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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/25 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated May 16, 2025. Claims 1, 7, 16, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1, and 3-21 are pending and are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-4, 8-10, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAJASEKARAN, US 20210044767 A1, ("Rajasekaran") in view of Watanabe et.al., US 20210368123 A1, (“Watanabe”), further in view of Tardif, US 8885890 B2, (“Tardif”).
Regarding Claim 1, Rajasekaran teaches a time of flight, (ToF) camera system comprising: an image sensor comprising a plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0026], FIG.6, FIG. 6 schematically shows aspects of an example TOF depth image sensor 600 comprising an image sensor array 602 having a plurality of pixels 500, image sensor array 602 as image sensor, pixels 500 as differential imaging pixels, Abstract, high dynamic range image via a differential TOF pixel comprising an array of pixels each having a first polyfinger and a second polyfinger, note range imaging); and an image acquisition system coupled to the image sensor and configured to: readout the plurality of differential imaging pixels by reading out a first single ended signal and a second single ended signal from each of the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0020] After integration, for each pixel of the pixel array, the computing system compares the charge collected at the first polyfinger and the charge collected at the second polyfinger, charge integrated at the first/second polyfinger as first/second single ended signal, computing system as image acquisition system); for each of at least some of the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0003] pixels as imaging pixels, note for each of a plurality of pixels), determine pixel data based on the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal, wherein the pixel data comprises a difference value indicative of a difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal ([0019] Then, for each pixel, the difference between the charge integrated at the first polyfinger and the charge integrated at the second polyfinger may be used to compute a depth value for the pixel, first/second single ended signal as charge integrated at the first/second polyfinger); […], and output the pixel data to a processor for the determination of a ToF image frame ([0020] After integration, for each pixel of the pixel array, the computing system compares the charge collected at the first polyfinger and the charge collected at the second polyfinger to one or more thresholds (e.g. by converting the charges to digital signals via an analog-to-digital converter) to determine which charge to include in the two-dimensional image, note charges converted to digital signals), […], and output the pixel data to a processor for the determination of the ToF image frame ([0034]).
Rajasekaran fails to explicitly teach a multi-bit confidence value indicative of reliability of the difference value for use in a determination of a ToF imaging image frame and wherein the confidence value is based on a plurality of comparisons involving at least one of the first single ended signal or the second single ended signal.
However, Wantanabe teaches a […] confidence value indicative of reliability of the difference value for use in a determination of a ToF imaging image frame and wherein the confidence value is based on a plurality of comparisons involving at least one of the first single ended signal or the second single ended signal ([0130] electric charge QH for low and high frame as first and second signal ended signal, confidence value as flag signal).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Rajasekaran to include a confidence value (flag) as taught by Wantanabe with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of indicating that the ToF data is reliable, allowing assessment of the quality of each pixel value in the array.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Watanabe fail to teach a multi-bit confidence value. However, Tardif teaches a multi-bit confidence value (Column 14, Line 23-27).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Rajasekaran to include a multi-bit confidence value as taught Tardif by with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the representation of more than two states, resulting in more complex and granular information to be stored about the confidence value.
Regarding Claim 3, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 1, wherein the confidence value is determined by at least one of the following: comparing the first single ended signal against a first predetermined confidence threshold ([0017] At readout, charges collected at each polyfinger are compared to one or more thresholds, such as a pixel saturation value, to determine whether to include the charge collected at the first polyfinger or the charge collected at the second polyfinger in an HDR image, first/second single ended signal as charge collected at the first/second polyfinger); comparing the second single ended signal against a second predetermined confidence threshold; comparing a sum of the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal against a third predetermined confidence threshold; comparing the first single ended signal against a first single ended signal readout from an adjacent differential imaging pixel; comparing the second single ended signal against a second single ended signal readout from the adjacent differential imaging pixel; comparing the sum of the first and second single ended signals against a sum of first and second single ended signals readout from the adjacent differential imaging pixel.
Regarding Claim 4, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 3, wherein the first predetermined confidence threshold comprises one or more of [0034] To select which data from each pixel to include in an HDR image, the charge collected at each pixel for each of the first image 900 and the second image 1000 may be compared to one or more threshold values (e.g. by converting the charge at each pixel of each image to a digital signal using an analog-to-digital converter), compared to threshold values as threshold): a saturation level of the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0034] As one example, a threshold near a pixel saturation value may be used); or a dark level of the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0034] note other threshold values); and wherein the second predetermined confidence threshold comprises one or more of the saturation level of the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0034] note charge collected at each pixel); or the dark level of the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0034] note other threshold values).
Regarding Claim 8, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a ToF image based on the pixel data received from the image acquisition system ([0020] The two exposures for each pixel are then compared to one or more thresholds to determine which charge for each pixel to include in an HDR image, and the selected exposures for each pixel are stitched to other exposures to form the HDR image, HDR image 400 as ToF image).
Regarding Claim 9, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 1, wherein the ToF camera system is a continuous wave ToF camera system ([0026] In a more particular embodiment, the emitter 604 may be a programmable near-infrared laser capable of emitting in a continuous-modulation mode or in a repeating-burst mode, continuous modulation mode as continuous wave, continuous-modulation emitter in ToF camera system).
Regarding Claim 10, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF, camera system of claim 1, wherein the image acquisition system comprises first readout circuitry for reading out the first single ended signal and second readout circuitry for reading out the second single ended signal ([0029] Circuitry for the first polyfinger (illustrated as photogate A, or PGA) is collectively indicated at 704, and circuitry for the second polyfinger (illustrated as photogate B, or PGB) is collectively indicated at 706. As mentioned above, PGA and PGB are individually controllable, so that a duty cycle for integrating charge at each polyfinger can be adjusted between depth imaging and intensity imaging, photogate A as first readout circuitry, photogate B as second readout circuitry).
Regarding Claim 16, Rajasekaran teaches a method for determining a ToF image frame, the method comprising: reading out charge from a plurality of differential imaging pixels of an image sensor, wherein the charge from each differential imaging pixel is readout as a first single ended signal from a first side of the differential imaging pixel and a second single ended signal from a second side of the differential imaging pixel ([0036] Method 1100 further comprises, for each pixel of the plurality of pixels, comparing a charge collected at the first polyfinger and a charge collected at the second polyfinger to a threshold, as indicated at 1112, charge collected at first/second polyfinger as first/second single ended signal from a first side); determining, for each of the plurality of differential imaging pixels, a difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal ([0019]Then, for each pixel, the difference between the charge integrated at the first polyfinger and the charge integrated at the second polyfinger may be used to compute a depth value for the pixel); […], […].
Rajasekaran fails to explicitly teach a multi-bit confidence value indicative of reliability of the difference value for use in a determination of a ToF imaging image frame and wherein the confidence value is based on a plurality of comparisons involving at least one of the first single ended signal or the second single ended signal; and determining the ToF image frame using the confidence value and the determined difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for the plurality of differential imaging pixels.
However, Wantanabe teaches a […] confidence value indicative of reliability of the difference value for use in a determination of a ToF imaging image frame and wherein the confidence value is based on a plurality of comparisons involving at least one of the first single ended signal or the second single ended signal ([0130] electric charge QH for low and high frame as first and second signal ended signal, confidence value as flag signal), and determining the ToF image frame using the confidence value and the determined difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for the plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0138]).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Rajasekaran to include a confidence value (flag) as taught by Wantanabe with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of indicating that the ToF data is reliable, allowing assessment of the quality of each pixel value in the array.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Watanabe fail to teach a multi-bit confidence value. However, Tardif teaches a multi-bit confidence value (Column 14, Line 23-27).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Rajasekaran to include a multi-bit confidence value as taught Tardif by with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the representation of more than two states, resulting in more complex and granular information to be stored about the confidence value.
Regarding claim 21, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teach the ToF camera system of claim 1.
Rajasekaran fails to teach wherein the confidence value is further indicative of at least one of signal strength, a saturated differential imaging pixel, or a readout problem.
However, Wantanabe teaches wherein the confidence value is further indicative of at least one of signal strength, a saturated differential imaging pixel, or a readout problem (Wantanabe [0107] Flag for saturated or unsaturated pixel).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Rajasekaran to include a confidence value (flag) as taught by Wantanabe with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of indicating that the ToF data is reliable, allowing assessment of the saturation value of each pixel value in the array.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran in view of Yaghmai, (US 20100231771 A1), (“Yaghmai”).
Regarding Claim 17, Rajasekaran teaches a camera system comprising: an image sensor configured to receive light reflected by an object being imaged, wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of differential imaging pixels ([0017] As described in more detail below, each pixel of the sensor includes a pair of polysilicon gates (referred to herein as a first polyfinger and a second polyfinger) that are individually controllable to integrate charge from light exposure during an integration period, note each pixel of the sensor); and an image acquisition system coupled to the imaging sensor and configured to ([0020] computing system as image acquisition system): control charge accumulation timing of the plurality of differential imaging pixels such that a first side of the imaging pixels accumulates charge for a first period of time and a second side of the differential imaging pixels accumulates charge for a second period of time ([0017]During the integration period, the first polyfinger integrates light for a first exposure time and the second polyfinger integrates light for a second, shorter exposure time, first polyfinger as first side of the imaging pixel), wherein the first period of time is longer than the second period of time ([0017] first exposure time as first period of time, second period of time as a second, shorter exposure time); readout from each of the plurality of differential pixels a first single ended signal indicative of a charge accumulated by the first side of the differential imaging pixel and a second single ended signal indicative of a charge accumulated by the second side of the differential imaging pixel ([0020] After integration, for each pixel of the pixel array, the computing system compares the charge collected at the first polyfinger and the charge collected at the second polyfinger to one or more thresholds (e.g. by converting the charges to digital signals via an analog-to-digital converter) to determine which charge to include in the two-dimensional image, note conversion of charges to digital signals, first/ second polyfinger as first/ second side), […].
Rajasekaran fails to teach the camera system configured to determine an image using the signals readout from the image sensor, wherein determining the image comprises using, for each of the plurality of differential pixels, a combination of the first single ended signal and a normalized version of the second single ended signal, with the combination being defined by how close the first single ended signal is to saturation.
However, Yaghmai teaches the camera system configured to determine an image using the signals readout from the image sensor, wherein determining the image comprises using, for each of the plurality of differential pixels, a combination of the first single ended signal and a normalized version of the second single ended signal, with the combination being defined by how close the first single ended signal is to saturation ([0040] – [0046] VOPIX DIF 1 as first single ended signal, VOPIX DIF 2 as second single ended signal).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the processing system of Rajasekaran to include the high dynamic operation system as taught Yaghmai by with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the dynamic range of the image sensor, accommodating variations of light intensity in the imaged scene (See – Yaghmai [0007] –[0008]).
Regarding Claim 18, Rajasekaran, as modified by Yaghmai teaches the system of claim 17, wherein determining the image further comprises: for each of the plurality of differential imaging pixels, determining from the first single ended signal whether or not the first side of the differential imaging pixel is saturated (Rajasekaran [0036] Method 1100 further comprises, for each pixel of the plurality of pixels, comparing a charge collected at the first polyfinger and a charge collected at the second polyfinger to a threshold, as indicated at 1112, charge collected at first/second polyfinger as first/ second ended signal), and if the first side of the differential imaging pixel is determined not to be saturated (Rajasekaran [0036] first side as first polyfinger), use the first single ended signal for the determination of the image ([0036] first side as first polyfinger), otherwise if the first side of the differential imaging pixel is determined to be saturated (Rajasekaran [0036] first side as first polyfinger), use the second single ended signal for the determination of the image (Rajasekaran [0036] second side as second polyfinger).
Regarding Claim 19, Rajasekaran, as modified by Yaghmai teach the system of claim 18, wherein determining whether or not the first side of the differential imaging pixel is saturated comprises comparing the first single ended signal to a saturation threshold (Rajasekaran [0036] The threshold may be near or at a pixel saturation value (e.g. within 80-90% of the pixel saturation value), as indicated at 1114, or may be set at any other suitable level. Based on the comparison, at 1116 method 1100 comprises, for each pixel of the plurality of pixels, selecting one of the charge collected at the first polyfinger and the charge collected at the second polyfinger for inclusion in the HDR image, charge collected at first/second polyfinger as first/ second ended signal).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran, Wantanabe and Tardif in view of Lin et.al. US 20200053302 A1, (“Lin”).
Regarding Claim 5, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teach the ToF camera system of claim 3.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif fail to teach the system wherein comparing the first single ended signal against the first single ended signal readout from the adjacent differential imaging pixel comprises: determining a difference between the first single ended signal against the first single ended signal readout from the adjacent differential imaging pixel; and comparing the determined difference to a fourth predetermined confidence threshold, wherein if the determined difference is greater than the fourth predetermined confidence threshold, the confidence value is set to indicate a low level of confidence..
However, Lin teaches the system wherein comparing the first single ended signal against the first single ended signal readout from the adjacent differential imaging pixel comprises (Lin, [0062] Figure 6A and 6B): determining a difference between the first single ended signal against the first single ended signal readout from the adjacent differential imaging pixel (Lin, [0062] note gradient technique, current pixel as first single ended signal, immediate neighbors as adjacent imaging pixel); and comparing the determined difference to a fourth predetermined confidence threshold (Lin, [0062] level only increment by a specific amount indicating a confidence value threshold), wherein if the determined difference is greater than the fourth predetermined confidence threshold, the confidence value is set to indicate a low level of confidence (Lin, [0064] confidence value incremented or decremented).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the camera system of Rajasekaran to perform defect processing of Lin in order to determine the validity of a signal value output from a pixel in the image sensor (See Lin – [0064]).
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran, Wantanabe and Tardif in view of Kawauchi et.al. US 20160277636 A1, (“Kawauchi”).
Regarding Claim 6, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 1.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif fail to teach wherein the pixel data comprises a compression flag, and wherein determining the pixel data comprises: determining whether the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal can be compressed, and if it can be compressed, setting the difference value as a compressed version of the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal; and setting the compression flag to indicate whether or not the difference value is a compressed value.
However, Kawauchi teaches wherein the pixel data comprises a compression flag (Kawauchi, [0131] compression flag F as compression flag), and wherein determining the pixel data comprises: determining whether the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal can be compressed (Kawauchi, [0131] valid bit width as difference between first/second ended signal), and if it can be compressed (Kawauchi, [0131] Step 506 determination if bit width can be compressed), setting the difference value as a compressed version of the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal (Kawauchi, [0131] compression signal as output as compressed version); and setting the compression flag to indicate whether or not the difference value is a compressed value (Kawauchi, [0131] compression flag F set to 1 indicating bit width is compressed).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the camera system of Rajasekaran with the compression system of Kawauchi to reduce the size of the image data while maintaining quality. Rajasekaran teaches the difference between the first/second ended signals (input bit value). Kawauchi teaches that an input bit value can be compressed with indication of compression (flag).
Regarding Claim 7, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif and Kawauchi, teach the ToF camera system of claim 6.
Rajasekaran fails to teach, however, Kawauchi teaches wherein determining whether the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal can be compressed comprises one or more of the following. (Kawauchi, [0131] valid bit width as difference between first/second ended signal): comparing the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal to a predetermined size threshold (Kawauchi, [0132] target valid bit width as predetermined size threshold), wherein if it is less than the predetermined size threshold it can be compressed (Kawauchi, [0131] Step S506 valid bit with compared to target valid bit width, if less compression flag F set); identifying a region of the imaging sensor where a sum of the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal readout from each imaging differential pixel within the region is similar to within a similarity threshold, the difference between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal readout from the imaging differential pixels within the region can be compressed (Kawauchi, [0131] Step S506 valid bit with compared to target valid bit width, if less compression flag F set).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran, Wantanabe and Tardif in view of Bamji et.al. US 20180176492 A1, (“Bamji”).
Regarding Claim 11, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 10.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe and Tardif fail to teach the system, further configured to correct an offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal caused by mismatch of the first readout circuitry and the second readout circuitry.
However, Bamji teaches the system, further configured to correct an offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal caused by mismatch of the first readout circuitry and the second readout circuitry. (Bamji, [0076]- [0077] Differential amplifier 647 can apply a gain factor to the differential output, such as 10× or other gain factors. The differential output compensates for mismatches among the two sides, as well as other factors, compensate for mismatch in V_Asignal and V_B signal, V_Asignal and V_B signal as first and second ended signal respectfully).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the output signal of Rajasekaran with the gain factor as done by Bamji with a reasonable expectation of success . This would have the predicable result of compensating for possible mismatch in the system values caused by the circuitry (See Bamji – [0076]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran, Wantanabe and Tardif in view of Bamji, further in view of Hitomi, US 20190227174 A1, (“Hitomi”).
Regarding Claim 12, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe, Tardif and Bamji teaches the ToF camera system of claim 11.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe, Tardif and Bamji fail to teach wherein the image sensor comprises at least one row of blank pixels configured such that incident light on the image sensor does not result in charge accumulation in the blank pixels, and wherein correcting the offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for a particular imaging pixel comprises: determining a difference between a first single ended signal of a blank pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel and a second single ended signal of the blank pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel; and correcting the offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for the particular imaging pixel using the determined difference.
However, Hitomi teaches wherein the image sensor comprises at least one row of blank pixels configured such that incident light on the image sensor does not result in charge accumulation in the blank pixels (Hitomi, [0034] As discussed in more detail below, a subset 130 of one or more of the pixels (for example one or two lines of pixels in the array) is blanked from incident light, row of blank pixels as blank pixels), and wherein correcting the offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for a particular imaging pixel comprises: determining a difference between a first single ended signal of a blank pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel and a second single ended signal of the blank pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel (Hitomi, [0097] portion which is independent of the integration period as second single ended signal of the blank pixel); and correcting the offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for the particular imaging pixel using the determined difference (Hitomi, [0098] difference between the required tap value and the portion which is independent of the integration period, tap value, dark value offset subtracted from the determined difference).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the camera system taught by Rajasekaran in view of Bamji with that of Hitomi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for compensation for the gain and offset errors caused by the analog to digital circuitry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran, Wantanabe and Tardif in view of Wojewoda, US 20080278359 A1, (“Wojewoda”).
Regarding Claim 13, Rajasekaran, as modifed by Wantanabe and Tardif teaches the ToF camera system of claim 10.
Rajasekaran, as modifed by Wantanabe and Tardif fail to teach the system further configured to correct an offset and gain error between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal caused by mismatch of the first readout circuitry and the second readout circuitry, wherein correcting the offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for a particular imaging pixel comprises: reading out a first pair of single ended signals from a first pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel, wherein the accumulation values at the first pixel are a first known value; reading out a second pair of single ended signals from a second pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel, wherein the accumulation values at the second pixel are a second known value; and determining the offset and gain error based on the first pair of single ended signals and the second pair of single ended signals.
However, Wojewoda teaches the system further configured to correct an offset and gain error between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal caused by mismatch of the first readout circuitry and the second readout circuitry ([0003] imperfections in the analog-to-digital conversion circuitry such as offset and gain errors result in inaccurate analog-to-digital conversion measurements of the external analog voltages being measured, External analog voltages as single ended signal prior to ADC conversion), wherein correcting the offset between the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal for a particular imaging pixel comprises: reading out a first pair of single ended signals from a first pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel ([0022] voltage value 1/4 V.sub.DD as pair of signal ended signals), wherein the accumulation values at the first pixel are a first known value ([0021] voltage values known, calibration points); reading out a second pair of single ended signals from a second pixel that is in the same pixel column as the particular imaging pixel ([0022] 3/4 V.sub.DD as second pair of single ended signals), wherein the accumulation values at the second pixel are a second known value ([0021] voltage values known); and determining the offset and gain error based on the first pair of single ended signals and the second pair of single ended signals ([0022]All that is necessary are two calibration points, e.g., 1/4 V.sub.DD and 3/4 V.sub.DD or two voltages 116a and 116b from the voltage reference 102, for determining the m and c values, m as gain adjustment, as calibration offset).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the analog to digital converter of Rajasekaran with that of Wojewoda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for compensation of the gain and offset errors caused by the analog to digital circuitry.
Claim 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran, Wantanabe and Tardif in view of Wojewoda further in view of Suzuki et. al., US 20070019085 A1, (“Suzuki”).
Regarding Claim 14, Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe, Tardif and Wojewoda teach the ToF camera system of claim 13.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Wantanabe, Tardif and Wojewoda do not explicitly teach wherein the first known value is a first reference value applied to the first pixel, and wherein the second known value is a second reference value applied to the second pixel.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the first known value is a first reference value applied to the first pixel, and wherein the second known value is a second reference value applied to the second pixel (Suzuki, [0005] a light of a known intensity as first and second reference value).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Rajasekaran as modified by Wojewoda with that of Suzuki. This would have the predictable result of calibrating the sensor array and allowing for evaluation of the output signal values for gain and offset error.
Regarding Claim 15, Rajasekaran, as modified by Spickermann and Wojewoda, teach the ToF camera system of claim 13.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Spickermann and Wojewoda fail to teach wherein the first known value is a first reference value applied to the first pixel, and wherein the second pixel is blank pixel configured such that incident light on the image sensor does not result in charge accumulation in the second pixel.
However, Suzuki teaches, wherein the first known value is a first reference value applied to the first pixel, and wherein the second pixel is blank pixel configured such that incident light on the image sensor does not result in charge accumulation in the second pixel. (Suzuki, [0005] output from inactive dark pixel sensors as blank pixel).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekaran in view of Yaghmai further in view of Schemmann et.al., WO 2007135175 A2, (“Schemmann”).
Regarding Claim 20, Rajasekaran, as modified by Yaghmai teach the system of claim 17.
Rajasekaran, as modified by Yaghmai fail to teach wherein determining the image further comprises using, for each pixel of the image, a weighted combination of the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal, wherein the system is further configured to determine a size of weighting applied to the first single ended signal and a size of the weighting applied to the second single ended signal based on how close the first single ended signal is to saturation.
However, Schemmann teaches wherein determining the image further comprises using, for each pixel of the image, a weighted combination of the first single ended signal and the second single ended signal (Schemmann, page 6, Paragraph 2, Line 16-20, extended transition zone in which the output signal is the weighted average of the at least two pixel signals, two pixel signals as first/ second ended signal), wherein the system is further configured to determine a size of weighting applied to the first single ended signal and a size of the weighting applied to the second single ended signal based on how close the first single ended signal is to saturation (Schemmann, Page 6, Paragraph 2, line 13-16, wherein the lesser-bright signal and bright signal are amplified by a lesser-bright gain and a bright gain respectively, Lesser-bright signal and bright signal (first/ second ended signal), larger weighting applied to lesser-bright signal based on bright signal reference).
It would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the signals output from the camera system of Rajasekaran with the gain (weighting) as taught by Schemmann to reduce negative effects of signal noise (See Schemmann – Page 1, Paragraph 4, Line 21-22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA MARIA BACA whose telephone number is (703)756-1255. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ANDREA MARIA BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645