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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed8/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Barber (US 20220244363 A1) in view of Nelson (US 20220196812 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-9, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (US 20220244363 A1) in view of Nelson (US 20220196812 A1).
Claim 1: Barber teaches an optical sensing apparatus [ taught by figure 2 ], comprising:
a transmitter, which is configured to transmit outgoing frequency-modulated (FM)
coherent optical radiation toward a target scene
[ taught by the combination of laser source (212) and phase modulator (282) – note phase shifting inherently modulated frequency ];
a receiver [ taught by detector array (230) ], comprising:
an array of single-photon detectors, which are configured to output
electrical pulses in response to photons that are incident on the detectors
[ paragraph [0063] states, “…In some implementations, this beat frequency is in an RF band that can be output from the optical detector 230 as an electrical signal…” ]; and
optics configured to image the target scene onto the array while diverting a
part of the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation to form a local beam [ taught by splitter (216), reference path (220) and coupler (222) ], which
mixes with incoming optical radiation from the target scene [ taught by paragraph [0063 ] ]; and
processing circuitry configured to compute counts of the electrical pulses output as
a function of time by the single-photon detectors in response to the mixed optical radiation [ paragraph [0063] states, “…such as an electrical analog signal that can be easily digitized by RF analog to digital converters (ADCs) within acquisition system 240…” ],
to extract beat frequencies from the computed counts, and to measure ranges of points in
the target scene responsively to the beat frequencies [ paragraph [0063] states, “…The desired outcome is a difference frequency, which carries the information (amplitude, phase, and frequency modulation) of the original optical frequency signal, but is oscillating at a lower more easily processed frequency, called a beat frequency herein…”].
Barber does not teach, but Nelson does teach, wherein the receiver comprises an array of single-photon detectors ([0126]) which detect counts either as a group or individually ([0129]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SPADs, as taught by Nelson, in the system as taught by Barber, because SPADs are well known in the art to yield predictable results, and allowing for either counts to be measured individually or as a group allows for flexibility in resolution and processing power needed.
Claim 7: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter is configured to apply a frequency chirp to the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation and to measure the ranges based on the beat signals frequencies that arise due to the frequency chirp ([0063]).
Claim 8: Barber, as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the single-photon detectors comprise single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) (Nelson [0126]).
Claim 9: Barber, as modified teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to compute the counts as collective counts of the electrical pulses output by respective groups of the single-photon detectors (Nelson [0129]).
Claim 13: Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 16: Barber, as modified, teaches the method according to Claim 13, wherein transmitting the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation comprises applying a frequency chirp to the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation, wherein the ranges are measured based on the beat frequencies that arise due to the frequency chirp ([0063]).
Claims 17 and 18: Claims 17 and 18 are method claims corresponding to claims 7 and 8. Thus, see rejections above.
Claim 19: Barber, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein computing the counts comprises counting the electrical pulses output by each of the single-photon detectors individually (Nelson [0129]).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, in view of Nelson, further in view of Carr (US 20230358891 A1).
Claim 2: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Carr does teach, wherein the transmitter is configured to project the FM coherent optical radiation as flood radiation over a region of the target scene ([0012]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flood radiation, as taught by Carr, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because, as Carr teaches, flood illumination provides high resolution.
Claim 3: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Carr does teach, wherein the transmitter is configured to project a pattern of the FM coherent optical radiation onto the target scene ([0012], [0031] – stripe or dot).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the light pattern, as taught by Carr, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because, as Carr teaches, this allows for long distance measurements.
Claim 5: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the pattern comprises a matrix of spots (Carr [0031]).
Claim 6: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the pattern comprises one or more stripes (Carr [0031]).
Claims 14 and 15: As Claims 14 and 15 are method claims corresponding to Claims 2 and 3, see rejections above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, in view of Nelson, in view of Carr (US 20230358891 A1), further in view of Vaello (US 20220026574 A1).
Claim 4: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to Claim 3. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Vaello does teach, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select a subset of the single-photon detectors onto which the pattern is imaged by the optics, and to count the electrical pulses that are output by the single-photon detectors in the selected subset in order to detect the beat frequencies ([0044] – activating macropixels sequentially – note pattern and beat frequencies are already taught in Claims 1 and 3 and previously rejected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sequential emission, as taught by Vaello, in the system as taught by Barber, as modified, because this would reduce the power requirement for each measurement.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Barber, in view of Nelson, in view of Iguchi (US 20190331771 A1).
Claim 10: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to Claim 8. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Iguchi does teach, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to sum the counts of the electrical pulses over the single-photon detectors in each of the group ([0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the photon summation, as taught by Iguchi, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because this is a known way to quantify the photons detected by a SPAD.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, in view of Nelson, in view of Rumala (US 20200371212 A1).
Claim 11: Barber, as modified, the apparatus according to claim 1. Barber, as modified, does not teach wherein the counts of the electrical pulses as the function of time define temporal waveforms, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to extract the beat frequencies by transforming the temporal waveforms to a frequency domain representation and finding peaks in the frequency domain representation ([0086] – using FFT to extract peaks).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the FFT, as taught by Rumala, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because FFTs are a well known method in the art of LiDAR (and thus many pre-made computer programs and the like are commercially available to do such calculations).
Claim 20: Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 11. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, in view of Nelson, in view of Ohtomo (US 20050275826 A1).
Claim 12: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Ohtomo does teach, wherein the processing circuitry is coupled to write the counts of the electrical pulses over a sequence of sub-frames in first and second pulse train buffers in alternation, and to read out the counts from the second and first pulse train buffers in a counter-alternation for processing to detect the beat frequencies, such that during each sub-frame, the counts of the electrical pulses are written to one of the first and second pulse train buffers and are read out of the other of the first and second pulse train buffers ([0026] – using two frame buffer memories to store data in as system moves through frames).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the frame buffer memories, as taught by Ohtomo, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because using two memories switched between would allow for better differentiation between each frame.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber, in view of Nelson, in view of Geiger (US 20220128688 A1).
Claim 21: Barber, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Geiger does teach, wherein the optics comprise a cover glass overlying the transmitter and receiver and configured to divert the part of the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation from the transmitter and guide the diverted radiation within the cover glass in a direction from the transmitter to the receiver to form the local beam and to direct the local beam from the cover glass toward the receiver so as to mix with incoming optical radiation from the target scene (Fig. 1, one beam reflected from cover glass 132 and combined with beam reflected by object 150 at receiver 108).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflection off cover glass, as taught by Geiger, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because, as Geiger teaches, this can reduce crosstalk caused by smudges on the cover glass ([0004]).
Claim 22: Barber, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 13. Barber, as modified, does not teach, but Geiger does teach, wherein diverting the part of the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation comprises using a cover glass to guide the diverted part of the outgoing FM coherent optical radiation within the cover glass in a direction toward the array of single-photon detectors to form the local beam and to direct the local beam from the cover glass toward the single-photon detectors (Fig. 1, one beam reflected from cover glass 132 and combined with beam reflected by object 150 at receiver 108).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflection off cover glass, as taught by Geiger, in the apparatus as taught by Barber, as modified, because, as Geiger teaches, this can reduce crosstalk caused by smudges on the cover glass ([0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
