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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 3/3/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 8-9, 15, and 18 are amended, claim 7 is cancelled, and claims 21 and 22 are new. Thus, claims 1-6 and 8-22 are currently pending in this application.
The amendments to claims 1 and 15, with regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), have overcome the previous grounds of rejection, which are now withdrawn. However, in view of the amendments, new grounds for rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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, 3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter (US 20220357434 A1) in view of Han et al. (S. M. Han, T. Takasawa, K. Yasutomi, S. Aoyama, K. Kagawa and S. Kawahito, "A Time-of-Flight Range Image Sensor With Background Canceling Lock-in Pixels Based on Lateral Electric Field Charge Modulation," in IEEE Journal of the Electron Devices Society, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 267-275, May 2015), further in view of Bennington (US 20220057496 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Hofrichter discloses an apparatus for sensing a scene (Fig. 1 illustrates an imaging system; Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate sensing a scene) comprising:
an illumination element configured to illuminate the scene with modulated light ([0059] light source LS can generate polarized light); and
an optical sensor configured to receive reflected light from the scene, wherein the optical sensor comprises a photosensitive sensor pixel (Fig. 2, detector array DA with pixels; Fig. 10, light reflected off an object in environment is detected at photodetector) configured to:
store charge carriers generated in the photosensitive sensor pixel by the reflected light in at least one charge storage of the photosensitive pixel during a measurement (Fig. 4, [0076-0077] charge is stored in the floating diffusion Fd1 during measurement before it is read out at the output terminal Out), and
selectively prevent the charge carriers from reaching the at least one charge storage during the measurement to strictly monotonically increase a sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixel over distance for reflected light originating within a measurement range of the optical sensor (Fig. 4 and [0077] the modulation element ME introduces a leakage current to reroute charge so that responsivity of the pixel is reduced monotonously; Fig. 11, during frame B, the sensitivity of the pixel increases over time),
wherein the optical sensor is configured to selectively prevent the charge carriers from reaching the at least one charge storage during the measurement according to a drive signal that is encoded with a state pattern (Fig. 11, the sensitivity is controlled by leakage voltage causing a leakage current),
and wherein a correlation function of the photosensitive sensor pixel for the measurement increases strictly monotonically over distance within the measurement range of the optical sensor such that a ratio of drained charge carriers selectively prevented from reaching the at least one charge storage decreases over distance within the measurement range of the optical sensor (Fig. 11, leakage current decreases over distance, causing the sensitivity to increase over time; [0081] sensitivity during a given frame is monotonously increasing).
Hofrichter does not expressly disclose: where the drive signal that is encoded with state pattern that includes an integration state that alternates with a drain state and wherein the sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixel depends on a duration of the integration state, which varies as a function of the distance for the reflected light originating within the measurement range of the optical sensor.
Han et. al. teaches a photosensitive pixel that is configured to selectively store the charge carriers in different charge storages (Fig. 3, floating diffusions FD1, FD2, FD3), and during the measurement, the drive signal that is encoded with a state pattern includes an integration state that alternates with a drain state (Fig. 4, during the exposure period, there is an integration period where gates G1, G2, and G3 are activated. After this integration period, there is a drain period, where the drain gate is activated and all of the unwanted charge is drained via the drain gate GD. See last paragraph of Section 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exposure periods disclosed by Hofrichter, such that there is an integration state that alternates with a drain state, as taught by Han et al. This modification, using the drain gate, would drain the unwanted charge due to background light or slow carrier components (Han et al., Section 2). Pixels without these charge-draining gates suffer from background light during the readout time of the operation (Han et al., Section 1).
However, this combination of Hofrichter and Han et al. still does not expressly teach wherein the sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixel depends on a duration of the integration state, which varies as a function of the distance for the reflected light originating within the measurement range of the optical sensor.
Bennington teaches this limitation. Bennington teaches a lidar system where the sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixels are modulated ([0008] sensitivity is adjusted by dynamically adjusting the gain of a photodetector, which is adjusted based on time that has elapsed as well as the distance), and where the sensitivity of the pixel depends on the duration of the integration state, and where this duration of the integration state varies as a function of measured distance (Figs. 1B and 1C and [0019], the return pulse from an object of interest is expected to return at time T4, where the sensitivity is at a maximum. If T4 is shorter, the duration of the integration state would be shorter and the sensitivity, which is dynamically adjusted, would also be different).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter and Han, such that it incorporates the teachings of Bennington, where the sensitivity of a pixel is dynamically adjusted. Dynamically adjusting the sensitivity of the pixel can cause the photodetector to be more sensitive to signals that would originate at a particular/desired distance to the detector, while being less sensitive to bright objects that may oversaturate the detector (Bennington [0028]). This dynamic control improves detection and can increase dynamic range (Bennington, [0010] – [0014]).
Regarding Claim 3: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hofrichter further discloses wherein the photosensitive sensor pixel is further configured to increase a ratio of charge carriers stored in the at least one charge storage with increasing distance of the optical sensor to an object in the scene causing the reflected light ([0077] and Fig. 4, only charge from the first floating diffusion Fd1 is read out, while the leakage control directs the leakage current to the second floating diffusion Fd2 to reduce pixel sensitivity. As time and pixel sensitivity increases, the ratio of charge that is directed to Fd1 compared to Fd2 increases).
Regarding Claim 4: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hofrichter further discloses wherein the photosensitive sensor pixel is further configured to selectively prevent the charge carriers form reaching the at least one charge storage based on at least one received drive signal ([0081] and Fig. 4, the leakage control element LC introduces a leakage current due to the control voltage that is applied to the leakage control element; Fig. 11, a voltage is applied to the transfer gate to drive the leakage current).
Regarding Claim 8: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hofrichter further discloses wherein the correlation function provides a distance dependent correlation of the reflected light with the drive signal and without considering an intensity of the reflected light ([0094] and Fig. 11, during frame B, the sensitivity of the pixel increases linearly over time. Since a longer distance would result in a longer time of flight, the sensitivity of the pixel increases as a function of time and distance. This pixel sensitivity is modulated without considering the intensity of the reflected light detected in frame A), wherein the photosensitive sensor pixel is driven based on the drive signal (Fig. 11, a leakage voltage applied to the transfer gate causes a leakage current, which controls pixel sensitivity).
Regarding Claim 14: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hofrichter further discloses wherein the optical sensor is an image sensor or a dynamic vision sensor ([0076] the detector array is implemented as an image sensor).
Regarding Claim 15: Hofrichter discloses a method for sensing a scene ([0084-0085] Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate a method for detecting a scene), the method comprising:
illuminating the scene with modulated light using an illumination element (Fig. 10, a light source emits a pulse toward an object in the scene; [0059] light source LS can generate polarized light);
receiving reflected light from the scene at an optical sensor, wherein the optical sensor comprises a photosensitive sensor pixel (Fig. 10, photodetector detects the light pulse that has been reflected back from the object in the scene; Fig. 2, detector array DA has photosensitive pixels Px);
controlling the photosensitive sensor pixel to ([0087] synchronization circuit controls the timing between light emission and detection):
store charge carriers generated in the photosensitive pixel by the reflected light in at least one charge storage of the photosensitive sensor pixel during a measurement (Fig. 4, [0076-0077] charge is stored in the floating diffusion Fd1 during measurement before it is read out at the output terminal Out); and
selectively prevent, according to a drive signal encoded with a state pattern, the charge carriers from reaching the at least one charge storage during the measurement to strictly monotonically increase a sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixel over distance for reflected light originating within a measurement range of the optical sensor (Fig. 4 and [0077] the modulation element ME introduces a leakage current to reroute charge so that responsivity of the pixel is reduced monotonously; Fig. 11, during frame B, the sensitivity of the pixel increases over time)
wherein a correlation function of the photosensitive sensor pixel for the measurement increases strictly monotonically over distance within the measurement range of the optical sensor such that a ratio of drained charge carriers selectively prevented from reaching the at least one charge storage decreases over distance within the measurement range of the optical sensor (Fig. 11, leakage current decreases over distance, causing the sensitivity to increase over time; [0081] sensitivity during a given frame is monotonously increasing).
Hofrichter does not expressly disclose: where the drive signal that is encoded with state pattern that includes an integration state that alternates with a drain state and wherein the sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixel depends on a duration of the integration state, which varies as a function of the distance for the reflected light originating within the measurement range of the optical sensor.
Han et. al. teaches a photosensitive pixel that is configured to selectively store the charge carriers in different charge storages (Fig. 3, floating diffusions FD1, FD2, FD3), and during the measurement, the drive signal that is encoded with a state pattern includes an integration state that alternates with a drain state (Fig. 4, during the exposure period, there is an integration period where gates G1, G2, and G3 are activated. After this integration period, there is a drain period, where the drain gate is activated and all of the unwanted charge is drained via the drain gate GD. See last paragraph of Section 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exposure periods disclosed by Hofrichter, such that there is an integration state that alternates with a drain state, as taught by Han et al. This modification, using the drain gate, would drain the unwanted charge due to background light or slow carrier components (Han et al., Section 2). Pixels without these charge-draining gates suffer from background light during the readout time of the operation (Han et al., Section 1).
However, this combination of Hofrichter and Han et al. still does not expressly teach wherein the sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixel depends on a duration of the integration state, which varies as a function of the distance for the reflected light originating within the measurement range of the optical sensor.
Bennington teaches this limitation. Bennington teaches a lidar system where the sensitivity of the photosensitive sensor pixels are modulated ([0008] sensitivity is adjusted by dynamically adjusting the gain of a photodetector, which is adjusted based on time that has elapsed as well as the distance), and where the sensitivity of the pixel depends on the duration of the integration state, and where this duration of the integration state varies as a function of measured distance (Figs. 1B and 1C and [0019], the return pulse from an object of interest is expected to return at time T4, where the sensitivity is at a maximum. If T4 is shorter, the duration of the integration state would be shorter and the sensitivity, which is dynamically adjusted, would also be different).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter and Han, such that it incorporates the teachings of Bennington, where the sensitivity of a pixel is dynamically adjusted. Dynamically adjusting the sensitivity of the pixel can cause the photodetector to be more sensitive to signals that would originate at a particular/desired distance to the detector, while being less sensitive to bright objects that may oversaturate the detector (Bennington [0028]). This dynamic control improves detection and can increase dynamic range (Bennington, [0010] – [0014]).
Regarding Claim 21: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. While this combination of Hofrichter, Han, and Bennington, includes the dynamic adjustment of pixel sensitivity that is dependent on time and distance, it does not expressly teach that the ratio of drained charge carriers selectively prevented from reaching the at least one charge storage increases over distance outside of the measurement range of the optical sensor for a predefined distance extending from the measurement range of the optical sensor.
Bennington further teaches that the sensitivity of the pixel decreases outside of a measurement range, where the ratio of drained charge carriers prevented from reaching the at least one storage increases over distance outside of the measurement range of the optical sensor for a predefined distance extending from the measurement range of the optical sensor (Figs. 1C, with reverse bias voltage decreasing after time T4. If reverse bias voltage decreases, sensitivity decreases as well. Fig. 3, step 306).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the pixel sensitivity taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., and Bennington, such that there is also a time period after the first measurement range, where sensitivity decreases over distance, as further taught by Bennington. Modifying the dynamic control of sensitivity, such that the sensitivity can also decrease after a given measurement range, would be a modification that would improve detection by minimizing the effect of unwanted returns (Bennington, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 22: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. In this combination, which includes the drain gate and drainage period taught by Han et al., Han et al., further teaches wherein the optical sensor is configured to, during the drain state that is indicated by the drive signal, electrically decouple the at least one charge storage from a semiconductor material of the photosensitive sensor pixel such that no charge carriers are stored in the at least one charge storage during the drain gate (Figs. 4 and 7).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter (US 20220357434 A1) in view of Han et al. (S. M. Han et al., "A Time-of-Flight Range Image Sensor With Background Canceling Lock-in Pixels Based on Lateral Electric Field Charge Modulation," IEEE Journal, 2015), further in view of Bennington (US 20220057496 A1), further in view if Kirillov (US 20200150209 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 16: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 15. They are silent on wherein the sensitivity increases quadratically over distance within the measurement range
Kirillov teaches a LiDAR system with a detector with pixel sensitivity increasing over time, wherein the sensitivity increases quadratically over distance within the measurement range ([0045] and [0059] and Fig. 7B the sensitivity of the light detector increases quadratically as target distance increases).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pixel sensitivity taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., and Bennington, such that it increases quadratically over distance, as taught by Kirillov. Hofrichter explains that the sensitivity of the photodetector during a frame may rise nonlinearly and monotonously increase (Hofrichter, [0081]). The quadratically increasing pixel sensitivity taught by Kirillov is a monotonously, and nonlinear, change in sensitivity. The suggestion made by Hofrichter would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pixel sensitivity such that it increases nonlinearly, as taught by Kirillov, to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G.
Regarding Claim 9: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
They are silent on: wherein the correlation function increases quadratically over distance within the measurement range.
Kirillov teaches a LiDAR system with a detector with pixel sensitivity increasing over time, wherein the correlation function increases quadratically over distance within the measurement range ([0045] and [0059] and Fig. 7B the sensitivity of the light detector increases quadratically as target distance increases).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the correlation function relating to the pixel sensitivity taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., and Bennington, such that it increases quadratically over distance, as taught by Kirillov. Hofrichter explains that the sensitivity of the photodetector during a frame may rise nonlinearly and monotonously increase (Hofrichter, [0081]). The quadratically increasing pixel sensitivity taught by Kirillov is a monotonously, and nonlinear, change in sensitivity. The suggestion made by Hofrichter would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pixel sensitivity such that it increases nonlinearly, as taught by Kirillov, to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter (US 20220357434 A1) in view of Han et al. (S. M. Han et al., "A Time-of-Flight Range Image Sensor With Background Canceling Lock-in Pixels Based on Lateral Electric Field Charge Modulation," IEEE Journal, 2015), further in view of Bennington (US 20220057496 A1), further in view of Keilaf (US 20190271767 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 15. In this combination, they do not teach further comprising processing circuitry configured to determine a reflectivity value indicating a reflectivity of an object in the scene based on an output value of the photosensitive sensor pixel output for the measurement.
Keilaf teaches processing circuitry configured to determine a reflectivity value indicating a reflectivity of an object in the scene based on an output value of the photosensitive sensor pixel output for the measurement ([0070] and Fig. 1B, this is an output from a scanning cycle of a LiDAR system and each dot contains information like reflectivity; [0272] observed reflectivity levels inform how to adjust pixel sensitivity in subsequent measurements).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., and Bennington, such that it determines reflectivity of an object based on measurements that have been taken, as taught by Keilaf. Determining reflectivity of an object enables the system to adjust the pixel sensitivity accordingly; lowering the amplification/responsivity of the pixel when there is high reflectivity will avoid oversaturating the detector, while increasing the amplification/responsivity of the pixel when there is low reflectivity will enable the system to detect a return signal (Keilaf, [0273]).
Regarding Claim 6: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al. and Bennington, teaches the apparatus of claim 1. While Hofrichter states that the disclosed imaging system is used for a LIDAR and Time of Flight system (Hofrichter, [0107]), this combination does not expressly teach: wherein the optical sensor is a time-of-flight sensor and wherein the measurement is a time-of-flight measurement.
Keilaf teaches the optical sensor is a time-of-flight sensor and wherein the measurement is a time-of-flight measurement ([0235] the processor 118 determines a time lapse between light leaving the light source and a return reflection reaching the sensor in order to determine a time-of-flight measurement. This is a direct measurement of time of flight).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing system taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., and Bennington, such that the processor is also capable of detecting a direct time of flight when taking measurements, as taught by Keilaf. This would be combining the prior art elements of an imaging system to be used in a LiDAR system, with processing circuitry that can determine the direct time of flight, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of obtaining distance measurements of objects in the environment based on the time of flight. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding Claim 10: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the apparatus of claim 6. This combination does not expressly teach that the photosensitive sensor pixel is configured to selectively store the charge carriers in at least two charge storages of the photosensitive sensor pixel during the ToF measurement; and selectively prevent the charge carriers from reaching the at least two charge storages during the ToF measurement.
Han et al., further teaches a photosensitive pixel that is configured to: selectively store the charge carriers in at least two charge storages of the photosensitive sensor pixel during the ToF measurement (Fig. 3, the pixel has three floating diffusions FD1, FD2, and FD3 to store charge; Fig. 4, during the entire exposure period, the gates G1, G2, and G3, are open at different times to allow charge to reach the charge storage); and selectively prevent the charge carriers from reaching the at least two charge storages during the ToF measurement (Section II and Fig. 4, during the entire exposure period, the gates G1, G2, and G3, are closed at different times to prevent charge from reaching the charge storage. One of the charge storages stores a background light signal, Q1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the pixels in the system taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, such that there is at least another charge storage dedicated to collecting background light as taught by Han et al. This would be beneficial because then the charge representing the background light can be subtracted, and the influence of the background light can be cancelled (Han et al., Section II and Equation (4)).
Regarding Claim 11: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the apparatus of claim 10. In this combination, Han et al. further teaches wherein an output value of the photosensitive sensor pixel for the ToF measurement is based on a charge difference between stored charges in the at least two charge storages (Section II and Equation (4), the background charge is represented by Q1, and charges Q2 and Q3 contain signals representing object distance. The background light Q1 is subtracted from Q2 and Q3 in order to obtain time of flight).
Regarding Claim 13: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the apparatus of claim 6. In this combination, Hofrichter further discloses wherein the photosensitive sensor pixel is configured to selectively prevent the charge carriers from reaching the at least one charge storage during the ToF measurement by selectively draining the charge carriers ([0077] and Fig. 4, in order to increase responsivity of the photodetector, the modulation element introduces a leakage control element which re-routes a certain amount of charge per unit time to a position different from a floating diffusion).
Regarding Claim 18: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the method of claim 17. While Hofrichter states that the disclosed imaging system is used for a LIDAR and Time of Flight system (Hofrichter, [0107]), this combination does not expressly teach: wherein the optical sensor is a time-of-flight sensor and wherein the measurement is a time-of-flight measurement.
Keilaf further teaches the optical sensor is a time-of-flight sensor and wherein the measurement is a time-of-flight measurement ([0235] the processor 118 determines a time lapse between light leaving the light source and a return reflection reaching the sensor in order to determine a time-of-flight measurement. This is a direct measurement of time of flight).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing system taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf such that the processor is also capable of detecting a direct time of flight when taking measurements, as further taught by Keilaf. This would be combining the prior art elements of an imaging system to be used in a LiDAR system, with processing circuitry that can determine the direct time of flight, according to known methods to yield the predictable result of obtaining distance measurements of objects in the environment based on the time of flight. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding Claim 20: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the method of claim 18. In this combination, Hofrichter further discloses wherein controlling the photosensitive sensor pixel to selectively prevent the charge carriers from reaching the at least one charge storage during the ToF measurement comprises controlling the photosensitive sensor pixel to selectively drain the charge carriers ([0077] and Fig. 4, in order to increase responsivity of the photodetector, the modulation element introduces a leakage control element which re-routes a certain amount of charge per unit time to a position different from a floating diffusion).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter (US 20220357434 A1) in view of Han et al. (S. M. Han et al., "A Time-of-Flight Range Image Sensor With Background Canceling Lock-in Pixels Based on Lateral Electric Field Charge Modulation," IEEE Journal, 2015), further in view of Bennington (US 20220057496 A1), further in view of Keilaf (US 20190271767 A1), further in view of Takemoto (US 20180329063 A1).
Regarding Claim 12: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
However, this current combination does not teach: further comprising: processing circuitry configured to determine a reflectivity value indicating a reflectivity of an object in the scene based on an output value of the photosensitive sensor pixel output for the measurement, wherein the ToF sensor is further configured to perform one or more second ToF measurements prior to performing the ToF measurement, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a distance value indicating a distance to the object based on an output of the ToF sensor for the one or more second ToF measurements, and adjust, based on the distance value, the measurement range of the ToF sensor for the ToF measurement to include the object.
Keilaf further teaches: processing circuitry configured to determine a reflectivity value indicating a reflectivity of an object in the scene based on an output value of the photosensitive sensor pixel output for the measurement ([0070] and Fig. 1B, this is an output from a scanning cycle of a LiDAR system and each dot contains information like reflectivity; [0272] observed reflectivity levels inform how to adjust pixel sensitivity in subsequent measurements),
wherein the ToF sensor is further configured to perform one or more second ToF measurements prior to performing the ToF measurement (Fig. 15, step 1502 and 1504, emitting a first pulse toward FOV and detect information), and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a distance value indicating a distance to the object based on an output of the ToF sensor for the one or more second ToF measurements (Fig. 15, step 1504, determine data associated with the first reflected pulse, and this data includes distance. [0281] and Figs. 10 and 13, describe how sensitivity adjustments can be made based on sub regions, and to identify where to reduce sensitivity because of highly reflective objects such as license place, a distance must be determined. In Fig. 10, the sensitivity is adjusted based on the time that corresponds to the distance of the car).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter, Han, Bennington, and Keilaf, by incorporating a preliminary time of flight measurement that determines a distance value, before the original time of flight measurement is taken, as further taught by Keilaf. This would be beneficial because knowing the distance of an object before taking additional measurements would enable the system to adjust pixel sensitivity as needed based on previous detections and objects in the region of interest (Keilaf, [0281] and [0288]).
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, such that it determines reflectivity of an object based on measurements that have been taken, as taught by Keilaf. Determining the reflectivity of objects in the environment is beneficial because this information is useful in applications such as autonomous vehicle navigation. This would provide valuable information about the environment, such as road conditions, and can inform the system how to allocate an optical and/or computational budget (Keilaf, [0316]).
However, this combination still does not teach adjust, based on the distance value, the measurement range of the ToF sensor for the ToF measurement to include the object.
Takemoto teaches a system that takes a first and second time of flight measurement, where the first time of flight measurement yields a distance ([0114] and Fig. 4, during frame 1, a first distance measurement is performed and the target is identified to be at a distance corresponding to time segment 13) and adjust, based on the distance value, the measurement range of the ToF sensor for the ToF measurement to include the object ([0114] and Fig. 4, in frame 1, the target was identified to be at a distance corresponding to time segment 13. In the second frame, the second measurement time range is selected to only sample the time segment where the target is located).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter, Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, such that the primary distance measurement is used to adjust the subsequent measurement time range, as taught by Takemoto. Selecting the second measurement time range based on the targets distance allows the system to more efficiently measure a distance (Takemoto, [0006]). Without this type of range gating, long exposure times are required to measure far distances, and because of these long exposure times, a large number of detections would be required to generate a high-resolution distance measurement. However, with this kind of range gating, high-resolution distance measurements can be taken more efficiently (Takemoto, [0005]).
Regarding Claim 19: Hofrichter, in view of Han et al., Bennington, and Keilaf, teaches the method of claim 18.
However, this combination does not teach: performing one or more second ToF measurements using the ToF sensor prior to performing the ToF measurement; determining a distance value indicating a distance to the object based on an output of the ToF sensor for the one or more second ToF measurements; and adjusting based on the distance value, the measurement range of the ToF sensor for the ToF measurement to include the object.
Keilaf further teaches performing one or more second ToF measurements using the ToF sensor prior to performing the ToF measurement (Fig. 15, step 1502 and 1504, emitting a first pulse toward FOV and detect information); determining a distance value indicating a distance to the object based on an output of the ToF sensor for the one or more second ToF measurements (Fig. 15, step 1504, determine data associated with the first reflected pulse, and this data includes distance. [0281] and Figs. 10 and 13, describe how sensitivity adjustments can be made based on sub regions, and to identify where to reduce sensitivity because of highly reflective objects such as license place, a distance must be determined. In Fig. 10, the sensitivity is adjusted based on the time that corresponds to the distance of the car).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter, Han, Bennington, and Keilaf, by incorporating a preliminary time of flight measurement that determines a distance value, before the original time of flight measurement is taken, as further taught by Keilaf. This would be beneficial because knowing the distance of an object before taking additional measurements would enable the system to adjust pixel sensitivity as needed based on previous detections and objects in the region of interest (Keilaf, [0281] and [0288]).
However, this combination still does not teach adjusting, based on the distance value, the measurement range of the ToF sensor for the ToF measurement to include the object.
Takemoto teaches a method that takes a first and second time of flight measurement, where the first time of flight measurement yields a distance ([0114] and Fig. 4, during frame 1, a first distance measurement is performed and the target is identified to be at a distance corresponding to time segment 13) and adjusts, based on the distance value, the measurement range of the ToF sensor for the ToF measurement to include the object ([0114] and Fig. 4, in frame 1, the target was identified to be at a distance corresponding to time segment 13. In the second frame, the second measurement time range is selected to only sample the time segment where the target is located).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Hofrichter, Han, Bennington, and Keilaf, such that the primary distance measurement is used to adjust the subsequent measurement time range, as taught by Takemoto. Selecting the second measurement time range based on the targets distance allows the system to more efficiently measure a distance (Takemoto, [0006]). Without this type of range gating, long exposure times are required to measure far distances, and because of these long exposure times, a large number of detections would be required to generate a high-resolution distance measurement. However, with this kind of range gating, high-resolution distance measurements can be taken more efficiently (Takemoto, [0005]).
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 ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights