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 .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses Applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 19 August 2026.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, and 19-20 were amended; Claim 2 was cancelled; Claim 21 was added; therefore, Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 19 August 2026 in response to the previous Office Action have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 19 on pages 8 and 9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent Claims 1 and 19 are patentable because neither Nikitin nor Finkelstein teach emitting light in parallel from light emitters located in different banks. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Nikitin explicitly teaches configuring the system to fire light emitters simultaneously across different banks. Specifically, Nikitin discloses ([Col. 16, ll. 3-5] The timing rules 306 of FIG. 6B include simultaneously staging amplifiers, emitting light, and reading light sensors between two banks) and ([Col. 21, ll. 9-13] substantially simultaneously emitting the first light pulse from the first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light pulse from a second light emitter of a second bank of light emitters).
Additionally, Applicant argues that the cited art fails to show that the fields of view of multiple light emitters emitting light in parallel are separate from each other within a detection distance. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. As set forth in the previous Office Action, Finkelstein teaches ([0045] The optical elements 113 may be configured to provide a sufficiently low beam divergence of the light output from the emitter elements 115e so as to ensure that fields of illumination of either individual or groups of emitter elements 115e do not significantly overlap (and in some embodiments described herein define a sparse illumination pattern 315)). This establishes separate fields of view within a detection distance. Modifying Nikitin’s multi-bank parallel transmission with Finkelstein’s low-divergence optics prevents optical interference and cross-talk, yielding a predictable result.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest N staggered columns extended in a first direction (N>1) with adjacent banks spaced along a second perpendicular direction and offset with each other along the first direction. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Brick teaches a honeycomb style hexagonal grid of emitters is a multi-dimensional optical array arranged in a staggered/hexagonal geometry ([0076] As indicated in FIG. 6A in a top view of the light extraction surface and thus opposite to the radiation direction, the laser light source 1 may have a plurality of laser emitter units 10 which are formed by active regions formed vertically in the semiconductor layer sequence and which are arranged in a matrix-like manner, for example in a rectangular or hexagonal matrix Examiner Note: Fig. 6A, reproduced below, shows a staggered honeycomb style hexagonal grid of emitters in an MxN array with (M > 1, N>1)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that staggering physical columns and offsetting adjacent emitter banks along orthogonal axes is a well-known design choice in optical sensor array design to maximize fill factor, optimize spatial resolution, and reduce physical layout area without altering operational capability.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 3-18 and 20 on pages 9 and 10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 3-28 and 20 are patentable based on their dependency on independent Claims 1 and 19. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Independent claims 1 and 19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, dependent claims 3-18 and 20 do not render the subject matter patentable merely by virtue of dependency
Applicant’s amendments with respect to Claims 4, 6, and 8 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments overcome the objection. As such, the informalities objection of Claims 4, 6, and 8 is withdrawn.
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, 4-6, 8-9, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1) and Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nikitin teaches light detection device([Col. 5, ll. 4-7] a lidar distance measurement system 100 that may be used to perform distance or ranging measurements using or in conjunction with a laser/sensor arrangement), comprising:
a light emitter array ([Col. 5, ll. 45-46] the laser emitters are arranged similarly within an emitter image frame) comprising a plurality of light emitters configured to output transmission signals ([Col. 5, ll. 57-65] A channel includes one of the laser emitters 102 and a corresponding one of the light sensors 104… A channel is used to emit a laser light pulse and to measure properties of the reflections of the pulse);
a light detector array ([Col. 9, ll. 51-52] an example array of light detectors) comprising a plurality of light detectors configured to detect echo signals of the transmission signals reflected off an obstacle ([Col. 5, ll. 57-65] A channel includes one of the laser emitters 102 and a corresponding one of the light sensors 104… A channel is used to emit a laser light pulse and to measure properties of the reflections of the pulse), wherein the light emitter array and the light detector array are configured to form a plurality of detection channels ([Col. 5, ll. 7-11] shows control components that may be shared among multiple laser/sensor components (e.g., controller, pulse generator, delay calculator, ADC, capacitive driver) for implementations employing multiple channels), and each detection channel of the plurality of detection channels comprises at least one light emitter and at least one light detector ([Col. 5, ll. 57-58] A channel includes one of the laser emitters 102 and a corresponding one of the light sensors 104), wherein the light emitter array comprises a plurality of banks of light emitters ([Col. 16, ll. 3-5] The timing rules 306 of FIG. 6B include simultaneously staging amplifiers, emitting light, and reading light sensors between two banks), wherein at least two light emitters configured to emit light in parallel during a signal transmission process are in different banks of light emitters ([Col. 21, ll. 9-13] substantially simultaneously emitting the first light pulse from the first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light pulse from a second light emitter of a second bank of light emitters); and
a controller configured to, during the signal transmission process from outputting one or more transmission signals to detecting one or more corresponding echo signals, select multiple light emitters to emit light in parallel ([Col. 16, ll. 3-5] The timing rules 306 of FIG. 6B include simultaneously staging amplifiers, emitting light, and reading light sensors between two banks).
Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching wherein the light emitter array comprises N columns of light emitters staggered from one another, each column of light emitters extending in a first direction, with N greater than 1, first and second adjacent banks of light emitters of the plurality of banks of light emitters are spaced along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and are offset with each other along the first direction; and fields of view (FOVs) of the multiple light emitters selected to emit light in parallel being separate from each other within a detection distance
However, Finkelstein teaches that fields of view (FOVs) of the multiple light emitters selected to emit light in parallel being separate from each other within a detection distance ([0045] The optical elements 113 may be configured to provide a sufficiently low beam divergence of the light output from the emitter elements 115e so as to ensure that fields of illumination of either individual or groups of emitter elements 115e do not significantly overlap (and in some embodiments described herein define a sparse illumination pattern 315)).
Nikitin and Finkelstein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensing and LiDAR 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 emitters and optics of Nikitin to include low beam divergence optical elements providing non-overlapping/separate fields of view of Finkelstein with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent optical crosstalk and signal interference between channels when emitters are fired in parallel. By integrating Finkelstein’s teaching of low beam divergence optics configured to form distinct, non-overlapping illumination fields into Nikitin’s multi-channel parallel-firing LiDAR system, the system can achieve clean signal isolation and accurate range detection across simultaneous channels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring parallel-emitting channels with non-overlapping fields of view would yield the predictable result of reducing cross-channel noise and enhancing detection accuracy during concurrent signal transmission.
Finkelstein is not relied upon as teaching wherein the light emitter array comprises N columns of light emitters staggered from one another, each column of light emitters extending in a first direction, with N greater than 1, first and second adjacent banks of light emitters of the plurality of banks of light emitters are spaced along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and are offset with each other along the first direction.
However, Brick teaches wherein the light emitter array comprises N columns of light emitters staggered from one another, each column of light emitters extending in a first direction, with N greater than 1, first and second adjacent banks of light emitters of the plurality of banks of light emitters are spaced along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and are offset with each other along the first direction ([0076] As indicated in FIG. 6A in a top view of the light extraction surface and thus opposite to the radiation direction, the laser light source 1 may have a plurality of laser emitter units 10 which are formed by active regions formed vertically in the semiconductor layer sequence and which are arranged in a matrix-like manner, for example in a rectangular or hexagonal matrix Examiner Note: Fig. 6A, reproduced below, shows a multi-element MxN emitter array arranged in a staggered/hexagonal grid. As visually demonstrated in Fig. 6A, in a hexagonal matrix adjacent columns extending in a first direction are physically staggered relative to one another (N>1). Consequently, organizing or grouping emitters into adjacent banks yields banks that are spaced apart in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and offset from each other along the first direction due to the staggered hexagonal placement. To the extent Brick does not explicitly use the term “bank” for specific groups in Fig. 6A, dividing this MxN array into functional banks/sub-arrays for addressability and drive control is obvious when viewed in combination with Nikitin).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nikitin, as previously modified by Finkelstein, and Brick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of solid-state laser arrays and LiDAR transmitter architectures. 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 combined system of Nikitin and Finkelstein to include the staggered/hexagonal emitter matrix arrangement of Brick with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase spatial sampling density and pack a higher number of emitter units into a compact transmitter footprint. By integrating Brick’s teaching of a staggered hexagonal matrix layout (N>1) forming offset columns and banks into Nikitin (as previously modified)’s multi-bank LiDAR array, the system can achieve seamless angular coverage without spatial gaps between adjacent emitter beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging the multi-bank emitter array in the staggered hexagonal grid would yield the predictable result of maximizing array packing efficiency and spatial beam resolution across the field of view.
Regarding Claim 4, Nikitin teaches that the plurality of detection channels is formed in an operational state and between activated light emitters in the light emitter array and activated light detectors in the light detector array ([Col. 4, ll. 33-37] For purposes of discussion, the term “channel” is used herein to refer to an individual laser emitter, corresponding light sensor, and the circuitry associated with the emitter and light sensor to emit light and read reflected light… [Col. 5, ll. 15-19] One skilled in the art would understand that the light emitters and light sensors may be multiplied in number beyond the single laser emitter and light sensor depicted).
Regarding Claim 5, Nikitin teaches that the light detection device is configured to have at least one of:
the activated light emitters respectively belong to different banks of the plurality of banks of light emitters ([Col. 4, ll. 42-49] the channels are divided into two banks, although more banks may be used. In some examples, the capacitors corresponding to the laser emitters of one bank are charged while the laser emitters of the other charging bank are being fired. In additional or alternate examples, the emitters may be simultaneously fired to reduce cross-talk at higher firing/reading frequencies (e.g., 1.5 MHz)), or
the light detector array comprising a plurality of banks of light detectors, wherein the activated light detectors respectively belong to different banks of the plurality of banks of light detectors.
Regarding Claim 6, Nikitin teaches that the light detector array comprises a plurality of banks of light detectors ([Col. 13, ll. 28-30] FIG. 5 depicts a block diagram illustrating an example array of light sensors and their association with different ADCs in a “bank” configuration), and wherein at least one of light emitters in each bank of light emitters or light detectors in each bank of light detectors are activated in turn during a plurality of signal transmission processes ([Col. 21, ll. 29-36] alternately emitting the first light pulse from the first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light pulse from a second light emitter of a second bank of light emitters; alternately sensing the first reflected light pulse via a first light sensor of the first bank of light sensors and a second reflected light pulse via a second light sensor of a second bank of light sensors).
Regarding Claim 8, Nikitin teaches that each bank of the plurality of banks of light emitters comprises a predetermined number of light emitters ([Col. 10, ll. 51-55] For example, in an example employing thirty-eight channels, the example configuration 300A includes n=thirty-eight photodiodes 104(1)-(38), nineteen of which would be devoted to Bank 1 and nineteen of which would be devoted to Bank 2), and the light emitters in the bank of light emitters are integrated on at least one chip ([Col. 6, ll. 39-40] the light sensors may be mounted on a single, planar printed circuit board).
Regarding Claim 9, Nikitin teaches that light emitters in a bank of light emitters are coupled to at least one selector, the at least one selector being configured to select one or more light emitters based on an external signal ([Col. 15 ll. 14-46] At clock edge 1, the controller 116 may maintain power to TIA 0 and generate a switch control signal to close switch 0 so that the corresponding photodiode 0 may be read by the ADC of Bank 1. The light emitter 0 may also be fired at substantially the same time… At clock edge 3, the controller 116 may generate an amplifier power control signal to power off TIA 0 and a switch control signal to open switch 0 so that the signal of photodiode 0 is no longer seen by the ADC of Bank 1 and so that the ADC of Bank 1 can accurately read the amplified signal of photodiode 2. The controller 116 may maintain power to TIA 2 and generate a switch control signal to close switch 2 so that photodiode 2 may be read by the ADC of Bank 1. The light emitter 2 may also be fired at substantially the same time Examiner Note: Fig. 6A reproduced below, shows that Laser 0 and Laser 2 are both in the same bank).
PNG
media_image2.png
575
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Nikitin teaches that the light detection device comprises a lidar ([Col. 5, ll. 4-7] a lidar distance measurement system 100 that may be used to perform distance or ranging measurements using or in conjunction with a laser/sensor arrangement).
Regarding Claim 19, Nikitin teaches a method of performing light detection by a light detection device ([Col. 20, ll. 43] A method of operating a lidar device), the method comprising:
selecting a plurality of light emitters in a light emitter array of the light detection device([Col. 5, ll. 45-46] the laser emitters are arranged similarly within an emitter image frame) to emit light in parallel;
activating the plurality of light emitters to send transmission signals ([Col. 16, ll. 3-5] The timing rules 306 of FIG. 6B include simultaneously staging amplifiers, emitting light, and reading light sensors between two banks), wherein the light emitter array comprises a plurality of banks of light emitters ([Col. 16, ll. 3-5] The timing rules 306 of FIG. 6B include simultaneously staging amplifiers, emitting light, and reading light sensors between two banks), and wherein at least two light emitters configured to emit light in parallel during a signal transmission process are in different banks of light emitters ([Col. 21, ll. 9-13] substantially simultaneously emitting the first light pulse from the first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light pulse from a second light emitter of a second bank of light emitters); and
activating a plurality of light detectors in a light detector array of the light detection device ([Col. 9, ll. 51-52] an example array of light detectors) to detect echo signals of the transmission signals reflected off an obstacle ([Col. 5, ll. 57-65] A channel includes one of the laser emitters 102 and a corresponding one of the light sensors 104… A channel is used to emit a laser light pulse and to measure properties of the reflections of the pulse),
wherein the plurality of light emitters and the plurality of light detectors form a plurality of detection channels ([Col. 5, ll. 7-11] shows control components that may be shared among multiple laser/sensor components (e.g., controller, pulse generator, delay calculator, ADC, capacitive driver) for implementations employing multiple channels), and each detection channel of the plurality of detection channels comprises at least one activated light emitter and at least one activated light detector ([Col. 5, ll. 57-58] A channel includes one of the laser emitters 102 and a corresponding one of the light sensors 104).
Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of light emitters being separate from each other within a detection distance, wherein the light emitter array comprises N columns of light emitters staggered from one another, each column of light emitters extending in a first direction, with N greater than 1, and wherein first and second adjacent banks of light emitters of the plurality of banks of light emitters are spaced along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and are offset with each other along the first direction.
However, Finkelstein teaches that fields of view (FOVs) of the multiple light emitters selected to emit light in parallel being separate from each other within a detection distance ([0045] The optical elements 113 may be configured to provide a sufficiently low beam divergence of the light output from the emitter elements 115e so as to ensure that fields of illumination of either individual or groups of emitter elements 115e do not significantly overlap (and in some embodiments described herein define a sparse illumination pattern 315)).
Nikitin and Finkelstein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensing and LiDAR 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 emitters and optics of Nikitin to include low beam divergence optical elements providing non-overlapping/separate fields of view of Finkelstein with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent optical crosstalk and signal interference between channels when emitters are fired in parallel. By integrating Finkelstein’s teaching of low beam divergence optics configured to form distinct, non-overlapping illumination fields into Nikitin’s multi-channel parallel-firing LiDAR system, the system can achieve clean signal isolation and accurate range detection across simultaneous channels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring parallel-emitting channels with non-overlapping fields of view would yield the predictable result of reducing cross-channel noise and enhancing detection accuracy during concurrent signal transmission.
Finkelstein is not relied upon as teaching wherein the light emitter array comprises N columns of light emitters staggered from one another, each column of light emitters extending in a first direction, with N greater than 1, first and second adjacent banks of light emitters of the plurality of banks of light emitters are spaced along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and are offset with each other along the first direction.
However, Brick teaches wherein the light emitter array comprises N columns of light emitters staggered from one another, each column of light emitters extending in a first direction, with N greater than 1, first and second adjacent banks of light emitters of the plurality of banks of light emitters are spaced along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and are offset with each other along the first direction ([0076] As indicated in FIG. 6A in a top view of the light extraction surface and thus opposite to the radiation direction, the laser light source 1 may have a plurality of laser emitter units 10 which are formed by active regions formed vertically in the semiconductor layer sequence and which are arranged in a matrix-like manner, for example in a rectangular or hexagonal matrix Examiner Note: Fig. 6A, reproduced above, shows a multi-element MxN emitter array arranged in a staggered/hexagonal grid. As visually demonstrated in Fig. 6A, in a hexagonal matrix adjacent columns extending in a first direction are physically staggered relative to one another (N>1). Consequently, organizing or grouping emitters into adjacent banks yields banks that are spaced apart in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and offset from each other along the first direction due to the staggered hexagonal placement. To the extent Brick does not explicitly use the term “bank” for specific groups in Fig. 6A, dividing this MxN array into functional banks/sub-arrays for addressability and drive control is obvious when viewed in combination with Nikitin).
Nikitin, as previously modified by Finkelstein, and Brick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of solid-state laser arrays and LiDAR transmitter architectures. 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 combined system of Nikitin and Finkelstein to include the staggered/hexagonal emitter matrix arrangement of Brick with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase spatial sampling density and pack a higher number of emitter units into a compact transmitter footprint. By integrating Brick’s teaching of a staggered hexagonal matrix layout (N>1) forming offset columns and banks into Nikitin (as previously modified)’s multi-bank LiDAR array, the system can achieve seamless angular coverage without spatial gaps between adjacent emitter beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging the multi-bank emitter array in the staggered hexagonal grid would yield the predictable result of maximizing array packing efficiency and spatial beam resolution across the field of view.
Regarding Claim 20, Nikitin teaches that activated light emitters respectively belong to different banks of the plurality of banks of light emitters ([Col. 21, ll. 9-13] substantially simultaneously emitting the first light pulse from the first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light pulse from a second light emitter of a second bank of light emitters), and
wherein the light detector array comprises a plurality of banks of light detectors ([Col. 4, ll. 41-42] the channels are divided into multiple banks [Col. 5, ll. 57-58] A channel includes one of the laser emitters 102 and a corresponding one of the light sensors 104), and wherein activated light detectors respectively belong to different banks of the plurality of banks of light detectors ([Col. 14, ll. 3-4] whereas the timing rules 602 of FIG. 6B include simultaneously firing/reading the two banks).
Regarding Claim 21, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that a light emitter in the second bank of light emitters is between a first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light emitter in the first bank of light emitter along the first direction.
However, Brick teaches that a light emitter in the second bank of light emitters is between a first light emitter of the first bank of light emitters and a second light emitter in the first bank of light emitter along the first direction ([0076] As indicated in FIG. 6A in a top view of the light extraction surface and thus opposite to the radiation direction, the laser light source 1 may have a plurality of laser emitter units 10 which are formed by active regions formed vertically in the semiconductor layer sequence and which are arranged in a matrix-like manner, for example in a rectangular or hexagonal matrix Examiner Note: Fig. 6A, reproduced above, shows a staggered or hexagonal matrix arrangement with emitter units in adjacent rows/banks are offset such than an emitter of a second bank lies directly between two adjacent emitters of a first bank along the alignment direction).
Nikitin, as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick, and Brick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of solid-state laser arrays and LiDAR transmitter architectures. 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 emitter array layout of Nikitin (as previously modified) to include staggered/offset emitter positions across adjacent banks of Brick with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase emission spatial resolution and optimize optical packing density across the emitter array. By integrating Brick’s teaching of a hexagonal/staggered/honeycomb matrix array where emitters in adjacent rows are offset into Nikitin (as previously modified)’s light emitter banks, the system can provide continuous and dense optical illumination coverage without blind spots. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that staggering light emitters between adjacent rows in a matrix array would yield the predictable result of interleaving optical beams along the primary scanning direction to improve overall light distribution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1) and Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 18-21 above, and further view of Schwarz et al. (US 11,500,105 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that the light emitter array comprises a two-dimensional array, and a ratio between sizes of the two-dimensional array in two dimensions is equal to or greater than 3.
However, Schwarz teaches that the light emitter array comprises a two-dimensional array, and a ratio between sizes of the two-dimensional array in two dimensions is equal to or greater than 3 ([Col. 7, ll. 56-58] iii) as low-dimensional two-dimensional array (e.g. 50×2 emitters), allowing two microlenses to be hit simultaneously).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) and Schwarz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR-based distance measurement and optical emitter arrays. 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 emitter array geometry of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) to include a two-dimensional array with a ratio between its dimension equal to or greater than 3 of Schwarz with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide an elongated spatial scanning profile while enabling multi-lens interaction. By integrating Schwarz’s teaching of a 50x2 low-dimensional two-dimensional array (yielding a dimension ratio of 25, which is greater than 3) into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick)’s parallel-emitting light detection system, the system can achieve an asymmetrical wide-field illumination pattern without expanding structural bulk. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that implementing a high aspect ratio two-dimensional array would yield the predictable result of simultaneously hitting multiple microlenses along an extended horizontal or vertical axis to efficiently cover the targeted detection fields.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1) and Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 18-21 above, and further view of Onal et al. (US 2025/0098339 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that the light detection device is configured to form at least one of a first isolation space between two activated light emitters in two adjacent banks of light emitters, or a second isolation space between activated light detectors in two adjacent banks of light detectors during a same signal transmission process.
However, Onal teaches that the light detection device is configured to form at least one of
a first isolation space between two activated light emitters in two adjacent banks of light emitters, or
a second isolation space between activated light detectors in two adjacent banks of light detectors during a same signal transmission process ([0050] FIG. 2C illustrates a regular hexagonal array, variable spacing and/or variable isolation depths could be utilized between respective receiver channels).
Nikitin, as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick, and Onal are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR 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 detector array of Nikitin (as previously modified) to include the isolation spaces between adjacent receiver channels of Onal with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent optical and electrical crosstalk between adjacent active detector channels during signal transmission. By integrating Onal’s teaching of isolation spaces/trenches between receiver channels into Nikitin (as previously modified)’s multi-bank detector array, the system can achieve higher signal-to-noise ratio and eliminate optical interference across adjacent detector banks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forming physical isolation spaces between adjacent active optical channels would yield the predictable result of spatially isolating active light sensors to ensure accurate light pulse detection.
Regarding Claim 10, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that the light detection device is configured to have the light detector array comprising M columns of light detectors staggered from one another, each column of light detectors extending in the direction, M being greater than 1.
However, Onal teaches that the light detection device is configured to have the light detector array comprising M columns of light detectors staggered from one another, each column of light detectors extending in the direction, M being greater than 1 ([0050] For example, while FIG. 2C illustrates a regular hexagonal array, variable spacing and/or variable isolation depths could be utilized between respective receiver channels. For example, in reference to FIG. 2A, receiver channels 140a, 140b, 140c, and 140d could be isolated by trenches have a first depth (e.g., 1 micron) between some receiver channels and a second depth (e.g., 2 microns) between others. Furthermore, some receiver channels could be spaced further apart from some adjacent receiver channels than for others Examiner Note: Fig. 2C, reproduced below, shows an array with dimensions 2x5 (both sides dimension greater than 1)).
PNG
media_image3.png
558
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nikitin, as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick, and Onal are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR 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 detector array of Nikitin (as previously modified) to include columns of light detectors staggered from one another in an MxN array configuration of Onal with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase spatial sampling density and pack photodetector channels efficiently across the array face. By integrating Onal’s teaching of a hexagonal staggered photodetector array grid into Nikitin (as previously modified)’s optical detection system, the system can maximize effective light receiving aperture area and improve field-of-view spatial resolution. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging photodetectors In staggered columns in a honeycomb geometry would yield the predictable result of optimizing packing density of receiver channels to capture reflected optical signals evenly across the spatial layout.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1) and Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 18-21 above, and further view of Terada (US 2024/0004072 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that the light detection device is configured such that, during a same signal transmission process, signal characteristics of optical signals transmitted in at least two detection channels are different from each other.
However, Terada teaches that the light detection device is configured such that, during a same signal transmission process, signal characteristics of optical signals transmitted in at least two detection channels are different from each other ([0004] As a technique for improving resistance to external light in distance measurement performance of LiDAR, a technology has been proposed in which chirp modulation is applied to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths and the laser beam is projected as a transmission beam).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-channel LiDAR distance measurement systems and optical signal modulation. 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 transmission configuration of Nikitin (as modified by Finkelstein and Brick) to include different optical signal characteristics across at least two detection channels during a same signal transmission process of Terada with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve resistance to external ambient light and mitigate cross-channel interference during simultaneous operations. By integrating Terada’s teaching of applying chirp modulation to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick)’s parallel-emitting light detection system, the system can uniquely code or isolate adjacent transmission beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying the signal characteristics (such as frequency or wavelength) between channels during concurrent transmission would yield the predictable result of enhanced signal discrimination, allowing the detector array to cleanly separate and identify the unique reflection of each channel even in high-interference environments.
Regarding Claim 12, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that the controller is configured to:
determine whether a signal characteristic of an echo signal detected by a light detector matches a signal characteristic of a transmission signal of a corresponding light emitter in a detection channel which the light detector belongs to, and
in response to determining that the signal characteristic of the echo signal matches the signal characteristic of the transmission signal of the corresponding light emitter in the detection channel, calculate a distance from a target object based on the echo signal in the detection channel.
However, Terada teaches that the controller is configured to:
determine whether a signal characteristic of an echo signal detected by a light detector matches a signal characteristic of a transmission signal of a corresponding light emitter in a detection channel which the light detector belongs to, and
in response to determining that the signal characteristic of the echo signal matches the signal characteristic of the transmission signal of the corresponding light emitter in the detection channel, calculate a distance from a target object based on the echo signal in the detection channel ([0004] As a technique for improving resistance to external light in distance measurement performance of LiDAR, a technology has been proposed in which chirp modulation is applied to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths having different wavelengths and the laser beam is projected as a transmission beam, a reflected beam from an object is received, and distance measurement is implemented on the basis of a beat frequency that is a difference frequency between the transmission beam and a reference beam having a frequency slightly different from that of the transmission beam Examiner Note: “matching” includes characteristics that correspond or are comparable for the same distance-calculation process and the values need not be identical, only functionally aligned for comparison).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR-based signal processing and distance calculation controllers. 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 controller processing logic of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) to include determining whether a signal characteristic of an echo signal matches a transmission signal of a corresponding emitter and, upon matching, calculating a distance based on the echo signal of Terada with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to accurately attribute detected echo signals to their correct transmission channels and precisely compute object distance via frequency differentiation. By integrating Terada’s teaching of implementing distance measurements on the basis of a beat frequency that is a difference frequency between the transmission beam and a reference beam into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada)’s multi-channel LiDAR system, the system can functionally correlate incoming reflections to their source channels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the controller to perform signal matching and beat frequency distance calculation would yield the predictable result of reliable channel alignment, ensuring that the distance calculated for a specific channel is derived solely from its own unique optical path.
Regarding Claim 13, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that a transmission signal emitted by a light emitter comprises one or more pulse signals, and wherein the signal characteristics comprise at least one of wavelength, pulse width, pulse number, pulse peak, or inter-pulse time interval.
However, Terada teaches that a transmission signal emitted by a light emitter comprises one or more pulse signals, and wherein the signal characteristics comprise at least one of wavelength, pulse width, pulse number, pulse peak, or inter-pulse time interval ([0004] chirp modulation is applied to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths having different wavelengths and the laser beam is projected as a transmission beam).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR-based signal processing and distance calculation controllers. 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 transmission signal configuration of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) to include transmission signals comprising one or more pulse signals where the signal characteristics include at least one of wavelength, pulse width, pulse number, pulse peak, or inter-pulse time interval of Terada with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide distinct channel encoding parameters that improve resistance to ambient external light. By integrating Terada’s teaching of applying chirp modulation to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada)’s parallel-operating multi-channel system, the system can uniquely differentiate concurrent pulses via specific optical profiles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that modulating pulse characteristics like wavelength or interval spacing during a same transmission process would yield the predictable result of highly individualized channel identifiers, enabling the detector array to isolate and verify authentic echo returns from external or cross-channel noise.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1), Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), and Terada (US 2024/0004072 A1), as applied to claims 11-13 above, and further view of Sergeev et al. (US 2023/0408658 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that a signal characteristic of a transmission signal comprises a ratio of pulse widths of a plurality of pulses, and wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a signal characteristic of a corresponding echo signal matches the signal characteristic of the transmission signal based on the ratio of pulse widths of the plurality of pulses.
However, Sergeev teaches a signal characteristic of a transmission signal comprises a ratio of pulse widths of a plurality of pulses, and wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a signal characteristic of a corresponding echo signal matches the signal characteristic of the transmission signal based on the ratio of pulse widths of the plurality of pulses ([0030] The reference ratio can be, in particular, the ratio of the pulse widths of the detector signals of the first and the second optical detector, respectively, at an earlier point in time, for example during a calibration procedure. The ratio can also be compared with the reference ratio, for example, by forming a quotient. If there is no deviation of the ratio from the reference ratio, then the quotient is accordingly equal to 1. Deviations of the quotient from 1, which in particular exceed a predefined tolerance value, indicate the limited functionality of the first or second optical detector or of an associated light source).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) and Sergeev are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-channel LiDAR systems and signal characteristic verification methods. 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 processing logic of the controller of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) to include a transmission signal feature comprising a ratio of pulse widths of a plurality of pulses, and configuring the controller to determine an echo signal match based on said ratio of Sergeev with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a reliable ratio metric reference for channel verification and component diagnostic monitoring. By integrating Sergeev’s teaching of comparing a detected pulse-width ratio against a predefined reference ratio (e.g., during a calibration procedure by forming a quotient) into Nikitin (as modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada)’s parallel multi-channel processing framework, the system can validate channel fidelity beyond simple peak value detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a ratio of pulse widths for echo matching would yield the predictable result of a highly stable verification parameter that is less sensitive to uniform signal attenuation, allowing the controller to precisely isolate authentic reflections or detect localized detector degradation if the quotient deviates from 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1), Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), and Terada (US 2024/0004072 A1), as applied to claims 11-13 above, and further view of Jiang et al. (US 2022/0011414 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that a signal characteristic of a transmission signal comprises a ratio of signal intensities of a plurality of pulses, and wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a signal characteristic of a corresponding echo signal matches the signal characteristic of the transmission signal based on the ratio of signal intensities of the plurality of pulses.
However, Jiang teaches that a signal characteristic of a transmission signal comprises a ratio of signal intensities of a plurality of pulses ([0018] the at least one signal parameter includes any one of the following parameters: an amplitude, energy, or a signal-to-noise ratio, the at least one signal parameter is in a one-to-one correspondence with a parameter in the first data set, and is in a one-to-one correspondence with a parameter in the second data set, and the determining an output distance set based on at least one parameter in the first data set or the second data set, and a relationship between each of at least one of an actual transmit power of the detection signal, at least one estimated distance, or at least one signal parameter of the echo signal and a preset threshold), and wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a signal characteristic of a corresponding echo signal matches the signal characteristic of the transmission signal based on the ratio of signal intensities of the plurality of pulses ([0018] through comparison between the signal parameter of the echo signal and the preset parameter threshold, it can be ensured that accuracy of the output distance set is maximum).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) and Jiang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-channel LiDAR systems and echo signal parameter validation. 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 processing logic of the controller of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) to include a transmission signal feature comprising a ratio of signal intensities of a plurality of pulses, and configuring the controller to determine an echo signal match based on said ratio of Jiang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maximize distance measurement accuracy and establish an adaptive verification threshold against varying target reflectivities. By integrating Jiang’s teaching of utilizing signal parameters such as amplitude, energy, or signal-to-noise ratio in a one-to-one correspondence between data sets to compare echo signals against a preset threshold into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada)’s parallel-operating multi-channel configuration, the system can dynamically cross-reference signal profiles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that evaluating the ratio of signal intensities for a plurality of pulses would yield the predictable result of robust signal discrimination, ensuring that the accuracy of the output distance data set is maximized by isolating true channel reflections from ambient environmental glare.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1) and Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 18-21 above, and further view of Terada (US 2024/0004072 A1) and Embry et al. (US 2022/0102018 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that wavelengths of transmission signals by light emitters in different detection channels during a same signal transmission process are different, and wherein the light detection device further comprises a filter disposed in front of a light detector in each detection channel of the different detection channels and configured to only allow an echo signal of a wavelength corresponding to the detection channel to pass through.
However, Terada teaches that wavelengths of transmission signals by light emitters in different detection channels during a same signal transmission process are different ([0004] chirp modulation is applied to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths having different wavelengths and the laser beam is projected as a transmission beam).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) and Terada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-channel LiDAR distance measurement systems and optical signal modulation. 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 transmission configuration of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) to include different wavelengths of transmission signals by light emitters in different detection channels during a same signal transmission process of Terada with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve resistance to external ambient light and mitigate cross-channel interference during simultaneous operations. By integrating Terada’s teaching of applying chirp modulation to a laser beam of multiple channels including a plurality of wavelengths having different wavelengths into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick)’s parallel-operating multi-channel LiDAR system, the system can spectrally distinguish concurrent transmission beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying the transmission wavelengths between channels during a single parallel transmission window would yield the predictable result of distinct, non-interfering optical pathways, enabling independent signal tracking for each active channel.
Terada is not relied upon as teaching that the light detection device further comprises a filter disposed in front of a light detector in each detection channel of the different detection channels and configured to only allow an echo signal of a wavelength corresponding to the detection channel to pass through.
However, Embry teaches that the light detection device ([0011] a monitoring and inspection system is provided that includes a light detection and ranging (hereinafter “lidar”) device or system) further comprises a filter disposed in front of a light detector in each detection channel of the different detection channels and configured to only allow an echo signal of a wavelength corresponding to the detection channel to pass through ([0053] that uses different wavelengths for temperature measurement (see FIGS. 4A, 4C and 4E), the secondary beam splitter 450 used to divide the return signal into two channels may comprise a chromatic or an achromatic beam splitter. A first one of the channels is passed through a first narrowband filter 454 before being provided to a first temperature channel receiver 456. A second one of the channels is passed through a second narrowband filter 458 before being provided to a second temperature channel receiver 460. The passband of the first narrowband filter 454 is selected to encompass a first Raman wavelength, while the passband of the second narrowband filter 458 is selected to encompass a second Raman wavelength).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) and Embry are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of multi-channel LiDAR detection systems and optical wavelength filtration. 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 channel array configuration of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada) to include a filter disposed in front of a light detector in each detection channel configured to only allow an echo signal of a corresponding wavelength to pass through of Embry with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to mechanically isolate the distinct channel wavelengths at the receiver and prevent cross-talk from adjacent channels or ambient backscatter. By integrating Embry’s teaching of utilizing independent narrowband filters ahead of corresponding channel receivers into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein, Brick, and Terada)’s multi wavelength parallel LiDAR system, the system can physically enforce signal discrimination at the sensor interface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing matching bandpass filters directly in front of each channel’s detector would yield the predictable result of clean spectral isolation, ensuring that each receiver element exclusively captures its designated echo signal while blocking all other out-of-band optical noise.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin et al. (US 11,614,542 B2) in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2022/0099814 A1) and Brick et al. (US 2024/0085563 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 18-21 above, and further view of Polido (US 11,279,035 B1).
Regarding Claim 17, Nikitin is not relied upon as teaching that the controller is configured to: control the light emitter array and the light detector array to consecutively perform multiple detections for a detection channel during a signal transmission process to obtain Time of Flight (ToF) values; compare the ToF values obtained in multiple detections to obtain a comparison result; determine whether the ToF values match based on the comparison result; in response to determining that the ToF values match, determine that a detection result for the detection channel is effective; and in response to determining that the ToF values mismatch, determine to discard the detection result for the detection channel.
However, Finkelstein teaches that the controller is configured to:
control the light emitter array and the light detector array to consecutively perform multiple detections for a detection channel during a signal transmission process to obtain Time of Flight (ToF) values ([0003]-[0004] Direct time of flight measurement includes directly measuring the length of time between emitting radiation by emitter element(s) of the lidar system and sensing the radiation at detector element(s) of the lidar system after reflection from an object or other target, where the reflected radiation may be referred to as an “echo” signal… the sensing of the reflected radiation in either direct or indirect time of flight systems may be performed using an array of photodetectors).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) and Finkelstein are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR -based distance measurement 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 controller processing logic of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) to include controlling the light emitter array and the light detector array to consecutively perform multiple detections for a detection channel during a signal transmission process to obtain ToF values of Finkelstein with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to acquire redundant timing data within a single frame to improve ranging reliability and suppress temporary transient noise. By integrating Finkelstein’s teaching of utilizing direct time of flight measurements that track the length of time between emitting radiation and sensing the reflected echo across an array of photodetectors into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick)’s parallel-operating multi-channel configuration, the system can gather multiple discrete temporal measurements for an individual pathway. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the controller to execute consecutive sampling sequences per channel would yield the predictable result of a multi-sampled dataset, providing a baseline of sequential ToF values required to audit and verify accurate target tracking.
Finkelstein is not relied upon as teaching that the controller is configured to compare the ToF values obtained in multiple detections to obtain a comparison result; determine whether the ToF values match based on the comparison result; in response to determining that the ToF values match, determine that a detection result for the detection channel is effective; and in response to determining that the ToF values mismatch, determine to discard the detection result for the detection channel.
However, Polido teaches that the controller is configured to compare the ToF values obtained in multiple detections to obtain a comparison result ([Col. 5, ll. 1-5] Based on the known distance threshold corresponding to how far a light signal emitted at a given angle is allowed to travel before reflecting off of a person, object, or surface, the LIDAR sensor or other device may determine a corresponding time of flight threshold);
determine whether the ToF values match based on the comparison result ([Col. 5, ll. 4-7] the LIDAR sensor or other device may determine a corresponding time of flight threshold and may compare the actual time of flight of a received reflected signal to the time of flight threshold);
in response to determining that the ToF values match, determine that a detection result for the detection channel is effective ([Col. 5, ll. 5-10] may compare the actual time of flight of a received reflected signal to the time of flight threshold to determine whether the time of flight… was sufficiently long to satisfy the threshold time and distance); and
in response to determining that the ToF values mismatch, determine to discard the detection result for the detection channel ([Col. 5, ll. 5-9] may compare the actual time of flight of a received reflected signal to the time of flight threshold to determine whether the time of flight was too short (e.g., the light signal reflected off of something before reaching the boundary of the zone or field).
Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) and Polido are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR-based signal verification and time-of-flight processing. 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 controller verification logic of Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick) to include comparing the ToF values obtained in multiple detections to obtain a comparison result, determining whether they match, validating the channel result if they match, and discarding the result if they mismatch of Polido with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to qualify incoming echo signals against contextual distance boundaries to eliminate out-of-range detections. By integrating Polido’s teaching of comparing actual received time-of-flight values against a known, predetermined time-of-flight threshold (to verify if an object is within a specific zone or field) into Nikitin (as previously modified by Finkelstein and Brick)’s framework, the system can programmatically audit signal legitimacy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using threshold comparison to match consecutive ToF readings and filter out values that are too short or long would yield the predictable result of a high-fidelity data validation step, ensuring the controller only processes effective distance outputs while discarding transient noise and out-of-boundary artifacts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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