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 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Tandor teaches pixel level circuits, not group level.
Examiner disagrees. Tandor teaches circuits comprising two photodetectors (Fig. 11, detectors PPD and SD). Applicant only states Tandor does not teach group level logic circuits without showing how this is different than applicant's circuitry.
Applicant argues prior art does not teach parallel operation of different groups.
Examiner disagrees. See argument above regarding Tandor. Further, applicant only provides an argument against Metz, stating Metz is limited to global switching. While Metz does, in fact, teach selective switching (See [0034]), Tandor was brought in to teach different distinct pixel groups.
Applicant argues global and pixel level architectures are incompatible.
Applicant only states this argument without providing reasoning. Thus, this argument is not persuasive. Also, examiner notes it would be obvious that group level architectures can be scaled down to a few pixels, and vice versa, as the circuitry components themselves would still act predictably.
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 12-19 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);
and for a given group of photo-detectors of the array, determining based upon the counters incremented for the group when photons are detected at elapsed times between when a photon from the pulses of radiation was emitted and when the photon was detected ([0002] – time of flight),
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 and Fig. 11 – two photodetectors), and 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 and Fig. 11 – two photodetectors).
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 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 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]),
and comprises a plurality of groups of photo-detectors, 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,
[…] wherein the array of photo-detectors is a single photon avalanche diode array of photo- detectors ( [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, and Fig. 11, two photodetectors) […] wherein the independently operating electrical logic circuit forms part of an electrical circuit which is associated with the group of photo-detectors and which forms part of the same integrated circuit as the photo-detectors Metz [0060] and Tadmor [0013] – independent circuits and Fig. 11 – two photodetectors).
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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