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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 22 October 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18, and 20 are pending in the instant application where claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, 17, and 20 have been amended and claims 5, 16, and 19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 with regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments (remarks page 1 paragraph 7 and 9) that the claimed technique provides a technical improvement (and is therefore patent eligible) by making it possible to estimate the shape of an object in a blind spot region or outside the field of view, examiner notes that the requirements for the cited technological improvement do not appear within the systems independently claimed. Namely, [0113]-[0115] and fig. 18 of the disclosure state that the embodiment which enables blind spot detection requires an arrangement of the system such that an object 102 under investigation is arranged between a light detection unit 100 and a mirrored surface body 108. The independent claims do not recite, reflect, or suggest such an arrangement of the system, and provide very little to no detail about the arrangement of the object with respect to the light detection unit. A specific spatial configuration must be claimed to rely on the disclosure representing a technological improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). In the instant application, the only definitive structure claimed is that a light detection unit having a plurality of SPADs are arranged in a two-dimensional plane and a laser element is synchronized with the light detection unit – the remainder of the limitations amount to general functions of the one or more processors related to the light detection unit and laser element but are not explicitly connected to the system.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 1 paragraph 8) that the claimed invention is not representative of an abstract idea because it is instead performed by physical sensors such as SPADs and a processor, examiner notes that the general recitation of SPADs is not sufficient to show patent eligibility if the claim does not recite any non-conventional arrangement or operation of the SPADs and instead amounts to mere data gathering by sensors. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c).
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 2) that the use of “apparent speed” in estimating a Z-directional component constitutes a technical contribution beyond an abstract idea, examiner notes there is no explicitly claimed calculation which relies upon this idea of “apparent speed”, and the claims only recite a calculation “information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane for the laser light source of the object on which the incident light beam is reflected”; the claim does not qualify what counts as “information about a normal vector”, and therefore remains patent ineligible. The process by which the calculation is performed by the processor, or a positive recitation of what qualifies as “information about a normal vector” i.e. perhaps utilizing an idea of apparent speed, is required to be shown in order for the apparent speed utilization to be considered a technical improvement, and itself may not render the claim patent eligible.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 3 paragraph 2) that the claimed invention recites physical components (i.e. a laser element) which therefore renders the claim patent-eligible, examiner notes that the SPAD array and synchronized laser source are considered as well-understood, routine, and convention in the field – since there is no recitation of an unconventional configuration or operation yielding a technological improvement utilizing the laser element, the incorporation of the laser element does not inherently render the claim patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of independent claim(s) 1-3 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “LIGHT DETECTION SYSTEM FOR OBTAINING A NORMAL VECTOR AFTER LIGHT REFLECTION FROM AN OBJECT”, or something similar which is sufficiently descriptive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“traveling direction analysis unit configured to configured to calculate”; configured to appears twice.
“a space information extraction unit configured to calculates a normal vector”; should be corrected to “configured to calculate”
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“single photon avalanche diode” should read in the plural “single photon avalanche diodes”, as is the case in claims 17 and 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the normal vector with respect to any reflection surface at any intersection will read on the claim. For purposes of examination, “the two” is read as the incident light vector and the reflected light vector from the preceding limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the normal vector with respect to any reflection surface at any intersection will read on the claim. For purposes of examination, “the two” is read as the incident light vector and the reflected light vector from the preceding limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the normal vector with respect to any reflection surface at any intersection will read on the claim. For purposes of examination, “the two” is read as the incident light vector and the reflected light vector from the preceding limitation.
Claims 4 and 6-14 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on the deficiencies of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims will be addressed according to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (see MPEP § 2106).
Interpretation of the claims:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Interpretation of claim 1: Claim 1 generally recites a light detection system comprising: a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs); a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit; one or more processors and memory to enable the processors to function as: a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate incident and reflected light vectors; a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector; a calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation, wherein the light detection unit acquires light information based on an incident light beam and a reflected light beam from a laser source and an object respectively, wherein the calculation processing unit calculates information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane of an object, using the acquired light information from the incident light beam, reflected light beam, and time information about when the information about the incident and reflected beams are acquired.
Interpretation of claim 2: Claim 2 generally recites a light detection system comprising: a light detection a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs); a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit; one or more processors and memory to enable the processors to function as: a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate incident and reflected light vectors; a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector; a calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation, wherein the light detection unit acquires light information based on an incident light beam and a refracted light beam from a laser source and an object respectively, wherein the calculation processing unit calculates information about a normal vector with respect to a refraction plane of an object, using the acquired light information from the incident light beam, refracted light beam, and time information about when the information about the incident and refracted beams are acquired.
Interpretation of claim 3: Claim 3 generally recites a light detection system comprising: a light detection unit a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs); a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit; one or more processors and memory to enable the processors to function as: a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate incident and reflected light vectors; a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector; a calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation, wherein the light detection unit acquires light information based on a reflected light beam from a laser source and reflected on an object, wherein the calculation processing unit calculates information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane of an object, using direction information of the laser light emitted to the object, the acquired light information from the reflected beam, and time information about when the light information from the reflected beam was acquired.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a device and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (a machine).
Claim 2 is directed to a device and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (a machine).
Claim 3 is directed to a device and therefore falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (a machine).
Step 2A, Prong One:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light”, “space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two”, “calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit”, and “wherein the calculation processing unit calculates … information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane of the object on which the incident light beam is reflected” are abstract ideas that fall into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see paragraphs [0077]-[0086] of the specification for a discussion of the concept of the model used for the calculation processing unit, [0087]-[0132] of the specification for a description of the calculation model used for the calculation processing unit, [0037] and [0038] for descriptions of the traveling direction analysis unit and space information extraction unit). The limitation “wherein the light detection unit acquires light information based on an incident light beam and a reflected light beam from a laser source and an object respectively” is an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light”, “space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two”, “calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit” and “wherein the calculation processing unit calculates … information about a normal vector with respect to a refraction plane of the object on which the incident light beam is refracted” are abstract ideas that fall into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see paragraphs [0077]-[0086] of the specification for a discussion of the concept of the model used for the calculation processing unit and [0087]-[0132] of the specification for a description of the calculation model used for the calculation processing unit). The limitation “wherein the light detection unit acquires light information based on an incident light beam and a refracted light beam from a laser source and an object respectively” is an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light”, “space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two”, “calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit” and “wherein the calculation processing unit calculates … information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane of the object on which the laser light is reflected” are abstract ideas that fall into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (see paragraphs [0077]-[0086] of the specification for a discussion of the concept of the model used for the calculation processing unit and [0087]-[0132] of the specification for a description of the calculation model used for the calculation processing unit). The limitation “wherein light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on a reflected light beam emitted from a laser light source and reflected on an object” is an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Regarding claim 1, there are no additional elements recited in the claim that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The “SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane” comprised within the light detection unit amount to a means of collecting routine data, and does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Mere data gathering is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, and the concept of SPAD arranged in a two-dimensional plane is a common sensor configuration used within the art. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The incorporation of “the laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit” also does not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application – the claim does not recite any non-conventional arrangement or operation of the SPADs and the laser beyond synchronization and cites no improvement to the function of the sensor or computer resulting from the synchronization.
Regarding claim 2, there are no additional elements recited in the claim that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The “SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane” comprised within the light detection unit amount to a means of collecting routine data, and does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Mere data gathering is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, and the concept of SPAD arranged in a two-dimensional plane is a common sensor configuration used within the art. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The incorporation of “the laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit” also does not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application – the claim does not recite any non-conventional arrangement or operation of the SPADs and the laser beyond synchronization and cites no improvement to the function of the sensor or computer resulting from the synchronization.
Regarding claim 3, there are no additional elements recited in the claim that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The “SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane” comprised within the light detection unit amount to a means of collecting routine data, and does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Mere data gathering is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The incorporation of “the laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit” also does not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application – the claim does not recite any non-conventional arrangement or operation of the SPADs and the laser beyond synchronization and cites no improvement to the function of the sensor or computer resulting from the synchronization.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane” comprised within the light detection unit amount to a means for collecting routine data and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Additionally, the use of SPADs to acquire light amount distribution information is considered to be well understood, conventional, and routine activity known to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent the recitation of an unconventional configuration or operation yielding a technological improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). US 10,983,197 B1 by Zuezhou Zhu et al. shows a detector array comprising a two-dimensional array of SPADs, within a light detection system, supporting the conclusion of this sensor configuration being well known in the art. The incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) and MPEP § 2106.05(d). The incorporation of “a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit” also does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. To support the conclusion of the synchronization of SPADs with a laser element being well-understood, routine, and convention in the field (and thus not amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception), US 2024/0283434 A1 by Hideki Sato et al. (herein after “Sato”) paragraph [0075] recites such a configuration within their disclosed light detector.
Claim 2 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane” comprised within the light detection unit amount to a means for collecting routine data and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Additionally, the use of SPADs to acquire light amount distribution information is considered to be well understood, conventional, and routine activity known to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent the recitation of an unconventional configuration or operation yielding a technological improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). US 10,983,197 B1 by Zuezhou Zhu et al. shows a detector array comprising a two-dimensional array of SPADs, within a light detection system, supporting the conclusion of this sensor configuration being well known in the art. The incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) and MPEP § 2106.05(d). The incorporation of “a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit” also does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. To support the conclusion of the synchronization of SPADs with a laser element being well-understood, routine, and convention in the field (and thus not amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception), US 2024/0283434 A1 by Hideki Sato et al. (herein after “Sato”) paragraph [0075] recites such a configuration within their disclosed light detector.
Claim 3 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane” comprised within the light detection unit amount to a means for collecting routine data and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Additionally, the use of SPADs to acquire light amount distribution information is considered to be well understood, conventional, and routine activity known to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent the recitation of an unconventional configuration or operation yielding a technological improvement. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). US 10,983,197 B1 by Zuezhou Zhu et al. shows a detector array comprising a two-dimensional array of SPADs, within a light detection system, supporting the conclusion of this sensor configuration being well known in the art. The incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) and MPEP § 2106.05(d). The incorporation of “a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit” also does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. To support the conclusion of the synchronization of SPADs with a laser element being well-understood, routine, and convention in the field (and thus not amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception), US 2024/0283434 A1 by Hideki Sato et al. (herein after “Sato”) paragraph [0075] recites such a configuration within their disclosed light detector.
Discussion of dependent claims:
Claims 4, 15, and 18 disclose the additional element “wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by a timing control unit”. The control of timing for an observation or multiple observations is considered a mental process and does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. As with the independent claims, the incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application [see MPEP § 2106.05(f)], nor does the incorporation amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [see MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)]. Therefore, claims 4, 15, and 18 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 17, and 20 disclose the additional element “a second light detection unit which includes a plurality of SPADs arranged in a two-dimensional plane”. Like the first SPADs from claims 1-3 above, the second SPADs amount to a means of collecting routine data, and does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Mere data gathering is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 11-12 disclose the additional element of a “control unit” which controls the start of light detection. The control of timing for an observation or multiple observations is considered a mental process and does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. As with the independent claims, the incorporation of “one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to one or more of the processors storing instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to function in a specific way” are additional elements, but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application [see MPEP § 2106.05(f)], nor does the incorporation amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [see MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)]. Therefore, claims 11-12 do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7-10 and 13-14 are directed to further mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Conclusion:
The courts have decided that natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract intellectual concepts, such as mental processes and mathematical concepts, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V CLS Bank, 573 US, 134 S. Ct. 2347 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)).
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-18, and 20 are not patent eligible.
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.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 13-14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0188199 A1 by Katsuyoshi Endo et al. (herein after “Endo”) in view of US 2016/0223319 A1 by James F. Munro et al. (herein after “Munro”), and further in view of US 2016/0259038 A1 by James E Ratterath et al. (herein after “Ratterath”).
Regarding claim 1, Endo discloses a light detection system comprising:
a light detection unit including a plurality of diodes arranged in a two-dimensional plane (Endo [0010] discloses a light detector comprised of a quartered photodiode (QPD) which is known in the art to comprise an array of individual photodiodes [plurality of diodes]; fig. 13 shows QPD1 comprised of four quadrants [two-dimensional plane]; additionally [0035] discloses an additional detector QPD2 (see fig. 3), and is considered part of the light detection unit);
a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit (Endo [0033]-[0034] discloses an optical system comprising a light source and a detector D where the light source and the detector D move in an integrated manner [synchronized with one another]; the light source is a single mode He-Ne laser [laser element])
one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Endo [0055] discloses the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 to support and carry out functions of a control system of a shape measurement device; while one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions causing the processors to function in a certain way are not explicitly stated in Endo, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a personal computer has both processors and memory which stores instructions to cause processors to function in desired ways) as;
a traveling direction analysis unit (one of ordinary skill recognizes the ability for a personal computer with processors and memory which stores instructions to cause the processors to function in desired ways – i.e. as a traveling direction analysis unit)
a space information extraction unit (one of ordinary skill recognizes the ability for a personal computer with processors and memory which stores instructions to cause the processors to function in desired ways – i.e. as a traveling direction analysis unit)
a calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit (Endo [0055] discloses the signal obtained by QPD are taken into a personal computer and measurement points/values are calculated; the function of executing calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit performed by the personal computer is indicative of the personal computer having a processor and a memory with instructions which cause the computer to perform the associated functions);
wherein the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on an incident light beam incident on an object from a laser light source and light amount distribution information of light based on a reflected light beam reflected on the object in the two-dimensional plane (Endo [0034]-[0035] and fig. 3 discloses laser light emitted by a helium neon laser source and is emitted towards the surface of an object [forming an incident beam], where the laser beam is then reflected to the detectors QPD1 and QPD2 via optical elements in fig. 3 [i.e. reflected to the light detection unit which acquires light amount distribution information based on the reflected light beam]; [0036] discloses that the light detected by the detectors is dependent on the alignment of the incident light on the object and the reflection point – therefore, the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information based on the incident beam as required by the claim);
wherein the calculation processing unit calculates, from the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam [and] the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam, information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane for the laser light source of the object on which the incident light beam is reflected (Endo [0055] discloses the signals obtained by the QPD [from the light amount distribution information based on both the incident light beam and reflected light beam, which are with respect to a reflection plane for the laser light source] are taken into the personal computer where the coordinates of measurement points and measurement values of normal vectors are calculated; [0003] normal vectors are obtained at measurement points on the mirror [with respect to reflection plane of the object where incident light is reflected]), and
wherein the normal vector is a vector in three dimensions including a direction orthogonal to the two-dimensional plane (Endo fig. 2 shows measurement point A as a point in 3 dimensions, where the normal vector N is shown at the measurement point; since the measurement point is in three dimensions, one of ordinary skill would recognize the normal vector to be in three dimensions as well; the two dimensional plane of the detector QPD is taken as the XZ plane (based on fig. 2 and fig. 3); since the normal vector has a Y component seen in fig. 2, the normal vector is a vector in three dimensions, one of which is orthogonal to the two-dimensional plane).
Endo is silent to a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light, and a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two.
However, Munro does address these limitations. Endo and Munro are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Munro discloses “a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light” (Munro fig. 11 and [0120]-[0121] disclose the geometry of light rays and the calculation of locations on a 3D test point on a test surface [object]; an incident light ray is represented by vector I, reflected light ray is represented by vector R after being reflected from a MEMS mirror 46; [0124] discloses that the components of vector I [incident light vector] are found via analysis in [0122] and [0123]; [0124] also explores the calculation of the vector R [reflected light vector], wherein [0124]-[0125] provides analysis for obtaining the components of the vector R; if one knows the components of the incident and reflected light vectors, one has “calculated an incident light vector” and “calculated a reflected light vector”), and
“a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Munro fig. 11 and [0123]-[0124] discloses the normal vector N at the intersection between vector I and vector R, and discloses the components of the normal vector [space info extraction unit calculates a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo to incorporate a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light, and a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two as suggested by Munro for the advantage of enabling a calculation of the location of a 3D test point on a test surface of a test object from the knowledge of the angular orientation of the scanning MEMS mirror linked to an actuating means, enabling accurate measurements/tracking to be made of test objects (Munro [0057] and [0128]).
Endo when modified by Munro is silent to a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes, and wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam and the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam are acquired.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation. Endo, Munro, and Ratterath are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Ratterath discloses “a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes” (Ratterath [0202] discloses avalanche photodiodes; under MPEP 2131.02 III, a genus group will anticipate a species within the genus i.e. Ratterath discloses an avalanche photodiode [a genus] and therefore the claimed single photon avalanche diodes are anticipated by the disclosure of Ratterath) “wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam and the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam are acquired” (Ratterath [0140] and fig. 13 shows the timing for light emitted by the emitter via a pulse and the corresponding sampling rate for the detector (where fig. 6 shows incident light from emitter 116 received by a detector 100 after reflection at point 122); since the calculation unit of Endo utilizes alignment of the incident light and reflection point, the timing associated with the incident and reflected light would be taken into account as “time information”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes and wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam and the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam are acquired as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
As an additional note regarding the limitation “one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function”, the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 within Endo has been disclosed where one of ordinary skill recognizes personal computers has having the stated components. However, assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize those components in the personal computer of Endo in view of Endo, Ratterath also addresses this limitation in fig. 4 and [0066] which disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions], and the limitation remains obvious before Endo when modified by Munro, in view of Ratterath.
Regarding claim 3, Endo discloses a light detection system comprising:
a light detection unit including a plurality of diodes arranged in a two-dimensional plane (Endo [0010] discloses a light detector comprised of a quartered photodiode (QPD) which is known in the art to comprise an array of individual photodiodes [plurality of diodes]; fig. 13 shows QPD1 comprised of four quadrants [two-dimensional plane]; additionally [0035] discloses an additional detector QPD2 (see fig. 3), and is considered part of the light detection unit);
a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit (Endo [0033]-[0034] discloses an optical system comprising a light source and a detector D where the light source and the detector D move in an integrated manner [synchronized with one another]; the light source is a single mode He-Ne laser [laser element])
one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Endo [0055] discloses the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 to support and carry out functions of a control system of a shape measurement device; while one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions causing the processors to function in a certain way are not explicitly stated in Endo, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a personal computer has both processors and memory which stores instructions to cause processors to function in desired ways) as;
a traveling direction analysis unit (one of ordinary skill recognizes the ability for a personal computer with processors and memory which stores instructions to cause the processors to function in desired ways – i.e. as a traveling direction analysis unit)
a space information extraction unit (one of ordinary skill recognizes the ability for a personal computer with processors and memory which stores instructions to cause the processors to function in desired ways – i.e. as a traveling direction analysis unit)
a calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit (Endo [0055] discloses the signal obtained by QPD are taken into a personal computer and measurement points/values are calculated; the function of executing calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit performed by the personal computer is indicative of the personal computer having a processor and a memory with instructions which cause the computer to perform the associated functions);
wherein the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on a reflected light beam emitted from a laser light source and reflected on an object in the two-dimensional plane (Endo [0034]-[0035] and fig. 3 discloses laser light emitted by a helium neon laser source and is emitted towards the surface of an object; the laser light is directed by beam splitter 10 i.e. is a reflected (by the beam splitter) light beam from a laser light source, where the laser beam is then reflected by the object to the detectors QPD1 and QPD2 via optical elements in fig. 3 [to the light detection unit which acquires light amount distribution information based on the reflected light beam]);
wherein the calculation processing unit calculates, from direction information of laser light emitted to the object from the laser light source (Endo [0036] discloses the adjustment of the incident light to the object, where the adjustments are biaxial rotational movements and are used to calculate normal vectors for each measurement point; the rotational movements of the incident light emitted to the object here is “direction information”) [and] the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam, information about a normal vector with respect to a reflection plane of the object on which the incident light beam is reflected (Endo [0055] discloses the signals obtained by the QPD [from the light amount distribution information based on both the incident light beam and reflected light beam] are taken into the personal computer where the coordinates of measurement points and measurement values of normal vectors are calculated; [0003] normal vectors are obtained at measurement points on the mirror [with respect to reflection plane of the object where incident light is reflected]) and wherein the normal vector is a vector in three dimensions including a direction orthogonal to the two-dimensional plane (Endo fig. 2 shows measurement point A as a point in 3 dimensions, where the normal vector N is shown at the measurement point; since the measurement point is in three dimensions, one of ordinary skill would recognize the normal vector to be in three dimensions as well; the two dimensional plane of the detector QPD is taken as the XZ plane (based on fig. 2 and fig. 3); since the normal vector has a Y component seen in fig. 2, the normal vector is a vector in three dimensions, one of which is orthogonal to the two-dimensional plane).
Endo is silent to a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light, and a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two.
However, Munro does address these limitations. Endo and Munro are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Munro discloses “a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light” (Munro fig. 11 and [0120]-[0121] disclose the geometry of light rays and the calculation of locations on a 3D test point on a test surface [object]; an incident light ray is represented by vector I, reflected light ray is represented by vector R after being reflected from a MEMS mirror 46; [0124] discloses that the components of vector I [incident light vector] are found via analysis in [0122] and [0123]; [0124] also explores the calculation of the vector R [reflected light vector], wherein [0124]-[0125] provides analysis for obtaining the components of the vector R; if one knows the components of the incident and reflected light vectors, one has “calculated an incident light vector” and “calculated a reflected light vector”), and
“a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Munro fig. 11 and [0123]-[0124] discloses the normal vector N at the intersection between vector I and vector R, and discloses the components of the normal vector [space info extraction unit calculates a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo to incorporate a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light, and a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two as suggested by Munro for the advantage of enabling a calculation of the location of a 3D test point on a test surface of a test object from the knowledge of the angular orientation of the scanning MEMS mirror linked to an actuating means, enabling accurate measurements/tracking to be made of test objects (Munro [0057] and [0128]).
Endo when modified by Munro is silent to a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes, and wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam is acquired.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation. Endo, Munro, and Ratterath are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Ratterath discloses “a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes” (Ratterath [0202] discloses avalanche photodiodes; under MPEP 2131.02 III, a genus group will anticipate a species within the genus i.e. Ratterath discloses an avalanche photodiode [a genus] and therefore the claimed single photon avalanche diodes are anticipated by the disclosure of Ratterath), and “wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam is acquired” (Ratterath [0140] and fig. 13 shows the timing for light emitted by the emitter via a pulse and the corresponding sampling rate for the detector (where fig. 6 shows incident light from emitter 116 received by a detector 100 after reflection at point 122); since the calculation unit of Endo utilizes alignment of the incident light and reflection point, the timing associated with the incident and reflected light would be taken into account as “time information”, based on at least the reflected light beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes and wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the reflected light beam is acquired as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
As an additional note regarding the limitation “one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function”, the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 within Endo has been disclosed where one of ordinary skill recognizes personal computers has having the stated components. However, assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize those components in the personal computer of Endo in view of Munro, Ratterath also addresses this limitation in fig. 4 and [0066] which disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions], and the limitation remains obvious before Endo when modified by Munro, in view of Ratterath.
Regarding claim 4, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1. Endo when modified by Munro is silent to the system according to claim 1, wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation.
Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit” (Ratterath [0063] discloses that the detector circuitry knows precisely when the emitters are energized – see fig. 4 where the controller 84 is connected to emitters 92 (and emitter drive circuitry 94) and the sampling control circuitry 86 (and the detector array); fig. 4 and [0066] disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions]; [0140] and fig. 13 discloses that the detector sampling clock 194 and emitter clock 180 are synchronized where the synchronization is controlled via the controller 84 of fig. 4 for the sampling control circuitry 86 corresponds to the sampling clock 194 and the emitter drive circuitry 94 corresponds to the emitter clock 180)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, and Endo further teaches the system further comprising a second light detection unit, wherein the second light detection unit includes a plurality of second single photon avalanche diodes arranged in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein the light detection unit and the second light detection unit are arranged at different positions (Endo fig. 3 and [0035] discloses a detector 16, disclosed as QPD2, which is a second quartered photodiode in addition to QPD1; since QPD2 is another quartered photodiode [Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath has disclosed the first light detection unit, comprising single photon avalanche diodes – since Endo discloses another quartered photodiode, a second light detection unit comprising single photon avalanche diodes is taught by the current rejection], the plurality of diodes are also arranged in a two-dimensional plane like QPD1; fig. 3 shows QPD1 and QPD2 at different positions).
Regarding claim 7, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1. Endo when modified by Munro is silent to the system according to claim 1, wherein a light emission start operation of the laser light source and a light detection start operation of the single photon avalanche diode are executed for a plurality of times in a state where a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode is fixed.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation.
Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “wherein a light emission start operation of the laser light source and a light detection start operation of the single photon avalanche diode are executed for a plurality of times in a state where a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode is fixed” (Ratterath fig. 13 shows an emitter drive pulse 182 [corresponding to the operation of the laser light source, at least for a laser pulse] and the detector sampling clock 194; the time range shown in fig. 13 is considered a plurality of times; [0140] the start time for the emitter pulse is synchronized with the detector sampling clock where synchronization of the light emission and light detection is considered the period between emission and detection as being fixed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate wherein a light emission start operation of the laser light source and a light detection start operation of the single photon avalanche diodes are executed for a plurality of times in a state where a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes is fixed as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1. Endo when modified by Munro is silent to the system according to claim 1, wherein a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode in a first frame period and a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode in a second frame period are different from each other.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation.
Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “wherein a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode in a first frame period and a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode in a second frame period are different from each other” (Ratterath fig. 13 and [0141] disclose multiple periods from 182 to 188 on the emitter drive pulse signal trace; the start time for emitter drive pulse relative to the detector clock period for the first period 182 is different than that of the second period 184, and different still from subsequent periods 186 and 188).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate wherein a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode in a first frame period and a period from a start of light emission of the laser light source to a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diode in a second frame period are different from each other as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of enabling larger numbers of pulses N which is advantageous depending on the pulse rate required for a particular application, since synchronous clocks for larger numbers of pulses is problematic (Ratterath [0153]).
Regarding claim 13, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, and Endo further teaches the system wherein the light detection system calculates the plurality of normal vectors while changing a light emission position at which an incident light beam is emitted to the object from the laser light source, and estimates a shape of the object in a three-dimensional space from the plurality of normal vectors (Endo [0036] discloses determining a normal vector at a first measurement point A0, where then [0037] discloses determining further normal vectors at an additional measurement points A1 and thus any number of subsequent measurement points; the additional normal vector is obtained by adjusting the incident light via rotational movements [i.e. changing a light emission position]; [0038]-[0039] discloses a large number of measurement coordinates and normal vectors of coordinates are obtained to approximate a measured surface shape in a three dimensional space).
Regarding claim 14, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, and Endo further teaches the system wherein the light based on the incident light beam and the light based on the reflected light beam are diffusion light (MPEP 2115 discloses that the “material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims”; in this case, the light being “diffusion light” does not limit the scope of the system since the light detection system disclosed by the Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath is capable of detecting any applicable light, whether or not it was diffusion light).
Regarding claim 18, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 3. Endo when modified by Munro is silent to the system according to claim 3, wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation.
Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 3, “wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit” (Ratterath [0063] discloses that the detector circuitry knows precisely when the emitters are energized – see fig. 4 where the controller 84 is connected to emitters 92 (and emitter drive circuitry 94) and the sampling control circuitry 86 (and the detector array); fig. 4 and [0066] disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions]; [0140] and fig. 13 discloses that the detector sampling clock 194 and emitter clock 180 are synchronized where the synchronization is controlled via the controller 84 of fig. 4 for the sampling control circuitry 86 corresponds to the sampling clock 194 and the emitter drive circuitry 94 corresponds to the emitter clock 180).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
Regarding claim 20, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 3, and Endo further teaches the system further comprising a second light detection unit, wherein the second light detection unit includes a plurality of second single photon avalanche diodes arranged in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein the light detection unit and the second light detection unit are arranged at different positions (Endo fig. 3 and [0035] discloses a detector 16, disclosed as QPD2, which is a second quartered photodiode in addition to QPD1; since QPD2 is another quartered photodiode [Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath has disclosed the first light detection unit, comprising single photon avalanche diodes – since Endo discloses another quartered photodiode, a second light detection unit comprising single photon avalanche diodes is taught by the current rejection], the plurality of diodes are also arranged in a two-dimensional plane like QPD1; fig. 3 shows QPD1 and QPD2 at different positions).
Claims 2, 9-10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Munro, in view of Ratterath, and further in view of US 2022/0082697 A1 by Anthony Slotwinski et al. (herein after “Slotwinski”).
Regarding claim 2, Endo discloses a light detection system comprising:
a light detection unit including a plurality of diodes arranged in a two-dimensional plane (Endo [0010] discloses a light detector comprised of a quartered photodiode (QPD) which is known in the art to comprise an array of individual photodiodes [plurality of diodes]; fig. 13 shows QPD1 comprised of four quadrants [two-dimensional plane]; additionally [0035] discloses an additional detector QPD2 (see fig. 3), and is considered part of the light detection unit);
a laser element configured to synchronize with the light detection unit (Endo [0033]-[0034] discloses an optical system comprising a light source and a detector D where the light source and the detector D move in an integrated manner [synchronized with one another]; the light source is a single mode He-Ne laser [laser element])
one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Endo [0055] discloses the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 to support and carry out functions of a control system of a shape measurement device; while one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions causing the processors to function in a certain way are not explicitly stated in Endo, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a personal computer has both processors and memory which stores instructions to cause processors to function in desired ways) as;
a traveling direction analysis unit (one of ordinary skill recognizes the ability for a personal computer with processors and memory which stores instructions to cause the processors to function in desired ways – i.e. as a traveling direction analysis unit)
a space information extraction unit (one of ordinary skill recognizes the ability for a personal computer with processors and memory which stores instructions to cause the processors to function in desired ways – i.e. as a traveling direction analysis unit);
a calculation processing unit configured to execute calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit (Endo [0055] discloses the signal obtained by QPD are taken into a personal computer and measurement points/values are calculated; the function of executing calculation based on information acquired by the light detection unit performed by the personal computer is indicative of the personal computer having a processor and a memory with instructions which cause the computer to perform the associated functions);
wherein the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on an incident light beam incident on an object from a laser light source and light amount distribution information of light based on a [reflected] light beam [reflected] on the object in the two-dimensional plane (Endo [0034]-[0035] and fig. 3 discloses laser light emitted by a helium neon laser source and is emitted towards the surface of an object [forming an incident beam], where the laser beam is then reflected to the detectors QPD1 and QPD2 via optical elements in fig. 3 [i.e. reflected to the light detection unit which acquires light amount distribution information based on the reflected light beam]; [0036] discloses that the light detected by the detectors is dependent on the alignment of the incident light on the object and the reflection point – therefore, the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information based on the incident beam as required by the claim);
wherein the calculation processing unit calculates, from the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam [and] the light amount distribution information of light based on the [reflected] light beam, information about a normal vector with respect to a [reflection] plane of the object on which the incident light beam is [reflected] (Endo [0055] discloses the signals obtained by the QPD [from the light amount distribution information based on both the incident light beam and reflected light beam] are taken into the personal computer where the coordinates of measurement points and measurement values of normal vectors are calculated; [0003] normal vectors are obtained at measurement points on the mirror [with respect to reflection plane of the object where incident light is reflected]), and
wherein the normal vector is a vector in three dimensions including a direction orthogonal to the two-dimensional plane (Endo fig. 2 shows measurement point A as a point in 3 dimensions, where the normal vector N is shown at the measurement point; since the measurement point is in three dimensions, one of ordinary skill would recognize the normal vector to be in three dimensions as well; the two dimensional plane of the detector QPD is taken as the XZ plane (based on fig. 2 and fig. 3); since the normal vector has a Y component seen in fig. 2, the normal vector is a vector in three dimensions, one of which is orthogonal to the two-dimensional plane).
Endo is silent to a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light, and a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two.
However, Munro does address these limitations. Endo and Munro are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Munro discloses “a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light” (Munro fig. 11 and [0120]-[0121] disclose the geometry of light rays and the calculation of locations on a 3D test point on a test surface [object]; an incident light ray is represented by vector I, reflected light ray is represented by vector R after being reflected from a MEMS mirror 46; [0124] discloses that the components of vector I [incident light vector] are found via analysis in [0122] and [0123]; [0124] also explores the calculation of the vector R [reflected light vector], wherein [0124]-[0125] provides analysis for obtaining the components of the vector R; if one knows the components of the incident and reflected light vectors, one has “calculated an incident light vector” and “calculated a reflected light vector”), and
“a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Munro fig. 11 and [0123]-[0124] discloses the normal vector N at the intersection between vector I and vector R, and discloses the components of the normal vector [space info extraction unit calculates a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo to incorporate a traveling direction analysis unit configured to calculate an incident light vector from light amount distribution information based on incident light; and calculate a reflected light vector from light amount distribution information based on reflected light, and a space information extraction unit configured to calculate a normal vector with respect to the reflection surface at the intersection of the two as suggested by Munro for the advantage of enabling a calculation of the location of a 3D test point on a test surface of a test object from the knowledge of the angular orientation of the scanning MEMS mirror linked to an actuating means, enabling accurate measurements/tracking to be made of test objects (Munro [0057] and [0128]).
Endo when modified by Munro is silent to a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes, and wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam and the light amount distribution information of light based on the [reflected] light beam are acquired.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation. Endo, Munro, and Ratterath are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Ratterath discloses “a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes” (Ratterath [0202] discloses avalanche photodiodes; under MPEP 2131.02 III, a genus group will anticipate a species within the genus i.e. Ratterath discloses an avalanche photodiode [a genus] and therefore the claimed single photon avalanche diodes are anticipated by the disclosure of Ratterath), and “wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam and the light amount distribution information of light based on the [reflected] light beam are acquired” (Ratterath [0140] and fig. 13 shows the timing for light emitted by the emitter via a pulse and the corresponding sampling rate for the detector (where fig. 6 shows incident light from emitter 116 received by a detector 100 after reflection at point 122); since the calculation unit of Endo utilizes alignment of the incident light and reflection point, the timing associated with the incident and reflected light would be taken into account as “time information”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate a light detection unit including a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes and wherein the calculation unit calculates from time information about time at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the incident light beam and the light amount distribution information of light based on the [reflected] light beam are acquired as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
As an additional note regarding the limitation “one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function”, the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 within Endo has been disclosed where one of ordinary skill recognizes personal computers has having the stated components. However, assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize those components in the personal computer of Endo in view of Endo, Ratterath also addresses this limitation in fig. 4 and [0066] which disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions], and the limitation remains obvious before Endo when modified by Munro, in view of Ratterath.
Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath is silent to wherein the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on a refracting light beam refracted by the object, the calculation processing unit calculates based on a refracting light beam, time information at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the refracting beam are acquired, and information about a normal vector with respect to a refracting plane of the object by which the incident light beam is refracted.
However, Slotwinski does address these limitations. Endo, Munro, Ratterath, and Slotwinski are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Slotwinski discloses “wherein the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on a refracting light beam refracted by the object, the calculation processing unit calculates based on a refracting light beam, time information at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the refracting beam are acquired, and information about a normal vector with respect to a refracting plane of the object by which the incident light beam is refracted” (Slotwinski [0071] discloses laser radar systems which utilize a measurement beam to probe an object, and receive a return beam in response after the measurement beam interacts with said object; the return beam may be based on reflection like with Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath, diffraction, or refraction; to one of ordinary skill in the art, the same reflection interactions of Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath would be obvious for a refractive interaction with the object instead).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath to incorporate wherein the light detection unit acquires light amount distribution information of light based on a refracting light beam refracted by the object, the calculation processing unit calculates based on a refracting light beam, time information at which the light amount distribution information of light based on the refracting beam are acquired, and information about a normal vector with respect to a refracting plane of the object by which the incident light beam is refracted as suggested by Slotwinski for the advantage of object evaluation using a variety of interactions between the object and the measurement beam, which therefore permits an estimation of target properties (Slotwinski [0071]).
Regarding claim 9, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1. Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath is silent to the system according to claim 1, wherein the object is arranged outside a field of view of the light detection unit.
However, Slotwinski does address this limitation. Endo, Munro, Ratterath, and Slotwinski are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they use a laser light source to probe an object and receive a signal from said object.
Slotwinski discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “wherein the object is arranged outside a field of view of the light detection unit” (Slotwinski [0129] and fig. 23 discloses the probing by a laser radar device 2304 of an otherwise hidden area 2310 on a target 2308; the laser radar device is disclosed in [0119] as including a camera aligned along a radar axis [i.e. a light detection unit]; since the area is hidden on the far side of the target, it is arranged outside a field of view of the light detection unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath to incorporate wherein the object is arranged outside a field of view of the light detection unit as suggested by Slotwinski for the advantage of using a retroreflector to measure target areas which have high angles of incidence to a laser radar device, and would otherwise be hidden to a light detection unit providing more areas of interest accessible for measurement (Slotwinski [0127], [0129]).
Regarding claim 10, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1. Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath is silent to the system according to claim 1, wherein the reflection plane for the laser light source is located in a blind area of the light detection unit.
However, Slotwinski does address this limitation.
Slotwinski discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “wherein the reflection plane for the laser light source is located in a blind area of the light detection unit.” (as with claim 9 above, Slotwinski [0129] and fig. 23 disclose a hidden area 2310 on a target 2308 which is out of a field of view of the light detection unit; as with Endo, reflection occurs at the surface of the object being probed, where the hidden area 2310 is in a blind area of the light detection unit, i.e. is not in its field of view).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath to incorporate wherein the reflection plane for the laser light source is located in a blind area of the light detection unit as suggested by Slotwinski for the advantage of using a retroreflector to measure target areas which have high angles of incidence to a laser radar device, and would otherwise be hidden to a light detection unit providing more areas of interest accessible for measurement (Slotwinski [0127], [0129]).
Regarding claim 15, Endo when modified by Munro, Ratterath, and Slotwinski discloses the light detection system according to claim 2. Endo when modified by Munro is silent to the system according to claim 2, wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit.
However, Ratterath does address this limitation.
Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 2, “wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit” (Ratterath [0063] discloses that the detector circuitry knows precisely when the emitters are energized – see fig. 4 where the controller 84 is connected to emitters 92 (and emitter drive circuitry 94) and the sampling control circuitry 86 (and the detector array); fig. 4 and [0066] disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions]; [0140] and fig. 13 discloses that the detector sampling clock 194 and emitter clock 180 are synchronized where the synchronization is controlled via the controller 84 of fig. 4 for the sampling control circuitry 86 corresponds to the sampling clock 194 and the emitter drive circuitry 94 corresponds to the emitter clock 180).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro to incorporate wherein a light emission timing of the laser light source and a detection timing of the light detection unit are controlled by one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function as: a timing control unit as suggested by Ratterath for the advantage of synchronizing the emitter drive pulse and the sampling clock of the detector (Ratterath [0140]) to streamline the emitting and receiving aspects of the invention.
Regarding claim 17, Endo when modified by Munro, Ratterath, and Slotwinski discloses the light detection system according to claim 2, and Endo further teaches the system further comprising a second light detection unit, wherein the second light detection unit includes a plurality of second single photon avalanche diodes arranged in a two-dimensional plane, and wherein the light detection unit and the second light detection unit are arranged at different positions (Endo fig. 3 and [0035] discloses a detector 16, disclosed as QPD2, which is a second quartered photodiode in addition to QPD1; since QPD2 is another quartered photodiode [Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath has disclosed the first light detection unit, comprising single photon avalanche diodes – since Endo discloses another quartered photodiode, a second light detection unit comprising single photon avalanche diodes is taught by the current rejection], the plurality of diodes are also arranged in a two-dimensional plane like QPD1; fig. 3 shows QPD1 and QPD2 at different positions).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Munro, in view of Ratterath, and further in view of “Active quenching circuit for single-photon detection with Geiger mode avalanche photodiodes” by Mario Stipčević (doi.org/10.1364/AO.48.001705) (herein after “Mario”).
Regarding claim 11, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, and Endo further teaches the system further comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Endo [0055] discloses the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 to support and carry out functions of a control system of a shape measurement device; while one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions causing the processors to function in a certain way are not explicitly stated in Endo, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a personal computer has both processors and memory which stores instructions to cause processors to function in desired ways).
As an additional note (and equivalent to the additional notes made within claims 1-3) regarding the limitation “one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function”, the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 within Endo has been disclosed where one of ordinary skill recognizes personal computers has having the stated components. However, assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize those components in the personal computer of Endo, Ratterath also addresses this limitation in fig. 4 and [0066] which disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions], and the limitation remains obvious before Endo in view of Ratterath.
Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath is silent to the system according to claim 1, further comprising a counter configured to count light incident on single photon avalanche diodes, wherein a control unit that controls a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes is a switch or a logic circuit arranged at a position between the single photon avalanche diodes and the counter.
However, Mario does address this limitation. Endo, Ratterath, and Mario are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of light detection using photodiodes.
Mario discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “further comprising a counter configured to count light incident on the single photon avalanche diodes, wherein a control unit that controls a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes is a switch or a logic circuit arranged at a position between the single photon avalanche diodes and the counter” (Mario fig. 4 discloses an experimental setup comprising a counter SR400, used as a single event detector, disclosed on page 4 col 1 indent 5, which counts the light incident on the single photon avalanche detector (SPAD), as claimed, found within the “single photon counting module” (SPCM), disclosed on page 3 col 1 indent 1; the SPCM is also comprised of an active quenching circuit of fig. 2, where the SPAD is shown in the center of the circuit; the quenching circuit of fig. 2 is the control unit as a logic circuit of the claim; page 2 col 2 indent 2 through page 2 col 1 paragraph 1 discloses the operation of the quenching circuit, where a detection cycle starts when an avalanche happens in the SPAD, and describes the quenching circuit as acting like a switch for the SPAD – once the quenching circuit is activated, the detector is “dead” until rebiased and ready for another detection event; since the SPAD is the beginning of the detection cycle, housed within the SPCM of fig. 4 and the counter is on the other side, the quenching circuit is effectively “positioned between” the counter and SPAD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath to incorporate a counter configured to count light incident on the single photon avalanche diodes, wherein a control unit that controls a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes is a switch or a logic circuit arranged at a position between the single photon avalanche diodes and the counter as suggested by Mario for the advantage of increasing counting frequency while decreasing dead time for single photon counting detectors, increasing the efficiency of detection (Mario page 2 col 1 indent 3).
Regarding claim 12, Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, and Endo further teaches the system further comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Endo [0055] discloses the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 to support and carry out functions of a control system of a shape measurement device; while one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions causing the processors to function in a certain way are not explicitly stated in Endo, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a personal computer has both processors and memory which stores instructions to cause processors to function in desired ways).
As an additional note (and equivalent to the additional notes made within claims 1-3) regarding the limitation “one or more processors; and at least one memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function”, the use of personal computers PC1 and PC2 within Endo has been disclosed where one of ordinary skill recognizes personal computers has having the stated components. However, assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize those components in the personal computer of Endo, Ratterath also addresses this limitation in fig. 4 and [0066] which disclose the presence of GPUs 92 which comprise a processing unit, instruction memory, working memory, etc. [one or more processors and a memory coupled with instructions], and the limitation remains obvious before Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath.
Endo when modified by Munro and Ratterath is silent to the system according to claim 1, further comprising: a counter configured to count light incident on the single photon avalanche diodes, wherein a control unit that controls a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes inputs to the counter a signal for shifting activation and non-activation of the counter.
However, Mario does address this limitation.
Mario discloses the light detection system according to claim 1, “further comprising a counter configured to count light incident on the single photon avalanche diodes, wherein a control unit that controls a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes inputs to the counter a signal for shifting activation and non-activation of the counter” (as with claim 11 above, Mario discloses an experimental setup comprising a counter SR400, used as a single event detector, disclosed on page 4 col 1 indent 5, which counts the light incident on the single photon avalanche detector (SPAD), as claimed, found within the “single photon counting module” (SPCM) as disclosed on page 3 col 1 indent 1; page 2 col 2 indent 2 through page 2 col 1 paragraph 1 discloses the operation of the quenching circuit following an activation of the SPAD, there follows a period of time where the detector is “dead”, whereby there is no pulse is produced by the SPAD, which in turn does not activate the counter, since the counter has nothing to count if no pulse is produced).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Endo in view of Munro and Ratterath to incorporate a counter configured to count light incident on the single photon avalanche diodes, wherein a control unit that controls a start of light detection of the single photon avalanche diodes inputs to the counter a signal for shifting activation and non-activation of the counter as suggested by Mario for the advantage of increasing counting frequency while decreasing dead time for single photon counting detectors, increasing the efficiency of detection (Mario page 2 col 1 indent 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877