DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 25 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102 and 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Schoenlieb (IEEE – DATE 2019).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schoenlieb (IEEE – DATE 2019).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Schoenlieb discloses a method and apparatus for determining an intensity value representing an intensity of light reflected from an object in a scene [p1078, Fig 2; Sec IV-C]…performing a Time-of-Flight, (ToF) measurement of the scene using a ToF sensor [p1078-1079, Fig 2; Sec IV-C], wherein a light-intensity-independent correlation function of a photo- sensitive pixel of the ToF sensor exhibits a plateau in a target measurement range for the ToF measurement [Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V], the object being located within the target measurement range [Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V]; and a processing circuit configured [p1079, Sec IV-B, Col 2; p1080-81, Sec V, VI] for determining the intensity value based on an output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the ToF measurement [Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V].
Regarding Claim 2, Schoenlieb also discloses wherein the light- intensity-independent correlation function provides the photo-sensitive pixel's distance-dependent correlation of the light with a reference signal and without considering the intensity of the light, wherein the photo-sensitive pixel being is driven based on the reference signal [p1079, Sec IV-B; Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V].
Regarding Claim 3, Schoenlieb also teaches applying at least one correction to the output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the ToF measurement [p1079-80; Sec IV-B, C – “tuning”].
Regarding Claim 4, Schoenlieb also teaches illuminating the scene with modulated light [p 1078, Sec IV – A, Fig 5]; and driving the photo-sensitive pixel based on a reference signal [p1077, Sec II; 002p 1079 Sec IV-B]… wherein the reference signal exhibits an alternating series of high and low pulses of equal duration [p1078, Sec IV – A, Fig 5], and wherein the modulated light exhibits a series of light pulses with equal pulse length and equal pulse spacing [p1078, Sec IV – A, Fig 5].
Regarding Claim 5, Schoenlieb also teaches wherein a duty cycle of the modulated light is smaller than a duty cycle of the reference signal (“changing code length and modulation frequency”) [p1079-80; Sec IV-B, C; Fig 9].
Regarding Claim 6, Schoenlieb also teaches performing a further ToF measurement [p1079, Sec IV-B, Col 2; p1080-81, Sec V, Fig 12]… wherein the reference signal used for driving the photo-sensitive pixel in the further ToF measurement is inverted with respect to the reference signal used for driving the photo-sensitive pixel in the ToF measurement [p1079-80; Sec IV-B, C; Fig 9], and wherein the intensity value is determined based on a difference between the output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the ToF measurement and an output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the further ToF measurement [p1079-80; Sec IV-B, C; Fig 9].
Regarding Claim 9, Schoenlieb also discloses wherein the light-intensity-independent correlation function exhibits at least one further plateau in at least one further target measurement range for the ToF measurement [Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V].
Regarding Claim 10, Schoenlieb also discloses performing a further ToF measurement of the scene using the ToF sensor, wherein the light-intensity-independent correlation function of the photo- sensitive pixel exhibits for the further ToF measurement a plateau in another target measurement range [Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V]; and determining the intensity value based on the output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the ToF measurement and an output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the further ToF measurement [Fig 12; p 1081, Sec V].
Regarding Claim 11, Schoenlieb also teaches wherein an absolute value of the light-intensity-independent correlation function at a predetermined distance is less than 10 % of an absolute value of the light-intensity-independent correlation function at the plateau [p1081, Sec V; Fig 12].
Regarding Claim 12, Schoenlieb also teaches wherein an element covering the ToF sensor is arranged at the predetermined distance with respect to the ToF sensor [p1080, Sec IV-C; Fig 11].
Regarding Claim 13, Schoenlieb also discloses performing one or more further ToF measurements using the ToF sensor; determining a distance value indicating a distance to the object based on an output of the ToF sensor for the one or more further ToF measurements; and determining the target measurement range based on the distance value [p1079, Sec IV-B, Col 2; p1080-81, Sec V, Fig 12].
Regarding Claim 14, Schoenlieb also teaches generating a grayscale image of the scene comprising a pixel representing the determined intensity value [p1076, Fig 1; p1080, Fig 11].
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenlieb (IEEE – DATE 2019), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Krattiger (US 2014/0300718).
Regarding Claim 7, Schoenlieb also teaches depending on a signal value of the reference signal, the photo-sensitive pixel stores charges generated in the photo-sensitive pixel during the ToF measurement [p1077, Sec III]. Schoenlieb does not explicitly teach – but Krattiger does teach selectively in one of two charge storages of the photo-sensitive pixel, and wherein the output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the ToF measurement is based on only the charges collected in one of the two charge storages during the ToF measurement [0116]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Schoenlieb to include two charge storages as the ratio of the charges collected in the storage elements, in the same way as the ratio of the voltages present at the storage elements, is a simple function of the phase difference between the modulation of the light incident on the photosensitive element and the high-frequency alternate switching of the storage elements.
Regarding Claim 8, Schoenlieb also teaches depending on a signal value of the reference signal, the photo-sensitive pixel stores charges generated in the photo-sensitive pixel during the ToF measurement [p1077, Sec III]. Schoenlieb does not explicitly teach – but Krattiger does teach selectively in one of two charge storages of the photo-sensitive pixel, and wherein the output of the photo-sensitive pixel for the ToF measurement is based on a difference between the charges collected in the two charge storages during the ToF measurement [0116]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Schoenlieb to include two charge storages as the ratio of the charges collected in the storage elements, in the same way as the ratio of the voltages present at the storage elements, is a simple function of the phase difference between the modulation of the light incident on the photosensitive element and the high-frequency alternate switching of the storage elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645