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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claim 9 is now canceled, so no longer renders itself or claim 10 indefinite. Note that, in moving limitations from claims 8 and 9 into claim 1, the wording was amended, so claim 1 does not inherit the indefiniteness previously present in claim 9.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Hicks to teach the limitation specifically challenged in the arguments.
Since claim 1 is not allowable, similar arguments do not make claim 14 allowable, and the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US Patent Document 20190045173) in view of Holz (US patent publication 20150253428).
Regarding claim 1, Hicks teaches a distance measurement system, comprising: a surface emitting semiconductor laser configured to project that projects light onto a subject (FIG. 4, VCSEL array 406), wherein
the surface emitting semiconductor laser includes a plurality of light sources in an array (VCSEL array 406 is an array) dot arrangement (paragraph 35, sentence 5), and
the plurality of light sources is in a two-dimensional array (paragraph 56. Note that the x-y plane is two-dimensional);
an event detection sensor configured to: receive the light reflected from the subject; and detect, as an event, that a change in luminance of a pixel exceeds a threshold (FIG. 4, Dynamic Vision Sensor 402); and
a controller configured to: control the surface emitting semiconductor laser and the event detection sensor (FIG. 4, processor 101);
drive, for a first time period, two light sources of the plurality of light sources to concurrently emit light (paragraph 85, the first pixel and second pixel of the dynamic projector may overlap temporally), wherein the two light sources are adjacent in the array dot arrangement as a unit driven by the controller (paragraph 70 describes scanning across the rows (or columns) of the pixels in the dynamic array, indicating adjacency), wherein for the drive of the two light sources, the controller is further configured to:
drive, for two second time periods, the two light sources to emit light, wherein a first light source of the two light sources is driven independently of a second light source of the two light sources in the two second time periods (paragraph 85, the first pixel and second pixel of the dynamic projector having differing temporal characteristics amounts to being on independently).
Hicks does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to adjust light emission intensities of the two light sources to shift a peak position associated with the two light sources by a specific amount within the first time period; and
control the two light sources to cause an intensity peak to be constant based on the shift of the peak position, wherein the intensity peak is associated with the two light sources.
In the same field of endeavor of structured illumination projection and detection, Holz does teach that the controller is configured to adjust light emission intensities of the two light sources (FIG. 9B shows intensity cycles for two light sources) to shift a peak position associated with the two light sources by a specific amount within the first time period; and control the two light sources to cause an intensity peak to be constant based on the shift of the peak position, wherein the intensity peak is associated with the two light sources (paragraph 87 describes how the sine and cosine illumination cycles combine to cause a constant intensity, with the peak of the intensity distribution moving between the position where one of the lights is pointed and where the other is pointed). By using a particularly designed spatial and temporal overlap in the emissions of the two light sources, Holz is able to increase the angular resolution of the illumination system as a whole (see paragraph 86, penultimate sentence) providing a “cross-fading” effect.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement system of Hicks with the intensity peak shifting of Holz to improve the ability of the device to resolve positions by illuminating positions between where the individual dots are projected while scanning the illumination.
Regarding claim 2, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 1 (as described above).
Hicks further teaches that the controller is further configured to drive the two light sources at a same light emission intensity (paragraph 67 teaches that an intensity can be one of the temporal characteristics, while paragraph 68 teaches the simplistic approach of differing start and stop times while keeping other temporal characteristics the same, which would include intensity).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 2 (as described above).
Hicks further teaches that the controller is further configured to drive the two light sources at a same light emission intensity (paragraph 67 teaches that an intensity can be one of the temporal characteristics, while paragraph 68 teaches the simplistic approach of differing start and stop times while keeping other temporal characteristics the same, which would include intensity).
Regarding claim 7, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 1 (as described above).
Hicks further teaches that the controller is further configured to drive the two light sources at different light emission intensities (paragraph 67 lists intensity as a temporal characteristic that can vary between pixels of the dynamic projector. Additionally, paragraph 72 characterizes an off state as corresponding to a low illumination intensity compared to a high illumination intensity for an on state. A high illumination intensity is different from a low illumination intensity.).
Regarding claim 10, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 1 (as described above).
Hicks further teaches that the controller is further configured to gradually reduce a light emission intensity of the first light source of the two light sources (paragraph 72, ramping to an off state) and, in synchronization therewith (FIG. 4, projector driver 108 controls synchronization of all pixels of dynamic projector 105), gradually increase a light emission intensity of the second light source of the two light sources (paragraph 72, ramping up to an on state).
Also see FIG. 9B of Holz, which shows an example of gradually reducing a light intensity of a first light source and, in synchronization therewith gradually increase a light emission intensity of a second light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adopted a similar synchronized reduction and increase in intensities while modifying Hicks with the teachings of Holz as described above.
Regarding claim 12, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 1 (as described above).
Hicks further teaches that the surface emitting semiconductor laser is a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (FIG. 4, VCSEL Array 406. Note that VCSEL is an abbreviation of vertical cavity surface emitting laser.).
Regarding claim 13, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 12 (as described above).
Hicks further teaches that the vertical cavity surface emitting laser is configured to project light of a specific pattern onto the subject (FIG. 4, light pattern 114).
Regarding claim 14, Hicks teaches an electronic apparatus, (FIG. 18, as well as paragraph 25), comprising:
a distance measurement system including: a surface emitting semiconductor laser configured to project projects light onto a subject (FIG. 4, VCSEL array 406), wherein
the surface emitting semiconductor laser includes a plurality of light sources in an array (VCSEL array 406 is an array) dot arrangement (paragraph 35, sentence 5), and
the plurality of light sources is in a two-dimensional array (paragraph 56. Note that the x-y plane is two-dimensional);
an event detection sensor configured to: receive light reflected from the subject; and detect, as an event, that a change in luminance of a pixel exceeds a threshold (FIG. 4, Dynamic Vision Sensor 402); and
a controller configured to: control the surface emitting semiconductor laser and the event detection sensor (FIG. 4, processor 101);
drive, for a first time period, two light sources of the plurality of light sources to concurrently emit light (paragraph 85, the first pixel and second pixel of the dynamic projector may overlap temporally), wherein the two light sources are adjacent in the array dot arrangement as a unit (paragraph 70 describes scanning across the rows (or columns) of the pixels in the dynamic array, indicating adjacency), wherein for the drive of the two light sources, the controller is further configured to:
drive, for two second time periods, the two light sources to emit light, wherein a first light source of the two light sources is driven independently of a second light source of the two light sources in the two second time periods (paragraph 85, the first pixel and second pixel of the dynamic projector having differing temporal characteristics amounts to being on independently).
Hicks does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to adjust light emission intensities of the two light sources to shift a peak position associated with the two light sources by a specific amount within the first time period; and
control the two light sources to cause an intensity peak to be constant based on the shift of the peak position, wherein the intensity peak is associated with the two light sources.
In the same field of endeavor of structured illumination projection and detection, Holz does teach that the controller is configured to adjust light emission intensities of the two light sources (FIG. 9B shows intensity cycles for two light sources) to shift a peak position associated with the two light sources by a specific amount within the first time period; and control the two light sources to cause an intensity peak to be constant based on the shift of the peak position, wherein the intensity peak is associated with the two light sources (paragraph 87 describes how the sine and cosine illumination cycles combine to cause a constant intensity, with the peak of the intensity distribution moving between the position where one of the lights is pointed and where the other is pointed). By using a particularly designed spatial and temporal overlap in the emissions of the two light sources, Holz is able to increase the angular resolution of the illumination system as a whole (see paragraph 86, penultimate sentence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement system of Hicks with the intensity peak shifting of Holz to improve the ability of the device to resolve positions by illuminating positions between where the individual dots are projected while scanning the illumination.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US Patent Document 20190045173) in view of Holz (US patent publication 20150253428), further in view of Moeys (Non-Patent Literature “A Sensitive Dynamic and Active Pixel Vision Sensor for Color or Neural Imaging Applications”).
Regarding claim 4, Hicks, as modified by Holz, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 2 (as described above).
While Hicks does not explicitly teach that the controller is further configured to reduce a sensitivity of the event detection sensor from a first value in each time period of the two second time periods to a second value in the first time period, Hicks does teach the use of an amplified difference circuit (FIG. 5, differencing circuit 512) in the design of an event-based pixel, though Hicks is silent as to the degree of gain or any adjustments thereto.
In the same field of endeavor of amplified event detection sensors, Moeys does teach that the controller is further configured to reduce a sensitivity of the event detection sensor from a first value in each time period of the two second time periods (section B. Operating Region Control, an average signal is generated based on average illumination of the scene. That signal is sent to a controller (FPGA) that uses a look-up table to set a gain on the amplifiers in the pixel array, allowing the sensors to become less sensitive as total illumination increases.) to a second value in the first time period (such as in a period in which the controller drives the two light sources to be on at the same time). By using dynamic control of amplification, Moeys allows the event detection to decrease sensitivity when less sensitivity is needed, such as when illumination is high, avoiding voltage saturation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic vision system of Hicks, as modified by Holz, with the controlled preamplification of Moeys to decrease the sensitivity of the event-based pixels when the scene is more illuminated by overlapping activation times of projector pixels to avoid voltage saturation.
Regarding claim 5, Hicks, as modified by Holz and Moeys, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 4 (as described above).
While Hicks does not explicitly teach that the controller is further configured to increase, after the first time period, the sensitivity of the event detection sensor from the second value, Hicks does teach the use of an amplified difference circuit (FIG. 5, differencing circuit 512) in the design of an event-based pixel, though Hicks is silent as to the degree of gain or any adjustments thereto.
In the same field of endeavor of amplified event detection sensors, Moeys does teach that the controller is further configured to increase, after the first time period, the sensitivity of the event detection sensor from the second value (section B. Operating Region Control, an average signal is generated based on average illumination of the scene. That signal is sent to a controller (FPGA) that uses a look-up table to set a gain on the amplifiers in the pixel array, allowing the sensors to become more sensitive as total illumination decreases.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic vision system of Hicks, as modified by Holz and Moeys, with the controlled preamplification of Moeys to decrease the sensitivity of the event-based pixels when the scene is less illuminated by singly activated projector pixels to allow detection of smaller events.
Regarding claim 6, Hicks, as modified by Holz and Moeys, teaches or renders obvious the distance measurement system according to claim 5 (as described above).
While Hicks does not explicitly teach that the controller is further configured to increase, after the first time period, the sensitivity of the event detection sensor from the second value to a specific value of the sensitivity as that before start of the first time period, Hicks does teach the use of an amplified difference circuit (FIG. 5, differencing circuit 512) in the design of an event-based pixel, though Hicks is silent as to the degree of gain or any adjustments thereto.
In the same field of endeavor of amplified event detection sensors, Moeys does teach that that the controller is further configured to increase, after the first time period, the sensitivity of the event detection sensor (section B. Operating Region Control, an average signal is generated based on average illumination of the scene. That signal is sent to a controller (FPGA) that uses a look-up table to set a gain on the amplifiers in the pixel array, allowing the sensors to become more sensitive as total illumination decreases.) from the second value to a specific value of the sensitivity as that before start of the first time period (section B. Operating Region Control, the FPGA is described as using a look-up table to choose the output that determines the amplifiers’ gain, and with it the sensitivity of the pixels. When the average illumination returns to its previous value, the input to the FPGA returns to its previous value, so it should refer to the same entry in the look-up table and return to the same amplification.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic vision system of Hicks with the controlled preamplification of Moeys to decrease the sensitivity of the event-based pixels back to its previous sensitivity when the scene is less illuminated by singly activated projector pixels again to allow detection of smaller events as before.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Tarifur 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877