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 . Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, they recite the limitation of current data being a basis for generating recovery data. While [0026] – [0035] of the instant application as published describes the generation of recovery data and include an equation for generating it, the term current data remains unclear. While current data would presumably refer to data being generated by the LIDAR system, it’s unclear what kind of or format the current data should be in when recovery data is generated. Furthermore, there is also no definition or exemplary use case for recovery data given in the instant specification to shed light on the meaning of current data. The term current data is also not found outside of [0026] – [0035] of the specification. Current data from a LIDAR could generally take many forms including an analog signal, digitized signal, a histogram, distance measurements, count data, etc. While the storage unit is described as being responsible for recording count data, the instant specification at [0029] appears to make a distinction between current data and count data by describing the current data as corresponding to the count data in a particular range rather than the count data in the range being the current data.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, “Adaptive Single Photon Detection Under Fluctuating Background Noise” (hereinafter Chen) in view of US Patent 11796827 (hereinafter Earhart).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a control device, suitable for use in a time-of-flight sensor, wherein the control device comprises:
a storage unit, configured to record a count data corresponding to a photon trigger number of the time-of-flight sensor (page 5, section 4 describes tracking count data corresponding to photon trigger levels); and
a control device, coupled to the storage unit, wherein the control unit is configured to read the count data (page 5, section 4 describes how the rate at which counts are coming in is tracked and detection thresholds are established for varying count rate ranges), obtain a (page 5 describes how the detection threshold rather than the modulation ratio is changed so as to control an output of the time of flight sensor in order to deal with noise).
However, Earhart teaches the use of a reduction in PRF in order to reduce noise in LIDAR returns (see col 1, lines 54 – 60, which describes how the reduction in PRF allows for a reduction in backscatter that would also result in a lower count rate).
Chen and Earhart are both directed to systems for mitigating noise during operation of a LIDAR system. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to perform additional noise mitigation by applying PRF or modulation ratio variation in accordance with the various threshold and noise levels taught by Chen in order to reduce the amount of noise being collected by the LIDAR sensor. While Earhart points out some problems with PRF reduction it clearly teaches that a reduction in PRF can be effective at reducing backscatter and was well known at the time of filing at least as early as July 2022. The gradual introduction of increased levels of PRF reduction allows for higher PRF rates to be maintained when operating in lower noise environments. Chen also describes how its own scheme of histogram thresholding reduces the likelihood of successfully detecting a target when experiencing high levels of noise.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chen and Earhart teaches the control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a duty cycle of the modulation ratio decreases as the counting range increases (Chen teaches increased noise levels as counting range / rate increases. PRF changes would be applied more aggressively and in accordance with the counting range intervals taught by Chen to keep noise levels at manageable levels).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chen and Earhart teaches the control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within a first range;
when the control unit determines that the counting range is the first range (p5, section 4 of Chen teaches a first counting range of 0-10k counts/sec) , the control unit is configured to obtain a first modulation ratio corresponding to the first range, and generate the control signal corresponding to the first modulation ratio according to the first modulation ratio;
when the control unit determines that the counting range is not the first range, the control unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within a second range (p5, section 4 of Chen teaches a second counting range of 10-465k counts/second);
when the control unit determines that the counting range is the second range, the control unit is configured to obtain a second modulation ratio corresponding to the second range, and generate the control signal corresponding to the second modulation ratio according to the second modulation ratio;
when the control unit determines that the counting range is not the second range, the control unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within a third range (p5, section 4 of Chen teaches a third counting range of 465k-2M counts/sec);
when the control unit determines that the counting range is the third range, the control unit is configured to obtain a third modulation ratio corresponding to the third range, and generate the control signal corresponding to the third modulation ratio according to the third modulation ratio;
when the control unit determines that the counting range is not the third range, the control unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within a fourth range (p5, section 4 of Chen teaches a fourth counting range of 2M + counts/sec); and
when the control unit determines that the counting range is the fourth range, the control unit is configured to obtain a fourth modulation ratio corresponding to the third range, and generate the control signal corresponding to the third modulation ratio according to the third modulation ratio (p5, section 4 teaches that a count rate of 2M + is similar to and therefore treated the same as the third range. As described in the rejection of claim 1, reductions in PRF would be implemented gradually to help improve signal to noise ratios without overly slowing the rate at which pulses can be emitted).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chen and Earhart teaches the control device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first range, the second range, the third range and the fourth range are different, and the first modulation ratio, the second modulation ratio, the third modulation ratio and the fourth modulation ratio are different (p5, section 4 of Chen describes four different count rate ranges as identified in the rejection of claim 3. Col 1, lines 54 – 60 of Earhart teaches reducing PRF to reduce noise in the system. It would be obvious to apply increasingly greater variations in PRF to manage increasingly large amounts of noise that are linked directly with count rate as taught by Chen).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chen and Earhart teaches the control device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the control unit comprises:
a determination unit, configured to read the count data, and determine whether the count data is within the first range, wherein when the determination unit determines that the count data is within the first range, the determination unit is configured to generate a first selecting signal corresponding to the first range; when the determination unit determines that the count data is not within the first range, the determination unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within the second range; when the determination unit determines that the count data is within the second range, the determination unit is configured to generate a second selecting signal corresponding to the second range; when the determination unit determines that the count data is not within the second range, the determination unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within the third range; when the determination unit determines that the count data is within the third range, the determination unit is configured to generate a third selecting signal corresponding to the third range; when the determination unit determines that the count data is not within the third range, the determination unit is configured to determine whether the count data is within the fourth range; when the determination unit determines that the count data is within the fourth range, the determination unit is configured to generate a fourth selecting signal corresponding to the fourth range (Chen shows in FIG. 2A how a determination unit can take the form of a laptop device that records count data received by the TCSPS and performs the determination of which range of count data the LIDAR device is operating within as articulated in the rejection of claim 3); and
a selecting unit, coupled to the determination unit, wherein the selecting unit is configured to receive the first selecting signal to generate the control signal with a duty cycle of the first modulation ratio, the selecting unit is configured to receive the second selecting signal to generate the control signal with a duty cycle of the second modulation ratio, the selecting unit is configured to receive the third selecting signal to generate the control signal with a duty cycle of the third modulation ratio, and the selecting unit is configured to receive the fourth selecting signal to generate the control signal with a duty cycle of the fourth modulation ratio (when Chen is modified to incorporate the PRF modulation teachings of Earhart, the determination unit would be coupled to the selecting unit {the Ext trigger as shown in FIG. 2A of Chen} in order to modulate the pulse repetition frequency in accordance with variations in count data).
Regarding Claims 7-10, they are rejected for the same reason as claims 1-4, respectively.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Earhart in view of US PG PUB 20210003677 (hereinafter Maksymova).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chen and Earhart teaches the control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to
read current data corresponding to the time-of-flight sensor from the storage unit (p5, section 4 of Chen describes reading count data to determine what level of thresholding to apply when identifying actual targets from the noise), and
generate recovery data according to the current data, a lower limit of the counting range, ([0029] describes how generated recovery data can be the same as the current data. Since Chen describes recording count data rates in order to determine applied histogram thresholding levels, doing so would be done in accordance with the lower limit of the counting range and the current PRF when the system was operating in a low noise environment). Examiner notes that the combination of Chen and Earhart does not specifically describe performing compression on the current data.
However, Maksymova describes a technique for compressing data being read from a LIDAR receiver. In particular, [0069] of Maksymova describes how averaging and/or thresholding compression can be applied when, e.g., the data is beneath a peak threshold.
Maksymova and the combination of Chen and Earhart are both directed to LIDAR data processing related to thresholding. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to apply compression to the data output of the combination of Chen and Earhart in view of the teachings [0003] of Maksymova, which points out how data compression is much-needed to enable future LIDAR applications. After having added compression to the combination of Chen and Earhart. Any generated recovery data would also be based on the compression ratio applied to the current data.
Regarding Claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights