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 .
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025has been entered.
Response to remarks/arguments
This is a non-Final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 11/03/2025.
Status of the claims:
The rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is maintained in response to Applicant's remarks filed on 11/03/2025. It is unclear if there is a distinction between a time-resolved speckle contrast and a time-resolved contrast and the specification and the provisional did not provide further information.
The double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6-11, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-40 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
I. Response Regarding the 112(b) Rejection – “time-resolved speckle contrast”
In remarks on page 6, the Applicant argues that the provisional application explains what speckle is (e.g., “speckle arises from the self-interference of light”) and therefore provides sufficient written description to clarify the meaning of “time-resolved speckle contrast.” Applicant further asserts that the Office misapprehended the provisional and that “time-resolved speckle contrast” is supported and definite.
These arguments are not persuasive.
1. The Specification Fails to Define “Time-Resolved Speckle Contrast”
While the provisional discusses general properties of laser speckle, neither the specification nor the provisional provides:
a definition of time-resolved speckle contrast,
an algorithm or computation for time-resolved speckle contrast,
a formula or objective boundary,
any distinction between “speckle contrast,” “contrast,” and “time-resolved contrast,” or
a clear explanation of what constitutes the “time-resolved” aspect.
The cited pages in the provisional describe what speckle is, not how the claimed metric is computed.
2. The Claim Language Remains Ambiguous
The claim recites an integrated circuit configured to calculate “time-resolved speckle contrast,” yet:
no computation method is disclosed,
no temporal resolution method is described, and
the distinction between speckle contrast and other types of contrast cannot be discerned from the disclosure.
Under MPEP 2173.02 and 2173.05(e), claim terms that lack “objective boundaries” or that rely on undefined functional concepts are indefinite.
3. Applicant’s Arguments Do Not Resolve the Ambiguity
Applicant’s assertion that speckle arises from self-interference does not clarify:
what data is used,
how the contrast metric is formed,
how the temporal dimension is applied, or
whether the contrast is spatial, temporal, or other.
Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection is maintained.
II. Response Regarding the 103 Rejection of Claims 21, 30, and 39 Over Satat in View of Steinberg (and Dun / Sanchez).
A. Independent Claim 21
1. Applicant’s Argument that Satat Does Not Compute “Time-Resolved Speckle Contrast” Is Not Persuasive
In remarks on pages 7-8, the Applicant argues Satat does not mention “speckle contrast” and therefore cannot teach the recited integrated circuit configured to calculate a “time-resolved speckle contrast.”
This reasoning is not persuasive for the following reasons:
a. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI)
Under BRI, “time-resolved speckle contrast” encompasses any contrast metric derived from time-resolved signals, unless the specification clearly defines the term more narrowly. As explained above, the specification does not.
b. Satat Performs Time-Dependent Statistical Processing
Satat at least in para 13-16, 25, discloses:
time-of-arrival distribution separation,
probabilistic per-pixel signal processing,
background removal, and
extraction of time-dependent reflectance characteristics.
These operations fall within BRI of calculating a “time-resolved contrast” metric unless the claim is expressly narrowed—which it is not.
Thus, Satat teaches or at least suggests the recited functionality.
2. Applicant’s Argument that the combination of Satat in view of Steinberg is not obvious.
In remarks on pages 7-8, the Applicant indicates that Steinberg discusses LIDAR scanning units, once again no citation or other evidence is provided why one would make this combination and argues there is no rationale given why one would modify Satat to include these LIDAR scanning units apart from the fact that Applicant's claim recites "transmitter optics for scanning a scene by directing a sequence of light pulses from the source toward the scene." For at least these reasons, the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
a. Steinberg Explicitly Teaches Scanning LIDAR Units
Steinberg para 123 describes one or more scanning units configured to scan a scene with light pulses. Adding scanning optics to a LIDAR system is a routine and predictable modification yielding broader field-of-view and depth acquisition.
b. Valid KSR Rationale
The Office cited a valid rationale for combination: to enable the system to detect distances at various directions.
This aligns squarely with KSR, which permits combining known elements when the result is predictable and beneficial. The combination of Satat and Steinberg is therefore proper.
B. Independent Claim 30
In remarks on pages 9-10, the Applicant argues Claim 30 should be allowable because it recites “self-interference of the light pulses” and for similar reasons to those given above for the claim 21.
These arguments are not persuasive.
1. The “self-interference” language is an intended use clause, not an operational limitation
The claim recites that the time-resolved speckle contrast:
“occurs due to self-interference of the light pulses.”
This wording does not require the integrated circuit to perform a new computation, nor to detect interference, nor to apply any speckle-specific algorithm.
It merely states why the phenomenon occurs in nature.
Statements of cause, purpose, or result do not impose structural or functional limits (See MPEP 2111.02; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Thus, the claim reads the same with or without the phrase.
2. Speckle contrast inherently results from coherent light in any TOF/SPAD LIDAR system
Any coherent pulsed laser used in LIDAR will inherently produce speckle due to self-interference of returning photons. This is a basic physical property of coherent light—not an added feature.
Therefore, the limitation does not distinguish over the prior art. See also, response for claim 21 above.
C. Independent Claim 39
In remarks on page 10, the Applicant provides no additional technical distinctions beyond those asserted for claim 21. As the arguments for claim 21 are unpersuasive, the rejection of claim 39 is likewise maintained.
III. Response Regarding Dependent Claims (22–29, 31–38, 40)
Applicant asserts the dependent claims are allowable based on further limitations.
A. Claim 24 – Use of Dun
In remarks on page 11, the Applicant argues that Dun fails to disclose the applicability of laser speckle contrast imaging outside of biomedical imaging, let alone for use in the vehicle context. For at least this reason, Dun is inapplicable.
This argument is not persuasive.
1. Dun Addresses the Identical Underlying Speckle Contrast Computation
The field of use (biomedical imaging) does not exempt Dun from being reasonably pertinent to the problem of computing speckle contrast (See at least para 42-44). The test for analogous art is met because:
Dun solves the same optical signal-processing problem (measuring speckle contrast).
The underlying physics and mathematics are identical regardless of application domain.
2. Proper Secondary Reference
Because Satat lacks the detailed mathematical definition of speckle contrast, Dun is properly cited to supply the missing teachings. Applicant has not identified teaching away or incompatibility.
Thus, the rejection of claim 24 is maintained.
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.
Claim 27 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 27, “the ratio” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 21-23, 28-34, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satat et al. (US 20190241114 A1) in view of Michael Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Satat teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, comprising:
a source of light pulses (Fig. 1, para 23. See also, fig. 2 step 201);
receiver optics arranged to receive light reflected from the scene in a time period between the light pulses and to provide a time-resolved signal of the reflected light produced by each of a plurality of the light pulses (Fig. 1, para 24-25. Fig. 2 step 201);
an integrated circuit configured to calculate a time-resolved speckle contrast for each of the plurality of time-resolved signals produced by the plurality of light pulses (Fig. 1, para 25. Fig. 2, steps 202-204); and
a vehicle configured to operate according to a map generated of the scene using a plurality comprising at least one of the calculated time-resolved speckle contrasts (Para 18).
Satat fails to explicitly teach but Steinberg teaches transmitter optics for scanning a scene by directing a sequence of light pulses from the source toward the scene (Fig. 1, para 123; scanning unit 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satat in view of Steinberg to include transmitter optics for scanning a scene so that the system can be used to detect distances at various direction.
Regarding claim 22, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 21, wherein the vehicle is configured to present, via a display of the vehicle, an image of the scene (Satat, para 18).
Regarding claim 23, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 22, wherein the vehicle is configured to superimpose the map on the image (Satat, para 16).
Regarding claim 28, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 21, wherein the integrated circuit comprises one or more of: a processor including program code with instructions for calculating the time- resolved speckle contrast (Satat, fig. 1, para 25, 76-77; computer 109. See also, fig. 2), or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).
Regarding claim 29, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 21, further comprising: a camera configured to produce an image of the scene; and a display configured to display the map of the scene superimposed on the image of the scene (Satat, para 16-18).
Regarding claim 30, Satat teaches a method for operating a LIDAR system in a vehicle to overcome scattering effects, the method comprising:
(b) receiving, by receiver optics, light reflected from the scene in a time period between light pulses to produce a time-resolved signal between each of consecutive light pulses (Fig. 1, para 24-25. Fig. 2 step 201);
(c) calculating, by an integrated circuit, a time-resolved speckle contrast for a plurality of time-resolved signals produced for the one of the plurality of locations, the time- resolved speckle contrast occurring due to self-interference of the light pulses (pulses (Fig. 1, para 9-11, 25. Fig. 2, steps 202-204); and
(d) repeating (a) through (c) for each of the remainder of the plurality of locations in the scene to be scanned (Fig. 1, para 9- 12, 25, and 76).
Satat fails to explicitly teach but Steinberg teaches (a) transmitting for scanning a scene, by transmitter optics, a sequence of light pulses towards one of a plurality of locations in the scene (Fig. 1, para 123; scanning unit 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satat in view of Steinberg to include transmitter optics for scanning a scene. Doing so will allow to detect distances at various direction.
Regarding claim 31, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising:
(e) generating a three-dimensional map of the scene from the plurality of time- resolved speckle contrasts for the plurality of locations (Satat, para 16-18); and
(f) utilizing the three-dimensional map of the scene to affect operation of the vehicle (Satat, para 18].
Regarding claim 32, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 31, further comprising utilizing the three- dimensional map to detect an object in the scene.
Regarding claim 33, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 31, further comprising capturing, by a camera, a visual image of the scene and superimposing the three-dimensional map of the scene on the visual image of the scene (Satat, para 16-18).
Regarding claim 34, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 33, further comprising displaying the superimposition of the three-dimensional map of the scene and the visual image of the scene to a driver of the vehicle (Satat, para 18).
Regarding claim 38, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (Satat, para 18).
Regarding claim 39, Satat teaches a vehicle (para 18. See also, para 128 in some cases, the apparatus is housed in, or is configured to be housed in, a vehicle), comprising:
a source of light pulses (Fig. 1, para 23. See also, fig. 2 step 201);
receiver optics arranged to receive light reflected from the scene in a time period between the light pulses and to provide a time-resolved signal of the reflected light produced by each of a plurality of the light pulses (Fig. 1, para 24-25. Fig. 2 step 201);
an integrated circuit configured to calculate a time-resolved speckle contrast for each of the plurality of time-resolved signals produced by the plurality of light pulses (Fig. 1, para 25. Fig. 2, steps 202-204); and
a display configured to present a map generated of the scene using the plurality of the calculated time-resolved speckle contrasts (Para 18).
Satat fails to explicitly teach but Steinberg teaches transmitter optics for scanning a scene by directing a sequence of light pulses from the source toward the scene (Fig. 1, para 123; scanning unit 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satat in view of Steinberg to include transmitter optics for scanning a scene so that the system can be used to detect distances at various direction.
Regarding claim 40, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the vehicle of claim 39, wherein the vehicle is configured to superimpose the map on an image of the scene (Satat, para 16).
Claims 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satat et al. (US 20190241114 A1) in view of Michael Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1) and Dun et al. (US 20120095354 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, fails to explicitly teach but Dun teaches the LIDAR system of claim 21, wherein the time-resolved speckle contrast corresponds to a standard deviation of the time-resolved signals at a given time in each of the plurality of time-resolved signals divided by a mean of the time-resolved signals at the given time in each of the plurality of time-resolved signals (Para 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satat in view of Dun to include programs that allow the processor to calculate a standard by using a speckle model. Doing so will allow to improve image resolution.
Regarding claim 35, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, fails to explicitly teach but Dun teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the time-resolved speckle contrast corresponds to a standard deviation of the time-resolved signals at a given time in each of the plurality of time-resolved signals divided by a mean of the time-resolved signals at the given time in each of the plurality of time-resolved signals (Para 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satat in view of Dun to include programs that allow the processor to calculate a standard by using a speckle model. Doing so will allow to improve image resolution.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satat et al. (US 20190241114 A1) in view of Michael Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1) and Michael David Sánchez (US 20180347978 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Satat, as modified in view of Steinberg, fails to explicitly teach but Sánchez teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the transmitting further comprises spreading the light pulses to flood-illuminate the scene, and the light pulses are laser pulses or LED pulses (Para [8]: lines 1-5. See also, Fig. 3, projection optics 302 and light beam 303).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satat in view of Sánchez to have a projecting optics that allow to illuminate the object/scene. One of the advantages of this approach is to have a better field of illumination of the scene.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 26, 27, 36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach the following element, along with all other claimed features:
The LIDAR system of claim 21, wherein the time-resolved speckle contrast corresponds to a difference of a square of a standard deviation of the plurality of time- resolved signals at a given time position over the plurality of time-resolved signals and a mean of the plurality of time-resolved signals at the given time position over the plurality of time-resolved signals, the difference further divided by a square of the mean.
Regarding claim 36, the prior art of record, either individually or in combination, fails to fairly teach the following element, along with all other claimed features:
The method of claim 30, wherein the time-resolved speckle contrast corresponds to a difference of a square of a standard deviation of the plurality of time-resolved signals at a given time position over the plurality of time-resolved signals and a mean of theplurality of time-resolved signals at the given time position over the plurality of time-resolved signals, the difference further divided by a square of the mean.
Claims 26-27 are allowed due to dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
David et al. (US 20120320219 A1), teaches Image gated camera for detecting objects in a marine environment
Lee et al. (US 9704050 B2), teaches Speckle-based Authentication Apparatus, Authentication System Comprising the Same, and Speckle-based Authentication Method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645