APPLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020002940 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/586,300 05/04/2017 Cristiano L. Niclass P32637US1/1020-1177.1 3200
123590 7590 05/28/2021
KLIGLER & ASSOCIATES PATENT ATTORNEYS LTD.
P.O. BOX 57651
TEL AVIV, 61576
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
ASKARIAN, AMIR J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
INFO@DKPAT.CO.IL
alon@dkpat.co.il
daniel@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRISTIANO L. NICLASS, ALEXANDER SHPUNT,
GENNADIY A. AGRANOV, and THIERRY OGGIER
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–17, and 19. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed invention addresses the problem
of LiDAR distance measurements in noisy, cluttered environments using a
novel combination of statistical and signal processing techniques. Appeal
Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellant summarizes the combination of statistical and
signal processing as (i) a laser emits a sequence of pulses in a temporal
pattern with irregular intervals between the pulses in the sequence, (ii)
control and processing circuitry computes a histogram of the times of arrival
indicated by the output signals from avalanche photobodies, and (iii) control
and processing circuitry then finds the times of flight for the points in the
scene by filtering the histogram with a finite-impulse-response (FIR) filter
kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the emitted pulses. Appeal Br.
4–5; Reply Br. 2.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Depth-sensing apparatus, comprising:
a laser, which is configured to emit pulses of optical
radiation toward a scene;
one or more avalanche photodiodes, which are configured
to receive the optical radiation that is reflected from points in the
scene and to output signals indicative of respective times of
arrival of the received radiation; and
control and processing circuitry, which is coupled to drive
the laser to emit a sequence of the pulses in a predefined temporal
pattern that specifies irregular intervals between the pulses in the
sequence, to compute a histogram of the times of arrival
indicated by the output signals, and to correlate the output signals
with the temporal pattern by filtering the histogram with a finite-
impulse-response filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern
of the emitted pulses in order to find respective times of flight
for the points in the scene,
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

3
wherein the control and processing circuitry is configured
to detect, for a given point, multiple echoes in correlating the
output signals with the temporal pattern, each echo
corresponding to a different time of flight for the given point.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
McConnell US 2006/0106317 A1 May 18, 2006
Meneely US 2010/0045965 A1 Feb. 25, 2010
Schmidt US 2012/0176476 A1 July 12, 2012
Charbon SPAD Based Image Sensors Dec. 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Meneely in view of Charbon, further in view of
McConnell. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Meneely in view of Charbon, further in view of
Schmidt. Final Act. 7.
OPINION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites Meneely’s LiDAR-based
system for most of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, but the
Examiner notes that Meneely does not expressly disclose the limitations
relating to avalanche photodiodes or filtering a histogram with a finite-
impulse-response (“FIR”) filter kernel, as claimed. Final Act. 3–5 (citing
Meneely ¶¶ 3, 6, 22, 24, 27, 33–38, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11–13). For the
elements missing from Meneely, the Examiner cites Charbon’s disclosures
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

4
of avalanche photodiodes and teachings of FIR filters from McConnell,
along with alleged applicant admitted prior art describing known processes
of filtering histograms. Final Act. 3–5.
Of particular note, for the claim language “to compute a histogram of
the times of arrival indicated by the output signals,” the Examiner cites
Meneely and “applicant admitted as well-known prior art in p. 11 lns. 17–24
[of Appellant’s Specification].” Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). Similarly,
for the language “by filtering the histogram with a finite-impulse-response
filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the emitted pulses,” the
Examiner cites McConnell and the same portion of Appellant’s
Specification. Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted).
The cited portion of the Specification describes finding respective
times of flight for points in a scene by correlating output signals from an
imaging assembly with a predefined temporal pattern, and the Specification
states “[t]his correlation may be carried out by any suitable algorithm and
computational logic that are known in the art.” Spec. 11:17–19. “For
example, processing chip 38 may compute a cross-correlation between the
temporal pattern and the output signals by filtering a histogram of photon
arrival times from each point in the scene with a finite-impulse-response
(FIR) filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the transmitted
pulses.” Spec. 11:19–24.
Appellant argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests
histogram computation or histogram filtering, as required by claims 1 and
11. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues the Examiner’s citation of
Appellant’s Specification as admitted prior art amounts to improper
hindsight and that nothing in the Specification amounts to an admission that
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

5
the claimed technique belongs to the prior art. Appeal Br. 6–7 (“The entire
basis for the Examiner’s argument that this technique is obvious in the
context of [time-of-flight]-based depth sensing is the description in the
present [S]pecification.”).
In response, the Examiner states in the Answer that the broadest
reasonable construction of claim term “histogram” in view of Appellant’s
Specification is a “collection, representation, or display of data.” Ans. 5
(citing Spec. 14:6–7). Appellant argues, and we agree, that that expression
of “histogram” is too broad; although a histogram may be one type of
collection, representation, or display of data, as noted by Appellant, a
histogram denotes an organized collection of numerical data in a set of
intervals commonly referred to as bins or buckets. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br.
2–3. The Examiner’s rejection, however, does not turn on the interpretation
of histogram stated in the Answer.
As cited by the Examiner, Meneely describes a LiDAR system that
includes control processing circuitry to drive a laser and compute the times
of arrival indicated by the output signals. Final Act. 4 (citing Meneely, Figs.
7–9). As noted by Appellant, Meneely computes and displays collected data
in a variety of graphical representations. Appeal Br. 5–6 (describing
Meneely Figures); see Final Act. 4–5. Appellant’s Specification refers to
control and processing circuitry that collects a histogram, but the
Specification does not provide particular description or detail of the
histogram or circuitry. Spec. 11:17–24, 14:4–9, Fig. 5. To the contrary, the
Specification describes use of “any suitable algorithm and computational
logic that are known in the art,” and the Specification describes as one
example of the use of such known algorithms and computational logic as
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

6
computing a cross-correlation between the temporal pattern and the output
signal by filtering a histogram of photon arrival times. Spec. 11:17–21. At
least because the Specification thus relies on the knowledge of a person of
ordinary skill to supply the known algorithm and logic, a person of ordinary
skill would possess the same knowledge when reading the prior art. See In
re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Board’s
determination that the lack of technical details in an appellant’s specification
evidences technical details a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess
when reading prior art). As such, we agree with the Examiner that the
claimed control and processing circuitry of claim 1 would have been obvious
in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, including Appellant’s
statements regarding generic circuitry applying any suitable algorithm and
computational logic, an example of which includes filtering a histogram of
photon arrival times. Accordingly, we do not find reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and for the same
reasons, dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 13, and 14, which Appellant does not
address separately.
Claims 5 and 15
Dependent claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites a scanner
configured to scan the pulses of optical radiation over the scene, wherein the
controller is configured to drive the laser to emit the pulses in different,
predefined temporal patterns toward different points in the scene. As noted
by Appellant, claim 15 depends from claim 11 and adds similar limitations.
Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner cites Meneely as teaching driving a laser to emit
different temporal patterns toward different points in a scene. Final Act. 6
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

7
(citing Meneely ¶¶ 20–25, Figs. 1, 2). Appellant contends Meneely teaches
use of the same pseudo-random pulse sequence at each transmission interval,
which, according to Appellant, is the opposite of claims 5 and 15. Appeal
Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that Meneely teaches pseudo-
random pulses transmitted during each transmission interval, which amounts
to emitting pulses in different, predefined temporal patterns, as claimed.
Ans. 9. Appellant argues “[t]he fact that a given sequence of numbers is
‘pseudo-random’ simply means that the timing intervals between the pulses
are generated in a pattern that appears to be random, rather than regular.”
Reply Br. 4 (citing Meneely ¶ 22). Further, Appellant argues Meneely
describes that “[t]his same sequence, with the same pseudo-random
intervals, can be repeated as many times as desired while the pulse
transmitter scans across a scene.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Meneely ¶ 22).
Consistent with the Examiner’s explanation, claim 1 requires a control
circuitry “to drive the laser to emit a sequence of the pulses in a predefined
temporal pattern that specifies irregular intervals between the pulses in the
sequence,” with claim 6 further specifying driving the laser to emit the
pulses in different, predefined temporal patterns. We agree with the
Examiner that Meneely teaches emitting pulses in different, predefined
temporal patterns, even if the same sequence is produced at each
transmission interval. Meneely ¶ 22. Accordingly, we do not find error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 15.
Claims 6 and 16
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further requires an array of
avalanche photodiodes and objective optics which are configured to focus a
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

8
locus in the scene that is illuminated by each of the pulses onto a region of
the array containing multiple avalanche photodiodes. The Examiner cites
the combination of Meneely and Charbon (Final Act. 7 (citing Charbon,
Figs. 9, 13)) for teaching an array of photodiodes, and the combined
teachings of Meneely, Charbon, and Schmidt for teaching objective optics
configured to focus a locus in the scene that is illuminated by each of the
pulses (Final Act. 7 (citing Schmidt ¶¶ 49, 55)).
Appellant argues Schmidt’s radiation source illuminates an entire
scene and a lens focuses the reflected radiation from each point in the scene
onto one of the pixels of the radiation detector, which, according to
Appellant, is an entirely different principle from the claimed invention and
the teachings of Meneely and Charbon. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Schmidt ¶¶ 36,
39, 49, Fig. 1). Appellant argues Charbon’s avalanche photobodies would
not work in pixels as disclosed in Schmidt and therefore a person of ordinary
skill would not have considered modifying Charbon’s SPAD-based image
sensor based on the optical scheme in Schmidt. Appeal Br. 9. Further,
Appellant contends there is no suggestion in Schmidt of focusing any locus
in the scene onto more than a single pixel. Appeal Br. 9. According to
Appellant, nothing in Schmidt teaches focusing a locus in the scene that is
illuminated by a laser pulse onto a particular region containing multiple
pixels. Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellant. Describing Figure 1, Schmidt describes
an optical lens 17 for focusing reflected radiation 15 onto a radiation
detector 14. Schmidt ¶¶ 36, 39. Schmidt teaches that its detector has a
multitude of detection units (161-1, 161-2, . . . 161-M) combined in a pixel
161, with a ToF sensor containing a multitude of such pixels. Schmidt ¶ 49;
Appeal 2020-002940
Application 15/586,300

9
see Schmidt ¶ 36 (“Said pixels each comprise two or more detection units
each detecting samples of a sample set of two or more samples.”). Further,
we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would have
understood Charbon’s teachings regarding using avalanche photodiodes in
relation to detector pixels. Ans. 10. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–17, and 19
is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 5,
10, 11, 13,
14, 15
103 Meneely, Charbon,
McConnell
1, 3, 4, 5,
10, 11, 13,
14, 15

6, 7, 9, 16,
17, 19
103 Meneely, Charbon,
Schmidt
6, 7, 9, 16,
17, 19

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9–
11, 13–17,
19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED