DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 25 September 2025.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objections to claim 11.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the 112 rejection of claim 8.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 20 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13, the Applicant argues that Finkelstein does not teach “wherein the dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels is configured to determine respective depth information asynchronously at each pixel based on information from one or more adjacent pixels that are configured to detect light at a different modulation frequency.”
On page 13, Applicant states that Finkelstein discloses a temporal relationship between frames, and thus Finkelstein does not teach an asynchronous depth calculation. However, Figs. 5A-E does not disclose any temporal relation between pixels determining depth information. Figs. 5A-E disclose various examples of calculating a target distance through multiple combinations of frequencies. However, Figs. 5A-E do not disclose any temporal information about how a distance is calculated within a single frame from two frequencies. Figs. 5A-E only disclose a temporal relationship between calculating a first distance from Freq1 and Freq 2 and calculating a second distance from Freq3 and Freq4. However, within each frame a distance is still calculated from two distinct frequencies. Fig. 6 teaches “processing the first subset of optical signals to determine a first estimated distance to the target” and “processing the second subset of optical signals to determine a second estimated distance to the target” in two separate blocks 630 and 640, indicating an asynchronous determination of distance. Paragraphs [0097]-[0098] indicate that these distances can be calculated from a single frequency. In Block 650, the true distance is determined through information from the first and second estimated distance. Block 650 does not disclose a temporal relationship where the one distance must be used to generate the other. Thus, Finkelstein teaches an asynchronous relationship between pixels.
On page 14, Applicant also states that Finkelstein does not teach a “dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels” because there is a single control circuit controlling all pixels. However, MPEP 2111.01 states that “under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” The use of “dedicated” in the claim does not necessitate a one-to-one relationship between pixels and compute circuities. Finkelstein’s control circuit 105, can be broadly interpreted as “the dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels” because each pixel in the detector array is controlled by and uses the control circuit 105. In other words, the control circuit 105 has the purpose of controlling and processing data from each of the plurality of pixels. Thus, Finkelstein teaches a dedicated compute circuitry.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finkelstein, US 20210333377 A1 ("Finkelstein").
Regarding claim 11, Finkelstein discloses a depth determination assembly (DDA) comprising: an illuminator comprising: a first coherent light source array on a substrate (Fig. 1, emitter array 115, emitter elements 115e, Paragraph [0045]), the first coherent light source array configured to emit light that is modulated at a first frequency (Fig. 1, emitter elements 115e, Paragraph [0047]), a second coherent light source array on the substrate (Fig. 1, emitter array 115, emitter elements 115e, Paragraph [0047]), the second coherent light source array configured to emit light that is modulated at a second frequency (Fig. 1, emitter elements 115e, Paragraph [0047]), and an optical assembly configured to condition light from the first coherent light source array and light from the second coherent light source array and project the conditioned light into a local area of the DDA (Fig. 1, diffuser 114, Paragraph [0045]); a sensor comprising: a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, detector array 110, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]), and each pixel has dedicated compute circuitry (Fig. 1, control circuit 105, Paragraph [0056]), the plurality of pixels including: a first group of pixels configured to detect light from the local area that has the first modulation frequency (Fig. 1, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]), a second group of pixels configured to detect light from the local area that has the second modulation frequency (Fig. 1, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]); a compute layer that includes the dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels and the compute layer is configured to determine depth information for the local area using an indirect time-of-flight technique and one or both of the detected light that has the first modulation frequency and the detected light that has the second modulation frequency (Fig. 1, control circuit 105, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels is configured to determine respective depth information asynchronously at each pixel (Fig. 6, block 630 and block 640, Paragraph [0099]-[0100]; See also Paragraph [0140]) based on information from one or more adjacent pixels that are configured to detect light at a different modulation frequency (Fig. 6, block 650, Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Finkelstein discloses the DDA of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of pixels has its own clock (Fig. 1, timing circuit 106, Paragraph [0053]), wherein the dedicated compute circuitry for a first pixel of the plurality of pixels is configured to determine respective depth information (Fig. 6, block 630, Paragraph [0099]) in parallel (Paragraph [0140]: “blocks may be executed substantially concurrently”) with at least one adjacent pixel that is configured to detect light at a different modulation frequency (Fig. 6, block 640, Paragraph [0100]).
Claims 1 and 4 contain the same limitations as claims 11 and 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 2-3, 9, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein in view of Henderson et al., WO 2020181048 A1 ("Henderson").
Regarding claim 12, Finkelstein discloses the DDA of claim 11, wherein: the first frequency is lower than the second frequency (Fig. 4, f1, f2, Paragraph [0067]).
Finkelstein does not teach: and each pixel of the first group of pixels has a first detection area, and each pixel of the second group of pixels has a second detection area that is smaller than the first detection area-.
However, Henderson teaches a pixel array where each SPAD in a pixel has a different active surface area (Fig. 3A-3B, pixel array 310, pixel 303, SPAD 101, different active surface area 302, 302', 302", and 302"', Paragraph [0062]).
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 Finkelstein’s detector array by pixels by adding SPADs with different detection areas corresponding to different light conditions, which is disclosed by Henderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide additional control of detection probability and power consumption, as suggested by Henderson (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Finkelstein, as modified in view of Henderson, disclose the DDA of claim 12.
Finkelstein, as modified in view of Henderson, does not teach: wherein the first group of pixels is arranged in a series of rows with rows of the second group of pixels interleaved therebetween.
However, Henderson teaches a pixel array where each SPAD in a pixel has a different active surface area. The SPADs with larger and smaller detection areas are arranged diagonally in alternating rows of the pixel array (Fig. 3A-3B, pixel array 310, pixel 303, SPAD 101, different active surface area 302, 302', 302", and 302"', Paragraph [0062]).
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 detector array with SPADs having different detection areas, disclosed by Finkelstein in view of Henderson, by arranging the SPADs into alternating rows based on larger and smaller detection areas, which is disclosed by Henderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide additional control of detection probability and power consumption, as suggested by Henderson (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Finkelstein discloses the DDA of claim 11.
Finkelstein does not teach: wherein each pixel includes a microlens, a filter, and a polarizer in optical series with a detection area of the pixel.
However, Henderson teaches receiver optics which may include microlenses, a spectral filter, and a polarizer, such as a polarization grid (Fig. 1A, receiver optics 112, spectral filter 111, Paragraph [0047], 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 Finkelstein’s detector array by including microlenses, spectral filters, and polarizers on the detection elements, which is disclosed by Henderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the collection efficiency of the detecting pixels, as suggested by Henderson (Paragraph [0047]).
Claims 2-3 and 9 contain the same limitations as claims 12-13 and 18 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein in view of Kadambi et al., US 20170234985 A1 ("Kadambi").
Regarding claim 15, Finkelstein discloses the DDA of claim 11, wherein the compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels includes: […]; and a cross correlation circuit configured to: determine an estimated depth based on the first digital signal and disambiguate the estimated depth based on a second digital signal output from an adjacent pixel configured to detect light having a different modulation frequency (Fig. 6, Block 650, Paragraph [0101]), wherein the light having the particular modulation frequency and the different modulation frequency are concurrently detected by at least a portion of the plurality of pixels (Fig. 6, block 610, block 620, Paragraph [0097]-[0098]; See also Paragraph [0140]: “two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently”).
Finkelstein does not teach: an analog to digital converter configured to output a first digital signal corresponding to light detected having at a particular modulation frequency.
However, Kadambi teaches a time-of-flight sensor attached to an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) that converts analog signals to digital signals (Fig. 6, ADC 719, Paragraph [0075]).
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 Finkelstein’s detector array and control circuit by outputting signals to an ADC, which is disclosed by Kadambi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to convert analog signals to digital signals, as suggested by Kadambi (Paragraph [0075]).
Claim 5 contains the same limitations as claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Finkelstein discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store program code instructions, when executed by a processor of a depth determination assembly (DDA), cause the DDA to perform steps comprising (Paragraph [0138]-[0139]): detecting, using a sensor (Fig. 1, detector array 110, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]), at least one of light modulated at a first frequency or light modulated at a second frequency (Fig. 1, emitter elements 115e, Paragraph [0047]), wherein the light is received from a local area (Fig. 1, target 150, Paragraph [0044]) illuminated concurrently with the light modulated at the first frequency and the light modulated at the second frequency (Fig. 1, emitter array 115, emitters 115e, Paragraph [0047]; See also Fig. 4, two frequencies f1, f2 as a function of time, Paragraph [0068]), the sensor comprising: a plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, detector array 110, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]), and each pixel has dedicated compute circuitry (Fig. 1, control circuit 105, Paragraph [0056]) including at least (Fig. 6, Block 650, Paragraph [0101]), the plurality of pixels including: a first group of pixels configured to detect light from the local area that has the first modulation frequency (Fig. 1, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]), a second group of pixels configured to detect light from the local area that has the second modulation frequency (Fig. 1, detectors 110d, Paragraph [0048]); determining, using a compute layer of the sensor, depth information for the local area using an indirect time-of-flight technique and one or both of the detected light that has the first modulation frequency and the detected light that has the second modulation frequency, wherein the compute layer includes the dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels (Fig. 1, control circuit 105, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the dedicated compute circuitry for each of the plurality of pixels is configured to determine respective depth information asynchronously at each pixel (Fig. 6, block 630 and block 640, Paragraph [0099]-[0100]; See also Paragraph [0140]) based on information output from respective dedicated compute circuitries of one or more adjacent pixels that are configured to detect light at a different modulation frequency (Fig. 6, block 640, Paragraph [0100]).
Finkelstein does not teach: an analog-to-digital converter.
However, Kadambi teaches a time-of-flight sensor attached to an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) that converts analog signals to digital signals (Fig. 6, ADC 719, Paragraph [0075]).
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 Finkelstein’s detector array and control circuit by outputting signals to an ADC, which is disclosed by Kadambi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to convert analog signals to digital signals, as suggested by Kadambi (Paragraph [0075]).
Claims 6-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein in view of Solomentsev et al., US 20220128689 A1 ("Solomentsev").
Regarding claim 16, Finkelstein discloses the DDA of claim 11.
Finkelstein does not teach: wherein the compute layer is configured to: determine a first portion of the local area to illuminate with the light having the first modulation frequency; determine a second portion of the local area to illuminate with the light having the second modulation frequency, wherein the first portion of the local area is different than the second portion of the local area; and the illuminator is configured to concurrently project light having the first modulation frequency to the first portion of the local area and light having the second modulation frequency to the second portion of the local area.
However, Solomentsev discloses a method for illuminating regions of interest (ROI) in a FOV. Based on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the reflected signal, the LIDAR system will illuminate different ROIs of the FOV with different pulse frequencies (Paragraph [0020]-[0021], Fig. 4, Step 440-460, Paragraph [0157]).
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 Finkelstein’s control circuit and emitter array by implementing a method of illuminating different ROIs withing the FOV with different light frequencies based on the SNR, which is disclosed by Solomentsev. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to balance signal strength and spatial detail, as suggested by Solomentsev (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 17, Finkelstein, as modified in view of Solomentsev discloses, the DDA of claim 16, wherein the compute layer is further configured to: determine the first portion of the local area to illuminate with the light having the first modulation frequency based in part on a first set of signal to noise ratios (SNRs) detected by a first subset of the plurality of pixels that detect light from the first portion of the local area (Solomentsev, Paragraph [0020]-[0021], Fig. 4, Step 440-460, Paragraph [0157]), and determine the second portion of the local area to illuminate with the light having the second modulation frequency based in part on a second set of SNRs detected by a second subset of the plurality of pixels that detect light from the second portion of the local area (Solomentsev, Paragraph [0020]-[0021], Fig. 4, Step 440-460, Paragraph [0157]).
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 Finkelstein’s control circuit and emitter array by implementing a method of illuminating different ROIs withing the FOV with different light frequencies based on the SNR, which is disclosed by Solomentsev. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to balance signal strength and spatial detail, as suggested by Solomentsev (Paragraph [0010]).
Claims 6-7 include the same claim limitations as claims 16-17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Finkelstein, as modified in view of Solomentsev discloses the sensor of claim 6, wherein the first portion of the local area is farther from an object than the second portion of the local area, and compute layer is further configured to: determine the first portion of the local area to illuminate with the light having the first modulation frequency based in part on the first portion of the local area being at a first distance from the object that is greater than a threshold distance from the sensor (Solomentsev, Fig. 4, Step 450, Paragraph [0153]-[0154], Paragraph [0157]), and determine the second portion of the local area to illuminate with the light having the second modulation frequency based in part on the second portion of the local area being at a second distance from the object that is less than the threshold distance from the sensor (Solomentsev, Fig. 4, Step 450, Paragraph [0153]-[0154], Paragraph [0157]).
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 Finkelstein’s control circuit and emitter array by implementing a method of illuminating different ROIs withing the FOV with different light frequencies based on an SNR threshold, which is disclosed by Solomentsev. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to balance signal strength and spatial detail, as suggested by Solomentsev (Paragraph [0010]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein in view of Price et al., US 20180218509 A1 ("Price").
Regarding claim 19, Finkelstein discloses the DDA of claim 11.
Finkelstein does not teach: wherein the DDA is integrated into a headset.
However, Price teaches a head mounted display (HMD) device with a sensor assembly that includes a depth camera and illumination modules (Fig. 2, HMD device 20, sensor assembly 32, depth camera 34, illumination modules 36, Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated Finkelstein’s TOF system with Price’s HMD device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “resolves distance between the HMD device worn by a user and physical surfaces of objects in the user's immediate vicinity”, as suggested by Price (Paragraph [0024]).
Claim 10 contains the same limitations as claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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