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
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 1 February 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the specification.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the claims.
No claims were amended. No claims were cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-40 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 U.S.C. 103 refection of claim 1. Applicant raised two contentions in support:
(1) On pages 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Kirillov fails to disclose “trigger a connection of an analog sensor to an adjacent sensing cell that is adjacent to the first sensing cell”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dual-readout architecture) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Kirillov teaches “trigger a connection of an analog sensor to an adjacent sensing cell that is adjacent to the first sensing cell” through coupling pixels of the 2D photodetector array, consisting of APD pixels, to the analog readout circuit (Fig. 2, 2D photodetector array 15a, analog readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0038],[0040]-[0041]). In addition, Kirillov teaches triggering a connection to an adjacent sensing cell that is adjacent to the first sensing cell by coupling Block 2, which is adjacent to Block 1, to the readout circuit during second reading cycle (Fig. 3, Reading cycle #2, Block 2, readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0073]).
(2) On pages 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Deane fails to disclose “determine an offset between an actual position of a reflection signal and an expected position of the reflection signal based on the first measurement and the analog measurement.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., offset determination without degradation of the signal-to-noise ratio) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Deane teaches determining a distance error that can be induced from mechanical/optical misalignment (Paragraph [0087]). The claim limitation is taught by Deane because the determined distance error due to an optical misalignment is equivalent to determining an offset between an actual position of a reflection signal and an expected position of the reflection signal.
Thus, the combination of Kirillov and Deane teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 21-25, 27-29, and 32-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirillov et al., US 20200103507 A1 ("Kirillov") in view of Deane, US 20150285625 A1 ("Deane").
Regarding claim 1, Kirillov discloses a time-of-flight (TOF) optical sensor (Kirillov, Fig. 1, optical receiver 15, Paragraph [0027]), comprising: a two-dimensional sensing array comprising a plurality of sensing cells (Kirillov, Fig. 1, 2D photodetector array 15a, Paragraph [0027]-[0028]); a readout unit comprising a plurality of readout TOF modules (Kirillov, Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, controller 16, Paragraph [0040]-[0042]), wherein a number of the plurality of readout TOF modules is less than a number of the plurality of sensing cells (Kirillov, Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, processing and control unit/controller 16, Paragraph [0040]-[0042], Paragraph [0059]); and a controller (Fig. 2, controller 16, Paragraph [0059]-[0060]) configured to: trigger a connection of a first sensing cell of the plurality of sensing cells to a first readout TOF module of the plurality of readout TOF modules at a first time during a sampling period (Paragraph [0040-0042], Fig. 3, Reading cycle #1, Block1, Paragraph [0069]-[0072]), thereby enabling the first readout TOF module to provide a first measurement of a change in output of the first sensing cell (Paragraph [0072]); trigger a connection of an analog sensor to an adjacent sensing cell that is adjacent to the first sensing cell, thereby enabling the analog sensor to provide an analog measurement of a change in output of the adjacent sensing cell (Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0041]: readout from detector array is analog so all pixels are analog; See also: Fig. 3, Block 2 adjacent to Block 1, Paragraph [0073]).
Kirillov does not teach: and determine an offset between an actual position of a reflection signal and an expected position of the reflection signal based on the first measurement and the analog measurement.
However, Deane teaches a pixel array with a sub-array of pixels that are activated to correspond to where the predicted photons should arrive (Fig. 5, image sensor architecture 500, sub-array 550, Paragraph 0078]). Deane also teaches determining distance error induced from mechanical/optical misalignment and increasing the size of the active pixel sub-array to account for the misalignment (Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kirillov’s optical receiver and readout circuit by determining distance error induced by misalignment and increasing the active pixel group size to account for the misalignment, which is disclosed by Deane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease the likelihood of missing a returning set of photons, as suggested by Deane (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of sensing cells is not connected to any readout TOF modules at the first time (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading cycle #1, Blocks 2-K, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: trigger a connection of a second sensing cell of the plurality of sensing cells to the first readout TOF module at a second time during the sampling period, thereby enabling the first readout TOF module to provide a second measurement of a change in output of the second sensing cell (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading cycle #2, Block 2, Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 3, wherein: the first sensing cell is not connected to any readout TOF modules at the second time (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading cycle #2, Block 1, Paragraph [0073]); and the second sensing cell is not connected to any readout TOF modules at the first time (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading cycle #1, Block 2, Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of sensing cells is connected to one of the readout TOF modules at least once during the sampling period (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading cycle #1-K, Blocks 1-K, Paragraph [0069-0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: based, at least in part, on the first measurement, determine a subset of the plurality of sensing cells to be connected to one or more of the plurality of readout TOF modules during a scanning period after the sampling period (Kirillov, Fig. 3, select Block 2 for Reading cycle #2 after Reading cycle #1, Paragraph [0069] – [0073], Paragraph [0077]); and trigger a connection of each sensing cell of the subset to one of the plurality of readout TOF modules during the scanning period, thereby enabling each of the plurality of the readout TOF module to provide a scanning measurement of a change in output of one or more sensing cells that are connected to the each of the plurality of the readout TOF module during the scanning period (Kirillov, Fig. 3, connect each row of block to CH_1-CH_N of readout circuit 15c ,Paragraph [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 7, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 6.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the subset includes the first sensing cell.
However, Deane does teach an array of photodiodes where a sub-array of pixels is activated according to an interrogation source pattern. The sub-array of pixels is activated and deactivated in a rolling pattern (Fig. 5, sub-array 550, Paragraph [0076], Paragraph [0078]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of pixels selected during each readout cycle, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using a “rolling sub-array” cycle of reading out pixel subsets, which is taught by Deane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce both power consumed and the probability of pixel activation due to a non-interrogation source event”, as suggested by Deane (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 6, wherein the first sensing cell is not included in the subset (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Block 1 - Block K do not overlap, Paragraph [0072]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the scanning measurements (Kirillov, Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, controller/ processing and control unit 16, Paragraph [0041]-[0042]); and detect one or more objects based on the scanning measurements (Kirillov, Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 11, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, further comprising at least one processor configured to: receive the first measurement (Kirillov, Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, controller/processing and control unit 16, Paragraph [0041]-[0042]); and detect one or more objects based on the first measurement (Kirillov, Paragraph [0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim [[12]]1, wherein the controller is further configured to: based, at least in part, on the second measurement and the first measurement, determine a subset of the plurality of sensing cells to be connected to one or more readout TOF modules during a scanning period after the sampling period (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading Cycle #3 (not shown), Paragraph [0072]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 14, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses TOF optical sensor of claim 13.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the subset includes the adjacent sensing cell.
However, Deane does teach an array of photodiodes where a sub-array of pixels is activated according to an interrogation source pattern. The sub-array of pixels is activated and deactivated in a rolling pattern (Fig. 5, sub-array 550, Paragraph [0076], Paragraph [0078]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blocks of pixels selected during each readout cycle disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using a “rolling sub-array” cycle of reading out pixel subsets, which is taught by Deane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce both power consumed and the probability of pixel activation due to a non-interrogation source event”, as suggested by Deane (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust, based, at least in part, on the first measurement, a scanning module to modify at least one light emission directed to a field of view of a LIDAR system (Kirillov, Fig. 1, illumination unit 10, MEMs mirror 12, Paragraph [0060], Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 17, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensing cells are arranged in a lattice (Kirillov, Fig. 2, 2D photodetector array 15a, Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 17, wherein the lattice is at least one of a rectangular lattice, a rhombic lattice, a hexagonal lattice, or an oblique lattice (Kirillov, Fig. 2, 2D photodetector array 15a, Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 21, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensing cells and the plurality of readout TOF modules are implemented on a single chip (Kirillov, Paragraph [0022]: sensor and further components may be integrated on a single chip).
Regarding claim 22, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the number of the plurality of readout TOF modules is less than the number of the plurality of sensing cells by at least one order of magnitude (Kirillov, Fig. 2, 2D photodetector array 15a, analog readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0039]-[0042], [0048]: one readout circuit and one ADC and one FPGA and TDC for entire photodetector array, Paragraph [0052]: at least 12x24 pixels shown).
Regarding claim 23, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the number of the plurality of readout TOF modules is less than the number of the plurality of sensing cells by at least two orders of magnitude (Kirillov, Fig. 2, 2D photodetector array 15a, analog readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0039]-[0042], [0048]: one readout circuit and one ADC and one FPGA and TDC for entire photodetector array, Paragraph [0052]: at least 12x24 pixels shown).
Regarding claim 24, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the number of the plurality of readout TOF modules is less than the number of the plurality of sensing cells by at least three orders of magnitude.
However, Deane does teach an image sensor with many pixels, for example 1280 x 720 pixels (Paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using 1280 x 720 pixels, which is taught by Deane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a high definition image sensor, as suggested by Deane (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 25, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the number of the plurality of readout TOF modules is less than the number of the plurality of sensing cells by at least four orders of magnitude.
However, Deane does teach an image sensor with many pixels, for example 1280 x 720 pixels (Paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using 1280 x 720 pixels, which is taught by Deane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a high definition image sensor, as suggested by Deane (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 27, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is operable to synchronize measurements of one or more or the plurality of sensing cells with a light source of a LIDAR system in which the TOF optical sensor is installed (Kirillov, Fig. 1, illumination unit 10, Paragraph [0060], Paragraph [0076], Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 28, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is operable to synchronize measurements of one or more or the plurality of sensing cells with a scanning module of a LIDAR system in which the TOF optical sensor is installed (Kirillov, Fig. 1, illumination unit 10, MEMs mirror 12, Paragraph [0060], Paragraph [0076], Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 29, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is operable to synchronize measurements of one or more or the plurality of sensing cells with a scanning module and a light source of a LIDAR system in which the TOF optical sensor is installed (Kirillov, Fig. 1, illumination unit 10, MEMs mirror 12, Paragraph [0060], Paragraph [0076], Paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 32, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: trigger a connection of each sensing cell of a subset of the plurality of sensing cells to one of the plurality of readout TOF modules at the first time (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading cycle #1, Block 1, Paragraph [0069]-[0072]), thereby enabling each of the plurality of the readout TOF module to provide a measurement of a change in output of one or more sensing cells that are connected to the each of the plurality of the readout TOF module (Kirillov, Fig. 3, readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0048]-[0049]), wherein the subset includes the first sensing cell (Kirillov, Fig. 3, pixel within Block 1, Paragraph [0070]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 33, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 32, wherein the subset of the plurality of sensing cells is selected based on a shape of a light emission directed to a field of view of a LIDAR system (Kirillov, Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 34, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 32, wherein the subset of the plurality of sensing cells comprise less than 50% of the plurality of sensing cells (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Block 1, Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 35, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 32, wherein: at least one of the plurality of readout TOF modules is connected to two or more sensing cells of the subset of the plurality of sensing cells (Kirillov, Fig. 3, multiplexer 15b, readout circuit 15c, Paragraph [0070]-[0072]); and the at least one of the plurality of readout TOF modules is configured to provide a readout indicative of a change in an amount of light detected by the two or more sensing cells of the subset of the plurality of sensing cells (Kirillov, Paragraph [0072]).
Claim 36 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 37, Kirillov discloses a time-of-flight (TOF) optical sensor, comprising: a two-dimensional sensing array comprising a plurality of sensing cells (Fig. 1, 2D photodetector array 15a, Paragraph [0027]-[0028]); a readout unit comprising a plurality of readout TOF modules (Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, controller 16, Paragraph [0040]-[0042]), wherein a number of the plurality of readout TOF modules is less than a number of the plurality of sensing cells (Paragraph [0039]-[0042], [0048]: one readout circuit and one ADC and one FPGA and TDC for entire photodetector array, Paragraph [0052]: at least 12x24 pixels shown); and a controller configured to: for each sensing cell of a first subset of the plurality of sensing cells (Fig. 3, Reading cycle #1, Block 1, Paragraph [0069]-[0072]), trigger a connection of the each sensing cell of the first subset of the plurality of sensing cells to one of the plurality of readout TOF modules at a first time (Fig. 3, Block 1 connected to analog readout circuit 15c Ch_1 – Chhin, Paragraph [0069]-[0072]), thereby enabling the one of the plurality of readout TOF modules to provide a first measurement of a change in output of one or more sensing cells of the first subset that are connected to the one of the plurality of readout TOF modules (Paragraph [0072]).
Kirillov does not teach: and based on the measurements, determine an offset between an actual position of a reflection signal and an expected position of the reflection signal based on the first measurement and the analog measurement.
However, Deane teaches a pixel array with a sub-array of pixels that are activated to correspond to where the predicted photons should arrive (Fig. 5, image sensor architecture 500, sub-array 550, Paragraph 0078]). Deane also teaches determining distance error induced from mechanical/optical misalignment and increasing the size of the active pixel sub-array to account for the misalignment (Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kirillov’s optical receiver and readout circuit by determining distance error induced by misalignment and increasing the active pixel group size to account for the misalignment, which is disclosed by Deane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease the likelihood of missing a returning set of photons, as suggested by Deane (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 38, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 37, wherein the controller is further configured to: based on the determined offset, determine a second subset of the plurality of sensing cells (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Block 2, Reading cycle #2, Paragraph [0073]), wherein each sensing cells of the second subset is to be connected to one of the plurality of readout TOF modules at a second time (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Block 2 connected to analog readout circuit 15c Ch_1 – Chhin, Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 39, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 38, wherein the controller is further configured to: for each sensing cell of the second subset of the plurality of sensing cells, trigger a connection of the each sensing cell of the second subset of the plurality of sensing cells to one of the plurality of readout TOF modules at the second time (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading Cycle #2, Block 2 connected to analog readout circuit 15c Ch_1 – Chhin, Paragraph [0073]), thereby enabling the one of the plurality of readout TOF modules to provide a second measurement of a change in output of one or more sensing cells of the second subset that are connected to the one of the plurality of readout TOF modules during a scanning period (Kirillov, Fig. 3, Reading Cycle #2,Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 40, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 39, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the second measurements; and detect one or more objects based on the second measurements (Kirillov, Fig. 2, analog readout circuit 15c, controller/processing and control unit 16, Paragraph [0047]-[0049]).
Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, in further view of Wang et al., US 20180059224 A1 ("Wang").
Regarding claim 10, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 6.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein a duration of the sampling period is equal to or less than a duration of the scanning period.
However, Wang teaches timing of different signals sent to a pixel in a pixel array. In the timing sequence, the period when the shutter is on is the active period of the pixel. The shutter on period is greater than or equal to the CDS Readout and ADC conversion period (Fig. 7, Shutter On period 138, CDS Readout 144, ADC Conversion 145, Paragraph [0064]-[0066]) .
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the 2D photodetector array and analog readout circuit, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using the known technique of first implementing a shutter on period and then implementing a sampling period for a lesser or equal amount of time, which is taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known timing technique to the operation of the Kirillov’s 2D photodetector array, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 26, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the controller comprises a decoder configured to determine the first sensing cell of the plurality of sensing cells.
However, Wang teaches row decoders included in an image sensor unit. The row decoder includes seven signals to operate the pixels in each row to collect and transfer signals (Fig. 5, row decoder/ driver 72, Paragraph [0053]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by adding row decoders, which is disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control the operation of the pixels in the pixel array, as suggested by Wang (Paragraph [0053]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, in further view of Sugawa et al., US 20180234652 A1 ("Sugawa").
Regarding claim 16, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the two-dimensional sensing array comprises at least one sensing cell that includes at least one high-gain transistor and at least one low-gain transistor.
However, Sugawa teaches a pixel circuit connected to a column circuit. The column circuit comprises three reading circuits. The first column reading circuit has a switch means that connects to a high-gain amplifier (Fig. 1, first column reading circuit 102HG, switch means 104HG, high-gain amplifier 105HG, Paragraph [0083]). The second column reading circuit has a switch means that connects to a low gain amplifier (Fig. 1, second column reading circuit 102LG, switch means 104LG, low-gain amplifier 105LG, Paragraph [0085]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by adding a low-gain and high-gain reading circuit for each pixel, which is disclosed by Sugawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ [make] it possible to obtain an ultra-highly sensitive signal and a highly sensitive signal”, as suggested by Sugawa (Paragraph [0092]).
Claims 19-20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, in further view of Van Lierop et al., US 20190285734 A1 ("Van Lierop").
Regarding claim 19, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the plurality of sensing cells are implemented on a single chip.
However, Van Lierop does teach a 2D pixel array included within a single chip (Fig. 6A, Paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using the known technique of implementing all pixels on a single chip, which is taught by Van Lierop. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique to Kirillov’s 2D photodetector array, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the plurality of sensing cells are implemented on two or more chips.
However, Van Lierop does teach a 2D pixel array implemented on two separate chips (Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using the known technique of implementing the pixels on two separate chips, which is taught by Van Lierop. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique to Kirillov’s 2D photodetector array, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 31, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the first measurement measures a trace of light intensity impinging on the first sensing cell along a time of flight corresponding to at least 10 meters.
However, Van Lierop does teach a detectable area of a central field of view with a maximum range of 100 meters and a detectable area of side fields of view with a maximum range of 50 meters. The central field of view is sensed by inner columns of the pixel detector and the side fields of view are sensed by edge columns of the pixel detector (Fig. 1C, Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by using central pixels that are sensitive to ranges up to 100 meters and edge pixels which are sensitive to ranges up to 50 meters, which is disclosed by Van Lierop. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “achieve both long range detection and a wide field of view of detection”, as suggested by Van Lierop (Paragraph [0023]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, in view of Audier et al., US 8107057 B2 ("Audier").
Regarding claim 30, Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, discloses the TOF optical sensor of claim 1.
Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, does not teach: wherein the first sensing cell of the plurality of sensing cells is randomly selected to be connected to the plurality of the readout TOF modules at the first time.
However, Audier does teach an array of photodiodes (Fig. 3, Matrix detector 2, Col. 5 lines 39-44) where the photodiodes are preferably windowed with random sizes and positions on the photodetector array (Col. 6 lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 2D photodetector array, disclosed by Kirillov, as modified in view of Deane, by randomly selecting the size and location of pixel blocks to read out, which is disclosed by Audier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “allow frames of reduced sizes to be read quickly”, as suggested by Audier (Col. 6 lines 22-24).
Conclusion
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 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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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 at (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights