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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Subject mater of claims 1, and 21 does not differ therefore rejection of claim 1 and 21 was the same. In addition;. D0 explicitly teaches the array of sensors. One of them senses only internal reflection for reference purpose the second one senses the FOV. Nothing in the claim indicates that peaks should be in the same spectrum of that specific photodiode, but even in that case D1 teaches single photodiode which receives both internal reflection and outgoing signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear how many peaks are in the spectrum. Does limitation “analyzing [[the]] a single peak of the series of pulses of light that are detected ” mean that there is only one peak in the spectrum. If yes then limitation “measuring the separation in time between [[the]] an earliest peak and at least one of [[the]] one or more other peaks based on the distribution that comprises two or more separate peaks by the one or more photodetectors of the photodetector array” contradicts to the limitation above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, 19, 20, 21 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20160033644 A1 in view of D0 US 10950743 B2.
Regarding claim 1, 21 D1 teaches
1. A method of measuring a distance using a time of flight sensor comprising a substantially transparent cover covering a light emitter and one or more photodetectors, the method comprising:
emitting a series of pulses of light from the light emitter; [0008]
using the one or more photodetectors to obtain a distribution of times at which at least one photodetector of the one or more photodetectors detected photons after each emission of the series of pulses of light; and(claim 1)
analyzing the single peak the series of pulses of light that are detected(implicit id reflected light comes from different objects multiple peaks will be detected either in one spectrum or multiple spectras) to determine if (conditional limitation may never happen hence does not have patentable weight)the single peak includes counts of photons reflected from a target[[,]] and measuring the separation between a reference time and a point of the single peak based on the distribution of times comprises only a single peak including counts of photons reflected from a target, and
but does not teach
measuring the separation in time between the earliest peak and at least one of the one or more other peaks based on the distribution comprises two or more separate peaks.
D0 teaches
of a photodetector array(236+238)
measuring the separation in time between the earliest peak and at least one of the one or more other peaks based on the distribution comprises two or more separate peaks.(col 1 47-col 2 line 8)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D0 in order to obtain time of flight.
Regarding claim 21 D1 teaches(103 is made for completeness of the rejection)
21. (Currently Amended) A method of measuring a distance using a time of flight sensor comprising a substantially transparent cover covering a light emitter and one or more photodetectors, the method comprising:
emitting a series of pulses of light from the light emitter;[0008]
using the one or more photodetectors(201) of a photodetector array to obtain a distribution of times(fig. 3) at which at least one photodetector of the one or more photodetectors detected photons after each emission of the series of pulses of light;(fig. 3)
determining whether the distribution comprises two or more separate peaks or comprises only a single peak; and(fig. 3)
in response to determining that the distribution comprises two or more separate peaks, (conditional limitation in the method does not have patentable weight as may never happen)
in response to determining that the distribution comprises only a single peak conditional limitation in the method does not have patentable weight as may never happen everything after that does not have patentable weight)
measuring the separation in time between an earliest peak and at least one of the one or more other peaks by the one or more photodetectors of the photodetector array; ([0082])
(implicit from fig. 1 101 will detect single peak and 102 will have single peak):
Comparing[0082](time of flight of reference object compared with other time of flight) the single peak to one or more parameters of a reference peak of a reference distribution of times obtained by emitting a series of pulses of light from the light emitter with no objects within a range and field of view of the at least one photodetector of the photodetector array and using the one or more photodetectors of the photodetector array to obtain the reference distribution of times at which the at least one photodetector detected photons after each emission of the series of pulses of light; determining that the single peak includes counts of photons reflected from a target;[0082]
measuring the separation between a reference time corresponding to the time at which the maximum of the reference peak occurred and a point of the single peak.[0082]
The difference is that in the single peak detection the different sensors are providing reference peak(fig. 1) and object peak while paragraph 72 relates to fig. 7a where peaks are obtained in single spectrum
But does not teach while D0 teaches
measuring the separation between a reference time corresponding to the time at which the maximum of the reference peak occurred and a point of the single peak(col 1 47-col 2 line 8) when reference detector is shielded from returns originated from other targets.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D0 in order to obtain time of flight.
11. A method according to claim 1 wherein the distribution is a histogram with time intervals on an x-axis and counted detections on a y-axis.(fig. 3)
10. A method according to claim 1 wherein the series of pulses of light comprises at least 75,000 pulses of light.(obvious design choice which is based on beam intensity and desired signal strength)
12. A method according to claim 1 wherein peaks are parts of the distribution above a predetermined threshold.(implicit during signal should be above background)
14. A method according to claim 1 wherein the light emitter is a vertical-cavity surface- emitting laser.[0086]
15. A method according to claim 1 wherein each of the one or more photodetectors is a single photon avalanche diode.[0005]
16. A method according to claim 1 wherein the one or more photodetectors are a plurality of photodetectors, and are used to obtain a plurality of distributions, each distribution being the distribution of times at which one or more photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors detected photons after each emission of the emissions of the pulses of light.[0005]
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
17. A method according to claim 1, wherein the light emitter forms part of an optical stack and where the method calibrates the time of flight sensor in conjunction with the optical stack.
Using optical stack as an emitter is just obvious design choice and calibrating it with respect to the sensor is just a normal procedure in order to obtain correct time of flight.
Claim 2-4 do not have patentable weight as based on conditional limitation of claim 1 but in any case it is well known as evidenced by the PCT office action provided with current Application.
2. A method according to claim 1 wherein analyzing the single peak(continuation of the conditional limitation as number of peaks can be more than one ) to determine if it includes counts of photons reflected from a target comprises comparing one or more parameters of the peak to one or more parameters of a reference peak of a reference distribution of times obtained by:
emitting a series of pulses of light from the light emitter with no objects within a range and field of view of the at least one photodetectors; and
using the one or more photodetectors to obtain the reference distribution of times at which the at least one photodetector of the one or more photodetectors detected photons after each emission of the series of pulses of light.
3. A method according to claim 2 wherein the one or more parameters of the reference peak include the total number of photons detected in the reference peak and the time in the distribution at which the reference peak is located.
4. A method according to claim 3 wherein a background or noise level of the distribution comprising the single peak is added to the reference peak or subtracted from the single peak prior to said comparing.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20160033644 A1 in view of D0 US 10950743 B2 further in view of D3 US 20180299552 A1.
Although D1 does not explicitly say
6. A method according to claim 1 wherein the times at which the at least one photodetector detected photons are relative to an emission of one of the series of pulses of light during or immediately (does it mean that detection period should start right after transmission ? otherwise fig 11 shows multiple time bins within the receive period) preceding a detection period in which the photon was detected.(implicit/obvious depending on the interpretation fig.11)[0052+0072]
7. A method according to claim 1 wherein the distribution is obtained in a plurality of periods each containing the emission of one of the pulses of light, each period being divided into an identical series of time intervals relative to the emission contained therein.[0163]
This is just repetition of the transmission reception cycles and then combining the results into a histogram which is commonly done for low intensity signals .
8. A method according to claim 7 wherein the distributions of times is obtained by counting a total number of photons detected by the at least one photodetectors during all of the of time intervals at each of a plurality of times relative to the emission during the detection period comprising that time interval.[0163]
9. A method according to claim 8 wherein a counted number of photons detected by the one or more photodetectors during all of the time intervals at each of the plurality of times are or contribute to values of the distribution for time intervals at the plurality of times.[0163-164]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D0 with teachings by D1 in order to accumulate enough signal in order to separate signal from noise.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20160033644 A1 in view of D0 US 10950743 B2 further in view of D2 US 20180259645 A1.
Regarding claim 5 D1 does not teach but Dt teaches
5. A method according to claim 1 wherein the distribution of times is a distribution of times at which at least one photodetector of the one or more photodetectors detected photons before, during and after each emission of the series of pulses of light.(fig. 3)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to detect background light.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded to remove conditional limitations from the method claims.
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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights