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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 24 November 2025 overcomes the prior rejections. However, the amendment gives rise to a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on new analysis of the references previously applied.
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 9-10 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 9 recites “the detection limit” and “the combined distance measurement.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 10 recites “the detection limit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohki (US20210025980A1) in view of Oggier (US20090190007A1) further in view of Shu (US20180259645A1).
Reguarding claim 1, Ohki discloses an optical measurement system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a [1: light source] (12, Fig. 1) configured to emit one or more pulse trains over one or more time intervals as part of an optical measurement (40, Fig. 1; ¶ 208);
a plurality of photosensors (13, Fig. 1) configured to detect reflected photons from the one or more pulse trains emitted from corresponding [2: light source] (41, Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of photosensors comprises a first photosensor and one or more other photosensors that are spatially adjacent to the first photosensor (¶¶ 197, 212 & 214, one histogram for each SPAD at time t and position (x, y) expressed as H(t, x, y, n));
a plurality of memory blocks (15, Fig. 1) configured to accumulate photon counts of the photons received during the one or more time intervals by corresponding photosensors in the plurality of photosensors to represent a plurality of histograms of photon counts (¶¶ 197, 212), wherein
the plurality of histograms comprises a first histogram corresponding to the first photosensor (¶ 214, histogram HRN(t, x, y, n) of SPAD at (x, y)) and one or more histograms corresponding to the one or more other photosensors (¶ 197, corresponding histograms the other SPADs); and
a circuit (16, Fig. 1) configured to: generate a distance measurement for the first photosensor based on the first histogram; generate one or more other distance measurements calculated based on the one or more other histograms (¶ 268, distance calculation from histogram);
determine that the first histogram corresponds to a response below a confidence level (¶ 267, H(n) and σ(n) used to judge whether the bin’s histogram response is sufficiently separated from ambient noise Iambient as governed by Expression 10);
in response to determining that the response is below the confidence level, [3: the response is not used] (¶ 271).
Ohki does not teach: (3) “generate a distance measurement that comprises a combination of the first distance measurement with the one or more other distance measurements.” However, Oggier teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 36-37 & 39, where distance measurement from neighboring pixels are combined in response to noise level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ohki with that of Oggier with a reasonable expectation for success in order to compensate for unwanted noise through the employment of neighboring pixels, thereby yielding a system with higher precision and measurement reliability (see Oggier, ¶ 30).
Ohki in view of Oggier does not teach: (1) “plurality of light sources”; and, (2) “light sources in the plurality of light sources.” However, Shu teaches the limitation in ¶ 86. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of Ohki in view of Oggier with the plurality of light sources as taught by Shu since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). The artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would have found it obvious to modify the light source of Ohki in view of Oggier to use a plurality of light sources as taught by Shu since doing so would predictably improve system performance by expanding spatial coverage, increasing measurement reliability, improving signal-to-noise ratio, and enabling faster acquisition of distance information across a wider field without requiring mechanical scanning. This update would have been pursued and accomplished with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the one or more photosensors are physically adjacent to the first photosensor in an array of photosensors (Oggier, ¶¶ 36-37).
Regarding claim 3, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the array of photosensors comprises a solid-state array of photosensors (Ohki, ¶ 192, 2D SPAD array of CMOS image sensors).
Regarding claim 4, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the one or more photosensors comprises eight photosensors that are orthogonally adjacent or diagonally adjacent to the first photosensor (Ohki, ¶ 447, 5x5 array).
Regarding claim 5, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the one or more photosensors are not physically adjacent to the first photosensor in an array of photosensors (Ohki, ¶ 447, SPADs not physically adjacent to the first SPAD, such as those two pixels away), but wherein the one or more photosensors are positioned to receive photons from physical areas that are adjacent to a physical area from which photons are received by the first photosensor (Ohki, ¶ 1269-1271, each SPAD correspond to distinct physical area in outside world A(x,y), and adjacent SPADs, including those twice removed, primarily receive photons from adjacent physical areas of the same object). Furthermore, Shu also teaches the limitation in ¶ 87, motivated by providing different fields of view.
Regarding claim 6, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 5, and further teaches: wherein the plurality of photosensors are arranged in an array of photosensors (Ohki, SPAD array 13, Fig. 1) that rotates around a central axis of the optical measurement system (Shu, Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify optical measurement system of Ohki in view of Shu with rotation around a central axis as further taught by Shu with the motivation to impart scanning for an increased field of view and 360-degree ranging capabilities (Shu, ¶¶ 64 and 93).
Regarding claim 9, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the combined distance measurement is above the detection limit of the optical measurement system after combining the first distance measurement with the one or more other distance measurements (Inherent, the first distance measurement with the one or more other distance measurements are necessarily detectable (i.e., above the detection limit) by the optical measurement system else there would not be a distance measurement in the first place; therefore, the combined distance measurements must also necessarily be above the system’s detection limit).
Regarding claim 10, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the detection limit represents a minimum number of photons received by a corresponding photosensor (Ohki, ¶ 267, intensity threshold Iambient naturally understood as proportional to number of photons incident each second per unit area).
Regarding claim 12, Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the circuit and the plurality memory blocks are implemented on a same integrated circuit (Shu, ¶ 399, integrated circuit comprising processor and memory; 331, Fig. 2; 3531, Fig. 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohki in view of Shu with the further teachings of Shu since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR rationale F). The artisan skilled in optical measurement systems would have found it obvious to modify the circuit and memory of Ohki such that they were on the same integrated circuit as taught by Shu since doing so would predictably improve system performance by reducing signal transmission time between circuit and memory blocks, decreasing signal delay and degradation, yielding faster and more efficient data processing. This update would have been pursued and accomplished with predictable results. Accordingly, the claim is rendered obvious through the straightforward application of Shu’s teachings to Ohki in view of Shu.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohki in view of Oggier further in view of Shu in further view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 11, Ohki in view of Oggier/Shu teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the circuit to combine the information from the first histogram with the information from the one or more histograms comprises a processor (Ohki, computation unit 16, Fig. 1; ¶ 1, computer) […]. Ohki in view of Shu does not teach: [the circuit] implemented on an integrated circuit that is different from an integrated circuit on which the plurality of memory blocks is implemented. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that modular design practices involving separate processor and memory integrated circuits were well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohki’s circuit and memory blocks to be implemented on separate integrated circuits, as doing so would have predictably allowed for independent optimization of processing and storage functions, facilitated upgrades or replacements of individual components, improved thermal management by distributing heat loads across different substrates, and reduced electrical interference between processing and memory operations.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohki in view of Oggier.
Regarding claim 13, Ohki teaches a method of using spatially adjacent pixel information in an optical measurement system (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
transmitting one or more pulse trains over one or more first time intervals as part of an optical measurement (40, Fig. 1; ¶ 208);
detecting, using a plurality of photosensors (13, Fig. 1), reflected photons from the one or more pulse trains (41, Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of photosensors comprises a first photosensor and one or more photosensors that are spatially adjacent to the first photosensor (¶¶ 197, 212 & 214, one histogram for each SPAD at time t and position (x, y) expressed as H(t, x, y, n));
accumulating photons counts received during the one or more time intervals by the plurality of photosensors to represent a plurality of histograms of photon counts (¶¶ 197, 212), wherein
the plurality of histograms comprises a first histogram corresponding to the first photosensor (¶ 214, histogram H(t, x, y, n) of SPAD at (x, y)) and one or more histograms corresponding to the one or more photosensors (¶ 197, corresponding histograms the other SPADs);
calculating a first distance measurement based on information from the first histogram; calculating one or more other distance measurements based on information from the one or more other histograms (¶ 268, distance calculation from histogram);
determining that the first histogram corresponds to a response below a detection threshold (¶ 267, H(n) and σ(n) used to judge whether the bin’s histogram response is sufficiently separated from ambient noise Iambient as governed by Expression 10); and
in response to determining that the response is below the detection threshold, [the response is not used] (¶ 271).
Ohki does not teach: “combining the first distance measurement and the one or more other distance measurements to generate a combined distance measurement.” However, Oggier teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 36-37 & 39, where distance measurement from neighboring pixels are combined in response to noise level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ohki with that of Oggier with a reasonable expectation for success in order to compensate for unwanted noise through the employment of neighboring pixels, thereby yielding a system with higher precision and measurement reliability (see Oggier, ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 14, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: wherein the reflected photons received by the first photosensor and received by the one or more photosensors are reflected from a same object in the surrounding environment (Ohki, 20, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 194-195).
Regarding claim 15, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: the information from the first histogram comprises photon counts in the first histogram; the information from the one or more histograms comprises photon counts in the one or more histograms; and the combined distance measurement is calculated based on an aggregation of the photon counts in the first histogram with the photon counts in the one or more histograms (Ohki, ¶¶ 373-374 and 475-476, detects peak and sharpens histogram by combining neighboring histograms to determine distance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the calculation of the combined distance measurement of Ohki in view of Oggier with the additional teachings of Ohki with a reasonable expectation for success in order to sharpen the histogram and reduce false detections (Ohki, ¶ 373).
Regarding claim 16, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: the information from the first histogram comprises first one or more peaks in the first histogram; the information from the one or more histograms comprises second one or more peaks in the one or more histograms; and the combined distance measurement is calculated based on a combination of the first one or more peaks and the second one or more peaks (Ohki, ¶¶ 421-423). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the calculation of the combined distance measurement of Ohki in view of Oggier with the additional teachings of Ohki with a reasonable expectation for success in order to sharpen the histogram and reduce false detections (Ohki, ¶ 373).
Regarding claim 17, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches: wherein the combined distance measurement is calculated based on a summation of the first one or more peaks and the second one or more peaks (Oggier, ¶¶ 36-37).
Regarding claim 18, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches: wherein the combined distance measurement is calculated based on a Gaussian combination of the first one or more peaks and the second one or more peaks (Ohki, ¶¶ 865-867, summation of Gaussian distributions for distance determination). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the calculation of the combined distance measurement of Ohki in view of Oggier with the additional teachings of Ohki with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase the reliability and measurement stability (Ohki, ¶¶ 825-826 & 835-837).
Regarding claim 19, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches: wherein the combined distance measurement is calculated based on a convolution of the first one or more peaks and the second one or more peaks (Ohki, ¶ 1599, convolution of the multiple peaks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the calculation of the combined distance measurement of Ohki in view of Oggier with the additional teachings of Ohki with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enable high-quality distance measurements without dependence on expensive optics (Ohki, ¶¶ 1552 & 1605).
Regarding claim 20, Ohki in view of Oggier teaches the method of claim 16, and further teaches: wherein combined when pthe distance measurement is calculated based on a weighted combination of the first one or more peaks and the second one or more peaks (Ohki, ¶ 342, summing of weighted peaks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the calculation of the combined distance measurement of Ohki in view of Oggier with the additional teachings of Ohki with a reasonable expectation for success in order to more improve measurement accuracy and precision (Ohki, ¶¶ 236 & 239).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Moore (EP3370080A1) which discloses confidence level thresholding based on the histogram distribution associated with a SPAD pixel.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645