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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, and 4-13 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 12 December 2025. No new matter has been introduced.
Amendments introduce newly added claims 14 and 15.
Prior objections to claims 9 and 10 in relation to minor informalities have been overcome by applicant’s amendments received 12 December 2025 and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under USC §102(a)(2) by anticipation by Meynants (US 20210223371 A1), applicant argues (pg. 9 of Remarks) that Meynants does not teach “a plurality of sub-pixels arranged within the pixel”, specifically noting that the four pixels in the referenced 2x2 matrix are connected to different transfer lines, which is how they readout at different phases, therefore arguing that each subset comprises multiple pixels and not “a plurality of sub-pixels arranged within the pixel”. The current application claims a pixel, which is comprised of sub-pixels, which are groupings of individual detectors, and detection utilizes the sub-pixels in two groups based on detection timing and phase. Meynants teaches a sensor, which is divided into groups of pixels, sometimes referred to as “sub-groups”, where pixels represent individual CMOS detectors, and detection depends on differing readout times and arrangements of phase within, and between, sub-groups ([0083] – [0091], describing Fig. 2). As the applicant notes, one embodiment reads out differing phases/timing within a subgroup, however other embodiments describe sub-groups being per-column, where each sub-group (column) reads out at different phases/times. Therefore, examiner continues to interpret Meynants as teaching the claimed limitations, where differing groupings of individual detectors are operated to detect at different times and phases, as claimed in the current applicant.
The examiner also believes it pertinent to point to both the other prior art made of record and not relied upon, as well as prior art included in the rejections (such as Pacala, US 20220120906 A1) which teach the state of the art, where systems include an array of sensors with various groupings, sub-groupings, and organizations of the sensor elements. Specifically, Pacala ([0052] – [0054], Figs. 2A-2D) teaches an array of sensors, where each sensor is split into sensor banks (224-1 to 224-N) of individual emitters (222) where “…a bank/group in TOF sensor array 220/image sensor array 230 can include a subset of TOF photosensors/image photosensors arranged in a pattern corresponding to the subset of emitters.”
Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 13 appears to be missing the word ‘of’ between “of results” and “the first detection”.
Regarding claim 14, line 7 reads “configured to configured to”.
Regarding claim 15, lines 9 and 10 include “a spatial position” and “a distance to the object”, respectively, where each has been priorly presented in claim 1. Both instances of ‘a’ should be replaced with ‘the’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 includes the limitation “the calculation unit further comprises…”, however claim 1, which claim 15 is dependent upon, does not include a calculation unit. Therefore, claim 15 fails to clearly indicate the specific nature of how the calculation unit integrates within the system of claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 15 will be interpreted as “The optical ranging device according to claim 1, further comprising a calculation unit, which comprises a histogram generation unit…”, where the histograms calculated by this unit are utilized by the determination unit in finding object ranges.
The examiner does note that claim 14 introduces a calculation unit, however claim 15 should not be dependent upon claim 14 as claim 15 includes identical limitations to claim 14, and therefore would not further limit claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meynants (US 20210223371 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meynants anticipates an optical ranging device for measuring a distance to an object using light, comprising:
a light emitting unit configured to emit pulsed light into a predefined region ([0125]; Fig. 8 emitter (EM));
an optical system configured to image reflected light from the predefined region corresponding to the pulsed light to a pixel that performs detection ([0125] - [0127]; Fig. 8 light is reflected off objects (NO, FO) and received by time-of-flight sensor ToFC);
a light receiving unit including a plurality of sub-pixels arranged within the pixel, each of the plurality of sub-pixels being configured to detect the reflected light ([0020], [0081]; Fig. 2 showing embodiments of pixel subsets);
a detection unit configured to perform first detection of the reflected light, which is repeated at time intervals by at least some of the plurality of sub-pixels, and second detection of the reflected light, which is repeated at the time intervals by others of the plurality of sub-pixels ([0079] - [0080]; Fig. 1, where image sensor (IS) is controlled by driver logic (DRV) for both phase driven readouts and charge readout timing),
a timing control unit configured to cause the detection unit to perform the first detection of the reflected light ([0075]; Fig. 1 (CTRL)) and the second detection of the reflected light to be performed at different phases ([0036], [0083] - [0086]; Fig. 2, where different pixels within subgroups are operated according to different phases)
and a determination unit ([0079]; Fig. 1 sensor (IS) and output control (OUT)) configured to, based on superimposition of results of the first detection and the second detection repeated at the time intervals determine a spatial position of the object present in the predefined region range, including a distance to the object ([0006], [0012], [0112], where all voltage readouts are accumulated and distance calculations depend on both voltage readings).
Regarding claim 4, Meynants anticipates the optical ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the timing control unit is configured to cause the detection unit to perform the first and second detection of the reflected light at different phases. ([0083], [0106]; Figs. 2(a-d), where driving phases of pixels within subgroup may have differing phases).
Regarding claim 5, Meynants anticipates the optical ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the timing control unit is configured to set the time intervals at which the first and second detections of the reflected light are repeated to be constant ([0008], [0127]; Fig. 8 collection intervals may function in a periodic pattern).
Regarding claim 6, Meynants anticipates the optical ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the timing control unit is operable to change the time intervals at which the first or second detections of the reflected light are repeated ([0131] - [0134]; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Meynants anticipates the optical ranging device according to claim 1, wherein
the determination unit is configured to detect a spatial position of the object present in the predefined region at a resolution higher than a resolution in terms of the pixel, according to a result of superimposition of temporally spaced first and second detections whose detection phases are different from each other ([0090], where detection by a group of SPADs/photodetectors at different phases will increase resolution).
Regarding claim 13, Meynants anticipates an optical ranging method for measuring a distance to an object using light, comprising:
emitting pulsed light into a predefined region ([0125]);
imaging reflected light from the predefined region corresponding to the pulsed light to a pixel that performs detection, the pixel including a plurality of sub-pixels arranged, each of the plurality of sub-pixels being configured to detect the reflected light ([0125] - [0127]);
performing first detection of the reflected light, which is repeated at time intervals by at least some of the plurality of sub-pixels, and second detection of the reflected light, which is repeated at the time intervals by others of the plurality of sub-pixels, at different phases ([0083] - [0086]; Fig. 2);
and determining, based on superimposition of results the first detection and the second detection repeated at the time intervals, a spatial position of the object present in the predefined region range, including a distance to the object ([0006], [0012], [0079], [0112], where all voltage readouts are accumulated and distance calculations depend on both voltage readings).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynants (US 20210223371 A1), and in view of Pacala (US 20220120906 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Meynants teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 1.
Meynants does not explicitly teach that detectors are grouped into sub-pixels, or of the integration/histogram creation of response signals.
Pacala teaches each of the plurality of sub-pixels includes a plurality of light detection circuits that are configured to individually detect light incidence as an electrical response signal ([0051] - [0053]; Fig. 2 where TOF sensor array (220) has sensor banks (224(n)) and each bank is formed by an array of photosensors), and
the determination unit includes an integrator configured to integrate, for each of the plurality of sub-pixels, a number of response signals from the light detection circuit included in the sub- pixel at timings of the first detection and the second detections of the reflected light, and a memory configured to store the integrated number of response signals for at least one ranging cycle ([0067]).
Meynants does teach that individual detectors can be grouped based on their locations situated beneath microlenses in the array, forming pixels ([0034] - [0035]; Fig. 2), as well as the inclusion of memory to store accumulated readouts of each pixel ([0083]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Pacala to classify sub-pixels as groupings of individual detectors, as well as accumulate data for individual detectors (or pixels) into a memory at each timing of detection with a reasonable expectation of success. This integration could occur without affecting the functionality of Meynants’ pixel array or substantially increase the system memory needs as Meynants already includes a memory for accumulation of data.
Regarding claim 3, Meynants as modified above teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 2.
Meynants does not teach that each individual photodetector making up the array is a SPAD.
Pacala teaches each of the plurality of light detection circuits includes a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) ([0058]).
Pacala teaches that a sensor array of photodiodes which acts as a time-of-flight sensor includes a plurality of photodetectors ([0014]), and Meynants notes their method can work in direct time-of-flight devices, but will work at lower power with their global shutter pixel array ([0054]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Pacala to use an array of SPADs in lieu of a global shutter pixel array with a reasonable expectation of success, as SPAD arrays can incorporate the global shutter functionality of the pixel array taught in Meynants while retaining the sensitivity of a SPAD photodetector.
Regarding claim 7, Meynants teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 6.
Meynants does not teach a process where an emission and detection of pulsed light occurs and, based on the result, a new time interval is determined.
Pacala teaches the timing control unit is configured to perform emission of the pulsed light and the first and second detections of the pulsed light and thereafter change the time intervals based on a result of the first or second detections ([0082]; Fig. 6).
Pacala notes that the detection timing can be changed to allow the photosensors to receive an optimum amount of light ([0081]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Pacala to set a timing control unit to change the time intervals of detection after a cycle of emission and detection has occurred with a reasonable expectation for success. This would produce a system which emits and detects pulsed light as taught by Meynants but which can modify detection timing to improve detection signal-to-noise ratios without negatively affecting the overall functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 8, Meynants teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 1
Meynants does not explicitly teach the detection time interval lengths being shorter than the pulse width.
Pacala teaches the time intervals at which the first detection of the reflected light is repeated and the time intervals at which the second detection of the reflected light is repeated are shorter than a width of the pulsed light to be emitted by the light emitting unit ([0083] - [0084]; Fig. 6, 7 where timing of shutter (602 and 702, respectively) are shorter than emission (600 and 700, respectively)).
Meynants notes pulse durations as well as pixel clocks are alterable by an emitter control ([0127]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Pacala to specifically set the duration of the pixel clock to a shorter time duration than the width of the pulse duration with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of setting a specific detection window to minimize collection of background noise, thereby increasing signal-to-noise, as well as increasing time resolution for scans by having smaller time bins within the accumulated data.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynants (US 20210223371 A1), and in view of Arnold et al. (hereinafter Arnold, US 20180285673 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Meynants teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 1.
Meynants does not teach where the determination unit performs two processes, where in the second process the temporal resolution has increased while the spatial resolution has decreased.
Arnold teaches the determination unit ([0102]; Fig. 19 processor (113)) is configured to perform a first process of detecting the object present in the predefined region at a first spatial resolution and at a first temporal resolution, according to a result of the first or second detections of the reflected light repeated at the time intervals by each of the plurality of sub-pixels, and a second process of detecting the object present in the predefined region at a second spatial resolution lower than the first spatial resolution and at a second temporal resolution higher than the first temporal resolution, according to a result of superimposition of temporally spaced first and second detections whose detection phases are different from each other ([0184] - [0198], [0218], [0284], Claims 16, 17; where the device can be operated in two operating modes wherein one mode has a higher spatial and/or temporal resolution and a second operating mode can be chosen to be a higher temporal resolution and a lower spatial resolution (by choosing 'high resolution' mode the location determination is centered on the center of mass of the object, and the loss of spatial resolution allows for higher frame rates).
Meynants does disclose determining depth maps at different resolutions ([0096]), as well as a system which can adjust pixel clocks to increase or decrease frequency of collections ([0133]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Arnold to choose specific resolution operations of imaging and object detection for a first and second process to trade off an increase of temporal resolution with a decrease in spatial resolution with a reasonable expectation of success, where the tradeoff between resolutions would not substantially affect the processing requirements of the system and therefore would not affect the functionality of the system as taught by Meynants.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynants (US 20210223371 A1), and in view of Keilaf et al. (hereinafter Keilaf, US 20190271767 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Meynants teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 10.
Meynants does not explicitly teach a variable number of subpixels with temporally spaced detections.
Keilaf teaches a number of the sub-pixels for which results of the whose temporally spaced first and second detections are superimposed is variable. ([0158]).
Meynants teaches various embodiments where differing numbers of pixels in the array are connected to different transfer lines, where each grouping has different phases and contributes to the time-of-flight detections ([0083] – [0090]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Keilaf to use a variable allotment of sub-pixels which detect at temporally spaced points with a reasonable expectation of success, where differing transfer lines have variable numbers of photodetectors (pixels) which are read out together based on phase differences would not sufficiently change the array signal readout process as taught by Meynants.
Regarding claim 12, Meynants teaches the optical ranging device according to claim 10.
Meynants does not teach changing the number of sub-pixels utilized for detection after a cycle of emission and detection based on the results of the cycle.
Keilaf prior to changing the number of the sub-pixels for which results of the temporally spaced detections are superimposed, emission of the pulsed light and the temporally spaced first and second detections using these sub- pixels are performed, and the number of the sub-pixels for which results of the temporally spaced detections are superimposed is determined based on results of the temporally spaced first and second detections ([0141] - [0143]; Fig. 4B, where processing unit (108) can change a detection scheme between scans by activating or deactivating detectors (410) based on prior noted regions of interest).
Meynants discloses an example timing sequence where after emission and detection by various sub-pixels at different phases, the system moves stored charges to memory nodes and then afterwards resets the signal ([0104] – [0107]; Fig. 4 where signal is reset at RST). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Keilaf where the processing unit adds a step after pixel readout to change the number of sub-pixels whose temporally spaced detections are superimposed. The addition of this step from Keilaf would not significantly affect the process of Meynants and would have the predictable result of allowing for a variable allotment of sub-pixels to change the resolution between active detection cycles.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynants (US 20210223371 A1), and in view of Notsu et al. (hereinafter Notsu, US 20080309787 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Meynants teaches an optical ranging device for measuring a distance to an object using light, comprising:
a light emitting unit configured to emit pulsed light into a predefined region ([0125]; Fig. 8 emitter (EM));
an optical system configured to image reflected light from the predefined region corresponding to the pulsed light to a pixel that performs detection ([0125] - [0127]; Fig. 8 light is reflected off objects (NO, FO) and received by time-of-flight sensor ToFC);
a light receiving unit including a plurality of sub-pixels arranged within the pixel, each of the plurality of sub-pixels being configured to detect the reflected light ([0020], [0081]; Fig. 2 showing embodiments of pixel subsets)
a calculation unit configured to configured to control the detection of the reflected light by the plurality of sub-pixels to repeatedly detect the reflected light from the object as an elapsed time since emission of the pulsed light by the light emitting unit, the calculation unit comprises ([0078], controller (CTRL) may be implemented in forms such as ASIC logic array or within a general purpose processor/microcontroller which executes control over functionality of the system):
a detection unit configured to perform first detection of the reflected light, which is repeated at time intervals by at least some of the plurality of sub-pixels, and second detection of the reflected light, which is repeated at the time intervals by others of the plurality of sub-pixels ([0079] - [0080]; Fig. 1, where image sensor (IS) is controlled by driver logic (DRV) for both phase driven readouts and charge readout timing),
a timing control unit configured to cause the detection unit to perform the first detection of the reflected light ([0075]; Fig. 1 (CTRL)) and the second detection of the reflected light to be performed at different phases ([0036], [0083] - [0086]; Fig. 2, where different pixels within subgroups are operated according to different phases),
and a determination unit ([0079]; Fig. 1 sensor (IS) and output control (OUT)) configured to, based on superimposition of results of the first detection and the second detection repeated at the time intervals determine a spatial position of the object present in the predefined region range, including a distance to the object ([0006], [0012], [0112], where all voltage readouts are accumulated and distance calculations depend on both voltage readings).
Meynants does not explicitly teach a histogram generation unit, which the output is utilized for object position detection.
Notsu teaches a phase adjustment device, used in light detection based on phase timing within a digital imaging system, where a histogram generation unit is configured to generate a histogram for each sub-pixel by summing the results of the first detection and the second detection, which are repeated at the time intervals by the respective sub-pixels ([0045] - [0050], where the histograms are determined for first and second pixel regions, and a combination of results, such as integration or average, are supplied for further processing).
Meynants does teach that individual detectors can be grouped based on their locations, forming groups ([0034] - [0035]; Fig. 2), as well as the inclusion of memory to store accumulated readouts of each pixel ([0083]). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Meynants to incorporate the teachings of Notsu to utilize histogram creation for each sub-pixel, or grouping of readouts, based on an addition of histograms from two readouts with a reasonable expectation of success. This integration could occur without affecting the functionality of Meynants’ pixel array or substantially increase the system memory needs as Meynants already includes a memory for accumulation of data, and histograms are inherently a method of accumulating data which takes into account time bins, phases, and the like.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected to claim 14, as it introduces an identical additional limitation (a histogram generation unit) to the device of claim 1 as is introduced in claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Finkelstein et al. (US 20190250257 A1) teaches a LIDAR system, which utilizes pulsed emissions, and detectors which may include pixels, broken into sub-pixels, which are implemented as a pair of SPADs, and additionally integrates histogram formation during the detection and processing of object data.
O'Keefe (US 20210109197 A1) teaches a time-of-flight system where resolution based on detector array can be changed based on collected data and a region of interest, among other variables.
Morita et al. (US 20220066038 A1) teaches a time-of-flight distance measuring device which collects data with a SPAD array where a histogram is created from collected data, and the SPAD array is broken down into groupings of macro-pixels.
Kienzler et al. (US 10877133 B2) teaches a sensor and method for measuring distance to objects using pulsed light, where distance data is both collected for individual pulses as well as for aggregate data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645