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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory category
Claims 1-9 recite methods and therefore satisfy the statutory category requirement.
Step 2A, Prong One - Judicial exception
Claim 1 recites “determining, based on the first set of detection data, a position of an echo pulse,” “adjusting, based on the position of the echo pulse, a detection window,” and “determining” distance or reflectivity from the detection data. Inspecting time and intensity values, locating an echo, selecting a smaller interval containing it, and deriving distance or reflectivity are observations, evaluations, and judgments that can practically be performed using pen and paper. These limitations recite a mental process. The physical detection sweeps are treated as additional elements.
Claim 2 recites “generating” a histogram and identifying “a maximum value” or “a predetermined threshold,” which are mental evaluations and quantitative calculations. Claim 3 recites using “the position of the echo pulse as a center,” which is a mathematical relationship. Claim 4 inherits claim 1’s mental process. Claim 5 recites “determining” and “calibrating” distance or reflectivity information, which are mental evaluations or calculations. Claim 6 recites “a first time accuracy which is m times a time resolution, where m>1” and weight based storage, which are mathematical relationships. Claim 7 assigns the datasets to those mathematical storage rules. Claim 8 associates two weights with intervals between time information and adjacent time scales, which recites mathematical relationships and weighted calculations. Claim 9 recites “k>n,” which is a mathematical relationship.
Claims 1 through 9 therefore recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two - No integration into a practical application
Claim 1 additionally recites “performing k detection sweeps by using an original detection window” and “performing n detection sweeps by using the adjusted detection window.” The initial sweeps gather the information needed to locate the echo. Over the full scope of claim 1, the later sweeps may use the calculated interval only to determine which temporal samples are processed or retained. The claim does not require changing the emitter, detector activation, receiver electronics, or temporal gate circuitry. The ordered combination therefore gathers data, evaluates it, selects a temporal range, gathers or retains information associated with that range, and derives informational results. Without a claimed technological implementation, this does not improve LiDAR operation or integrate the mental process into a practical application. The specification’s asserted reductions in power, storage, processing, and noise have been considered. Claim 1 does not require detector deactivation, omission of all data outside the selected window, reduced memory use, reduced power, improved signal to noise ratio, preserved accuracy, or the disclosed gating implementation. It therefore encompasses logical filtering or storage while the physical sensing cycle remains unchanged.
Claims 2 and 3 refine how the interval is calculated but require no different physical operation. Claim 4’s alternative of “storing no detection data” restricts retained information without requiring active detector gating or a particular memory architecture. Claim 5 produces calibrated information without applying it to a physical process. Claim 6 permits either storage manner and requires no particular compression or register arrangement. Claims 7 and 8 select storage granularity and mathematical weighting but require no particular memory structure or quantified improvement. Claim 9 limits the sweep quantities through “k>n” but does not change how a sweep operates.
The additional elements, separately and in combination, therefore do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Step 2B - No significantly more
The abstract acts of “determining” the echo position, “adjusting” the selected interval, “determining” distance or reflectivity, and applying the claimed mathematical relationships cannot themselves provide the inventive concept. The remaining functions include “performing k detection sweeps,” “performing n detection sweeps,” obtaining detection data, generating histograms, and storing or withholding information. The specification describes repeated LiDAR sweeps, predetermined detector windows, histogram accumulation, time of flight ranging, and native resolution storage as ordinary operations. These additional functions are therefore well understood, routine, and conventional. As an ordered combination, the claims place ordinary LiDAR acquisition and storage functions before and after the mental and mathematical rules. They require no nonconventional component arrangement, circuit, memory organization, or detector control mechanism. The combination therefore does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 6-8 and 15-17 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 6 recites “the time information,” but neither claim 1 nor the preceding language of claim 6 introduces time information. Because the claim recites first and second sets of detection data, it is unclear whether “the time information” refers to time information associated with the first set, the second set, both sets, or introduces another source of time information. Claim 6 further recites that the first and second sets “are stored in a first storage manner or a second storage manner.” It is unclear whether both sets must be stored in the same selected manner, or whether each set may independently be stored in either manner. Accordingly, the specific storage arrangements encompassed by the claim is unclear. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “are stored in a first storage manner or a second storage manner, wherein the first storage manner comprises storage based on a weight of the time information” to recite --are each stored in a first storage manner or a second storage manner, wherein the first storage manner comprises storage based on a weight of time information--.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (CN 110596723 A).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu discloses a LiDAR (Fig. 1, distance measurement system 10; ¶¶ 5, 47, 50) comprising:
a transmitter (Fig. 1, transmitter 11; ¶ 47), configured to transmit a laser pulse to a three-dimensional environment (Fig. 1, VCSEL light source 111 emitting a pulsed beam to target space containing object 20; ¶¶ 47, 50) to perform multiple detection sweeps (Fig. 6; ¶¶ 44, 75, repeated flight time measurements);
a receiver (Fig. 1, collector 12; ¶ 47), configured to receive an echo pulse of the laser pulse reflected by an object (Fig. 1, reflected light beam 40 from object 20; ¶ 47) and convert the echo pulse into an electrical signal (Fig. 1, collector 12, further detailed by pixel unit 121 producing SPAD avalanche signal for the TDC; ¶¶ 53, 56, where photodiode avalanche output delivered to an electronic TDC necessarily is electrical);
a time-to-digital converter (Fig. 4, TDC circuit 41; ¶ 70), coupled to the transmitter and the receiver (¶¶ 42, 47, 53, 56) to determine detection data (¶ 70, TDC circuit 41 converting measured photon signal interval into a time code);
a memory (Fig. 4, storage matrix 422; ¶ 71), coupled to the time-to-digital converter and configured to store the detection data (¶¶ 70-71); and
a processor (Fig. 1, processing circuit 13; ¶ 52), coupled to the time-to-digital converter and the memory (¶¶ 53, 72) and configured to perform operations (Fig. 6; ¶¶ 50, 72-79, pulse and histogram operations controlled through processing circuit 13) comprising:
performing k sweeps (Fig. 6, step 1, multiple measurements; ¶ 75) to obtain and store a first set of detection data (¶ 75, flight time values obtained from each measurement where each value matched to and incremented in its corresponding coarse unit) within an original detection window (Figs. 5 and 6, coarse histogram interval T covering the measurement range; ¶¶ 70, 75), wherein k is a positive integer (¶¶ 44, 75, more than one measurement);
determining (¶ 76, Fig. 6, step 2, calculating coarse flight time t₁), based on the first set of detection data (¶¶ 75-76, coarse histogram produced from the first measurements), a position of an echo pulse (¶ 76, pulse waveform position found by the peak value method) at an arrival time point (¶¶ 56, 69, 76, coarse flight time t₁) within the original detection window (¶¶ 70, 75-76, t₁ read from the coarse histogram over interval T);
adjusting, based on the position of the echo pulse, a detection window (¶ 78, Fig. 6, step 3, reconfiguring storage matrix 422 to a fine measurement interval), wherein the adjusted detection window comprises the position of the echo pulse (¶ 78, fine measurement range containing position of coarse flight time t₁ as the center) and is smaller than the original detection window (¶ 78, fine range totaling ten percent of coarse interval T);
performing n detection sweeps (¶ 78, Fig. 6, step 3, another round of multiple measurements) to obtain and store a second set of detection data (¶ 78, new flight time values obtained and incremented from each fine measurement) within the adjusted detection window (¶ 78, Fig. 6, smaller range represented by fine units ΔT₂), wherein n is a positive integer (¶¶ 44, 78, more than one measurement); and
determining (¶ 79, Fig. 6, step 4, calculating fine flight time t₂), based on the first set of detection data and the second set of detection data or based on the second set of detection data (¶ 79, Fig. 6, fine histogram), at least one of a distance or a reflectivity of the object (¶¶ 47-49, 56, distance D of object 20 calculated from flight time).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu discloses the LiDAR of claim 10, and further discloses:
wherein adjusting the detection window comprises: adjusting the detection window based on the position of the echo pulse as a center (¶¶ 76, 78, based on coarse flight time t₁ obtained from the pulse waveform position, where t₁ is placed in the middle with a margin on each side).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu discloses the LiDAR of claim 10, and further discloses: wherein a range of the original detection window (Figs. 5 and 6, coarse histogram interval T; ¶¶ 70, 75) is associated with a predetermined maximum detection distance of the LiDAR (¶ 56, maximum measurement range Dmax and its corresponding maximum flight time; ¶ 75, interval T is configured so “all the storage units can cover the measurement range”), and the performing the n detection sweeps further comprises: performing no detection or storing no detection data outside of the adjusted detection window (Fig. 4, storage matrix 422; Fig. 6, step 3; ¶¶ 70 to 71, histogram counting is performed by incrementing the corresponding storage unit; ¶ 78, storage matrix 422 is configured to represent the fine histogram interval; ¶ 81, histogram rendering “counts only time of flight values that are within its time interval T”).
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are methods corresponding to the apparatus of claims 10, 12 and 13, respectively. Accordingly, claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claims 10, 12 and 13, respectively.
Claim 19 is a computer product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 10.
Claims 2, 11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Pacala (US 20230176223 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses the LiDAR of claim 10, and further discloses: wherein the detection data comprises time information (Fig. 4, TDC circuit 41; ¶ 70, TDC circuit 41 “converts the time interval into a time code”) and […], and determining the position of the echo pulse further comprises:
generating a first histogram based on the first set of detection data (Fig. 6, step 1, coarse histogram; ¶ 75, flight time values from “multiple measurements” are added to corresponding coarse time units); and
determining, on the first histogram, a time point corresponding to a maximum value of an amplitude or a time range in which an amplitude exceeds a predetermined threshold as the position of the echo pulse (Fig. 6, step 2; ¶ 76, the “maximum peak method” locates the pulse waveform position and corresponding coarse flight time t₁).
Zhu does not disclose: [the detection data comprises] “intensity information corresponding to the time information obtained from each detection sweep.” However, Pacala teaches detection data comprising intensity information (¶ 79, aggregated photon counts over successive time bins are referred to as an “intensity histogram”; Fig. 41, block 4104; ¶ 329, the ALU “aggregate[s] these positive signals during an ALU clock cycle to generate a photon count during the ALU clock cycle”) corresponding to the time information (Fig. 41, block 4106; ¶ 330, each first time interval is subdivided into time bins and photon counts from corresponding time bins are accumulated in corresponding registers) obtained from each detection sweep (Fig. 41, blocks 4102 and 4106; ¶¶ 328, 330, each first time interval represents a shot containing a transmitted pulse train, and corresponding time bins in each shot are accumulated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR of Zhu with the teachings of Pacala with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reflected pulse detection and time of flight measurement by time correlating and accumulating photon count intensity measurements across detection sweeps, thereby yielding a LiDAR system with improved temporal resolution and increased signal to noise ratio across varying conditions (Pacala, ¶¶ 5, 119-123).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu discloses the LiDAR of claim 10, and further discloses: wherein the receiver comprises a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array (Fig. 1, collector 12, as further detailed by pixel unit 121 comprising multiple SPAD pixels; ¶ 53), and the detection data (Fig. 4, TDC time code; ¶ 70) comprise a time point (Fig. 4, TDC circuit 41 measuring the interval from pulse emission; ¶¶ 56, 70) at which the SPAD array is triggered by photon (Fig. 1, pixel unit 121; ¶¶ 53, 56, an incident photon causes a constituent SPAD to avalanche and supply a signal to the TDC) and […].
Zhu does not disclose: “a number of triggered SPADs.” However, Pacala teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 106-107, where pixel counter 550 is configured to “count the number of photodetectors for a given pixel that have been triggered” and the histogram circuitry determines “a number of photodetectors that triggered during a particular time bin.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR of Zhu with the teachings of Pacala with a reasonable expectation of success in order to account for an preserve the number of independently triggered SPADs during each detection sweep, thereby yielding a LiDAR receiver with greater dynamic range (Pacala, ¶¶ 102, 106-107).
Claim 2 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 11. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 11.
Claim 20 is a computer product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 11. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 11.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Hua (“Correction of Range Walk Error for Underwater Photon Counting Imaging,” published 2020)1.
Regarding claim 14, Zhu discloses the LiDAR of claim 10, and further discloses: wherein determining at least one of the distance or the reflectivity of the object comprises: determining (¶ 79, Fig. 6, step 4, “use the fine histogram to calculate the fine flight time t₂”), based on the first set of detection data (¶¶ 75-76, Fig. 6, steps 1 and 2, the first multiple measurements form the coarse histogram and the coarse histogram yields t₁) and the second set of detection data (¶¶ 78-79, Fig. 6, steps 3 and 4, the fine interval is set from t₁, “a new round of multiple measurements” forms the fine histogram, and, “based on the fine histogram,” t₂ is read), at least one of the distance or the reflectivity of the object (¶¶ 47-49, 79 & Fig. 1, distance D of object 20 calculated from flight time t₂); and […].
Zhu does not teach: “calibrating, based on the second set of detection data, at least one of the distance or the reflectivity of the object.” However, Hua teaches calibrating (Hua, Fig. 8; pp. 36268-36269, § 4.4; Eq. 13, correcting measured target range by compensating for range walk), based on the second set of detection data (Hua, p. 36267, § 4.2, estimating the signal photon number from the detection histogram; Eqs. 8-12), at least one of the distance or the reflectivity of the object (Hua, p. 36260, Abstract; p. 36270, Table 1; p. 36271, Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR of Zhu with the teachings of Hua with a reasonable expectation of success in order to calibrate for range walk error, thereby yielding a system with improved distance measurement accuracy (Hua, p. 36260, Abstract).
Claim 5 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 14. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 14.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Laifenfeld (US 10962628 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses the LiDAR of claim 10, and further discloses: wherein the first set of detection data and the second set of detection data are stored in a first storage manner or a second storage manner (¶¶ 70, 73, Fig. 6, step one, first measurement values stored in coarse time units ΔT₁, and Fig. 6, step three, new measurement values stored in fine time units ΔT₂), wherein the first storage manner comprises […] at a first time accuracy (¶¶ 70-71, coarse time unit ΔT₁ is the minimum resolution) which is m times a time resolution (¶¶ 73-74, fine time unit ΔT₂ provides a tenfold improvement over coarse time unit ΔT₁), where m>1 (¶ 74, m = 10), and wherein the second storage manner comprises storage based on the time resolution of the LiDAR (¶¶ 73-74, Fig. 6, step three, each new measurement value is stored in the corresponding fine time unit ΔT₂).
Zhu does not disclose: “storage based on a weight of the time information.” However, Laifenfeld teaches the limitation in Fig. 10, stage 1008; Col. 16:47-53, where weight determination is based on the TDC histogram bin number. Specifically, PRI position and TDC histogram bin number locate a weight, and the histogram location identified by the TDC histogram bin number is incremented by the value of that weight (Fig. 10, stages 1008; 1010; Col. 17:6-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR of Zhu with the teachings of Laifenfeld with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide weighted histogram counts according to the confidence that a received pulse represents an actual object reflection, thereby providing for more accurate TOF values and improved distance determination (Laifenfeld, Col. 13:37-59; Col. 14:43-65).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Laifenfeld teaches the LiDAR of claim 15, wherein the first set of detection data is stored in the first storage manner (Zhu, ¶ 70, Fig. 6, step one, first measurement values stored in coarse time units ΔT₁), and the second set of detection data is stored in the second storage manner (Zhu, ¶ 73, Fig. 6, step three, new measurement values stored in fine time units ΔT₂).
Claims 6-7 are methods corresponding to the apparatus of claims 15-16, respectively. Accordingly, claims 6-7 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claims 15-16, respectively.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Koerner (“Models of Direct Time-of-Flight Sensor Precision That Enable Optimal Design and Dynamic Configuration,” published April 26, 2021)2.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the k detection sweeps and the n detection sweeps jointly complete one detection (Fig. 6, steps one through four; ¶¶ 75-80, coarse histogram produces t₁, t₁ configures the fine detection interval , and the fine histogram produces final flight time t₂) for one point in a three-dimensional environment (Fig. 1, object 20; ¶¶ 47-49, the measured flight time determines “a distance D of a corresponding point on the object”), and […].
Zhu does not disclose: “k>n”; however, Koerner teaches a direct time of flight histogram from repeated laser pulses and controlling the pulse count through exposure time (p. 3; p. 6, section IV.B, Eq. 8; p. 7, section IV.B), where for the same target depth, a 33 ms histogram was reduced to 10 ms in a subsequent exposure (p. 7, section IV.C; p. 8, Table II). That is, at an unchanged pulse repetition rate, the initial acquisition predictably uses more laser pulse sweeps than the subsequent acquisition, thereby teaching k>n. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhu with the teachings of Koerner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use only the number of laser pulses needed for a selected measurement precision, thereby yielding a system with reduced laser power consumption and a faster measurement time (Koerner, p. 7, sections IV.B and IV.C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Regarding claim 17, Zhu in view of Laifenfeld does not to teach: “wherein the weight comprises a first weight and a second weight, the first weight is associated with a time interval between the time information and one of adjacent first time scales, the second weight is associated with a time interval between the time information and the other one of adjacent first time scales, and the first storage manner comprises: storing intensity information based on the first weight and the second weight at the first time accuracy.” Neither Pacala, Laifenfeld, Hua nor Koemer remedy the deficiencies of Zhu in view of Laifenfeld.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include:
He (CN 110596724 A) discloses a LiDAR employing repeated time of flight measurements to generate coarse and fine histograms within dynamically adjusted detection windows. However, He does not teach the two interval dependent weights for adjacent time scales and storage of intensity information as recited in claim 17.
In sum, the cited prior art lacks any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the features of claim 17, thereby failing to render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and incorporating all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Hua et al., “Correction of Range Walk Error for Underwater Photon Counting Imaging,” Optics Express, vol. 28, no. 24, pp. 36260 to 36273, November 23, 2020.
2 Lucas J. Koerner, “Models of Direct Time-of-Flight Sensor Precision That Enable Optimal Design and Dynamic Configuration,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 70, art. no. 8502609, pp. 1-9, published April 26, 2021.
Prosecution Insights