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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tadmor (US 20190181171 A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Metz teaches away from applicant's invention since Metz's data is transferred framewise to the processor, and does not teach a histogram, while applicant uses a decentralized analysis of sensor data based on histograms.
Examiner notes independent claims no longer teach histograms, and this limitation is now only in dependent claims. Additionally, the simple fact that Metz does not teach a histogram doesn't invalidate the rejection, as Ueno was used to teach a histogram in the previous final rejection. Applicant simply states that, since Metz's data transfer is different, no part of Metz can be used, even though, regarding the independent claims, this data transfer was not used in the rejection. Although the references must be considered as a whole, applicant has failed to make a persuasive argument, as just stating a teaching, which was not used in the rejection, is different than applicant's invention, is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the photo-detectors are single photon avalanche photodiodes.” However, Claim 1 already states that the photodetector array is comprised of single photon avalanche diodes – “wherein the array of photo-detectors is a single photon avalanche diode array of photodetectors.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (US 20140253688 A1) in view of Ueno (US 20190265333 A1), further in view of Tadmor (US 20190181171 A1).
Claim 1: Metz teaches a method of time of flight sensing, the method comprising:
using an emitter to emit pulses of radiation (Fig. 1, illuminator 104);
using an array of photo-detectors to detect radiation reflected from an object (Fig 1, sensor 106 and [0022] - implying the sensor has multiple pixels);
for a given group of photo-detectors of the array, determining based upon [measured times of flight of the radiation], whether to use a first mode of operation in which outputs from individual photo-detectors of the group are combined together or to use a second mode of operation in which outputs from individual photo-detectors are processed separately ([0034] and [0056]);
wherein the array of photo-detectors […] comprises a plurality of groups of photo-detectors ([0034] and Fig. 3, pixel groups 310),
and wherein one or more groups of photo-detectors operate in the first mode whilst in parallel one or more groups of photo-detectors operate in the second mode ([0034]).
Metz does not teach, but Ueno does teach, the photodetectors being single avalanche diodes ( [0033] and Fig. 1, array 50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the SPADs, as taught by Ueno, in the system as taught by Metz because SPADS are well known in the art, commercially available, and would yield predictable results.
Metz, as modified, does not teach, but Tadmor does teach wherein the switching between modes of operation for a given group of photodetectors is controlled by an independently operating electrical logic circuit which is associated with that group of photodetectors ([0013] – multiple pixel cells with their own electronics. See also [0201] and Fig. 34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circuitry for each pixel cell, as taught by Tadmor, in the method as taught by Metz, as modified, because having separate circuitry for each pixel cell would allow for faster processing, as each circuit has less data.
Claim 2: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein when the method begins groups of photo- detectors initially operate in the first mode of operation (Metz [0043] - generating high or full-resolution image and [0034] - full resolution mode is un-binned).
Claim 3: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 2, wherein when the method begins all groups of photo- detectors initially operate in the first mode of operation (Metz [0043] - generating high or full-resolution image and [0034] - full resolution mode is un-binned).
Claim 4: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method switches from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation for a group of photo-detectors if measured times of flight for that group of photo-detectors indicate the presence of an object at distance which is below a threshold distance (Metz [0056]).
Claim 5: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the method delays switching to the second mode of operation until sufficient measured times of flight have been received at the group of pixels in the first mode to provide a desired signal to noise ratio (Metz [0044] – analyzing SNR, taken with [0034] – only some pixels binned).
Claim 6: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4 wherein the method switches immediately to the second mode of operation (Metz [0047] and Fig. 9, step 914 – there is no delay to switch to the second mode).
Claim 7: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 6, wherein if measured times of flight for the individual photo- detectors do not indicate the presence of an object at the distance identified during the first mode of operation, the method switches back to the first mode of operation (Metz [0056] – binning factor can be increased or decreased based on threshold depth).
Claim 8: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, comprising for the given group of photo-detectors of the array, determining based upon measured times of flight of the radiation, whether to use a third mode of operation in which outputs from sub-groups of photo-detectors are combined together, the method switching from the first mode of operation to the third mode of operation for a group of photo-detectors if measured times of flight for that group of photo-detectors indicate the presence of an object at distance which is below a first threshold distance but above a second threshold distance, wherein one or more groups of photo-detectors operate in the first mode whilst in parallel one or more groups of photo- detectors operate in the third mode. (Metz [0034] - any number of pixels can be binned, [0040] - binning as required)
Claim 9: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein one or more groups of photo-detectors operate in the second mode (Metz [0034] - any number of pixels can be binned).
Claim 11: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the independently operating electrical logic circuit forms part of an electrical circuit which is associated with the group of photodetectors and which forms part of the same integrated circuit as the photodetectors (Metz [0060] and Tadmor [0013] – independent circuits).
Claim 12: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method re-commences each time a pulse of light is emitted (Metz [0047] – timing determined by pulse).
Claim 13: Metz, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, but not wherein the photo-detectors are single photon avalanche photodiode (Ueno [0033] and Fig. 1, array 50).
Claim 14: Metz teaches a time of flight sensor system comprising
an emitter configured to emit pulses of radiation (Fig. 1, illuminator 104),
and a sensor module comprising a sensor and sensor electronics;
wherein the sensor comprises an array of photo-detectors […] the photo-detectors being arranged in groups ([0034] and Fig. 3, pixel groups 310),
[…]
and wherein each electric circuit includes a logic circuit configured to determine based upon measured times of flight of the radiation, whether to use a first mode of operation in which outputs from individual photo-detectors of the group are combined together or to use a second mode of operation in which outputs from individual photo-detectors are not combined together ([0034] and [0056]).
Metz does not teach, but Ueno does teach, the photodetectors being single avalanche diodes ( [0033] and Fig. 1, array 50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the SPADs, as taught by Ueno, in the system as taught by Metz because SPADS are well known in the art, commercially available, and would yield predictable results.
Metz, as modified, does not teach, but Tadmor does teach an electric circuit being associated with each group of sensors ([0013] – multiple pixel cells with their own electronics. See also [0201] and Fig. 34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circuitry for each pixel cell, as taught by Tadmor, in the method as taught by Metz, as modified, because having separate circuitry for each pixel cell would allow for faster processing, as each circuit has less data.
Claim 15: Metz, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the logic circuit is configured to the electric circuit from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation for a group of photo- detectors if measured times of flight for that group of photo-detectors indicate the presence of an object at distance which is below a threshold distance (Metz [0056]).
Claim 16: Metz, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the logic circuit is configured to determine based upon measured times of flight of the radiation, whether to use a third mode of operation in which outputs from sub-groups of photo-detectors are combined, switching from the first mode of operation to the third mode of operation for a group of photo-detectors occurring if measured times of flight for that group of photo-detectors indicate the presence of an object at distance which is below a first threshold distance but above a second threshold distance (Metz [0056]).
Claim 17: Metz, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the electrical circuit which is associated with the group of photodetectors forms part of the same integrated circuit as the photodetectors (Metz [0060]).
Claim 18: Metz, as modified, teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the electrical circuit which is associated with the group of photodetectors further comprises a front end, a time to digital value convertor, and a memory (Metz [0060]).
Claim 19: Metz, as modified, teaches the system of Claim 14, but wherein the memory is a histogram memory (Ueno [0086] and Fig. 4, histogram memory 106).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights