CTNF 18/623,080 CTNF 98843 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 7-9, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) . Claim 1: Mazed teaches an optical sensing apparatus, comprising: a transmitter, which is configured to transmit outgoing frequency-modulated (FM) coherent optical radiation toward a target scene (Fig. 3R, laser and [0250] - frequency modulated lasers and [0261] - coherent); a receiver, comprising: an array of single-photon detectors which are configured to output electrical pulses in response to photons that are incident on the detectors (Fig. 3R, BDs and [0350] - can be single photon detectors); 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 (Fig. 3R, LO, and [0323], [0469]), which mixes with incoming optical radiation from the target scene ([0323], [0469]); 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, to extract beat frequencies from the computed counts, and to measure ranges of points in the target scene responsively to the beat frequencies ([0399] - beat signal). Claim 7: Mazed 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 ([0398]). Claim 8: Mazed teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the single-photon detectors comprise single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) ([0039]). Claim 9: Mazed 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 ([0341] - photon counter). Claim 13: Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above. Claim 16: Mazed 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 ([0398] – frequency chirp, thus beat signal will be based on initial chirp). Claims 17 and 18: Claims 17 and 18 are method claims corresponding to claims 7 and 8. Thus, see rejections above. Claim 19: Mazed 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 ([0341] - independent photon counters) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) in view of Carr (US 20230358891 A1) . Claim 2: Mazed teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1. Mazed 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 Mazed, because, as Carr teaches, flood illumination provides high resolution. Claim 3: Mazed teaches the apparatus according to Claim 1. Mazed 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 Mazed, because, as Carr teaches, this allows for long distance measurements. Claim 5: Mazed, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the pattern comprises a matrix of spots (Carr [0031]). Claim 6: Mazed, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) in view of Carr (US 20230358891 A1), further in view of Vaello (US 20220026574 A1) . Claim 4: Mazed, as modified, teaches the apparatus according to Claim 3. Mazed, 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 Mazed, as modified, because this would reduce the power requirement for each measurement . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) in view of Iguchi (US 20190331771 A1) . Claim 10: Mazed teaches the apparatus according to Claim 8. Mazed 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 Mazed, because this is a known way to quantify the photons detected by a SPAD . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) in view of Rumala (US 20200371212 A1) . Claim 11: Mazed teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Mazed 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 Mazed, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) in view of Ohtomo (US 20050275826 A1) . Claim 12: Mazed teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Mazed 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 Mazed, because using two memories switched between would allow for better differentiation between each frame. 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 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/623,080 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/623,080 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/623,080 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/623,080 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/623,080 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/623,080 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights