength peaks corresponding to different integral areas, a first strength peak corresponding to the first integral area; and determine a reflectivity of the target object based on the first strength peak.
However, Wang teaches that when determining the feature of the target object based on the target echo electrical signal, the signal processor is configured to:
determine a first integral area of the target echo electrical signal ([0133 the SPAD circuit 1501 may include a resistor 1601, a SPAD 1603, a capacitor 1605… [0175] The capacitor 2315 may include a first terminal connected to the cathode of the SPAD 2311);
determine, based on signal strength peaks corresponding to different integral areas, a first strength peak corresponding to the first integral area ([0202] a histogram may be formed for each pixel, and by summing the bins near the peak in the histogram); and
determine a reflectivity of the target object based on the first strength peak ([0202] The light intensity information may be used to determine a reflectivity of objects in the field of view of the imaging system 15.).
Kapusta and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LIDAR optical detection and signal processing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the signal processor of Kapusta to incorporate the capacitor-based integration and histogram peak evaluation of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to evaluate signal strength characteristics and compute object reflectivity from accumulated return pulses. By integrating Wang’s teachings of integrating charges via a pixel capacitor array and summing bins near a histogram peak to determine target reflectivity into Kapusta’s system, the system can characterize material properties of the target. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this combination would yield the predictable result of accurate target reflectivity determination based on integrated signal peaks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights