DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7, 11-14 and 17-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yin (US 2022/0137192).
Regarding Claim 1, Yin discloses a system for time-of-flight (TOF) sensing [#100 of Fig 1; 0021], comprising: a sensing module array comprising a plurality of sensing modules [#203, #211 of Fig 2; 0023; 0038], each of the sensing modules comprising: a plurality of single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) cells for receiving reflected light pulses [#221 - #225 of Fig 2; 0023; 0026; 0028], wherein each of the SPAD cells outputs a pixel event signal with logical high if the SPAD cell receives a reflected light pulse [0023-24; 0031-34], and wherein one of the SPAD cells is a selected SPAD cell [0023-24; 0029; 0031-34; 0044] a periodical correlation detection (PCD) circuit configured to count the pixel event signals with logical high for each detection period [0024-28; 0031-36]; and a time-to-digital converter (TDC), wherein the TDC is determined to be valid in response to both of the conditions… (i) a count of the pixel event signals with logical high in one detection period reaching a predetermined threshold and (ii) the selected SPAD cell receiving a reflected light pulse in the detection period [0023-24; 0034-36; 0040].
Regarding Claim 11, Yin discloses a system for time-of-flight (TOF) sensing [#100 of Fig 1; Abstract; 0021-24], comprising: a sensing module array comprising a plurality of sensing modules [#203, #211 of Fig 2; 0023; 0038], each of the sensing modules comprising: a plurality of single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) cells for receiving reflected light pulses [#221 - #225 of Fig 2; 0023; 0026; 0028], wherein each of the SPAD cells outputs a pixel event signal with logical high if the SPAD cell receives a reflected light pulse [0023-24; 0031-34], and wherein one of the SPAD cells is a selected SPAD cell [0023-24; 0029; 0031-34; 0044]; a periodical correlation detection (PCD) circuit, wherein the PCD circuit counts the pixel event signals with logical high for each detection period [0024-28; 0031-36; 0044-49], wherein the PCD circuit further comprises a timestamp counter for outputting a timestamp signal [0024; 0031-36; 0048-49], wherein the timestamp signal is reset at the beginning of each repeated cycle [0024; 0031-34; 0044; 0048]; a timestamp data comparator configured to store and compare timestamp signals, wherein the PCD circuit operates in either a first operating mode or a second operating mode based on an output of the timestamp data comparator [0024; 0031-34; 0044-49];a time-to-digital converter (TDC) configured to output TDC data when the TDC is valid [0023-24; 0034-36; 0040]; wherein the TDC is determined to be valid in response to both of the conditions… (i) a count of the pixel event signals with logical high in one detection period reaching a predetermined threshold and (ii) the selected SPAD cell receiving a reflected light pulse in the detection period [0023-24; 0034-36; 0040].
Regarding Claim 18, Yin discloses a method for time-of-flight sensing [#100 of Fig 1; Abstract; 0021-24],, the method comprising: selecting a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) cell of a plurality of SPAD cells for receiving reflected light pulses [#221 - #225 of Fig 2; 0023; 0026; 0028]; counting the number of the SPAD cells of the plurality of SPAD cells that receive the reflected light pulses for a detection period [0021-24; 0031-36; 0048]; determining whether the number of the SPAD cells that receive the reflected light pulses reach a predetermined threshold in the detection period [0024; 0031-36; 0052-53]; determining whether the selected SPAD cell receives the reflected light pulses in the detection period [Abstract; 0024-26; 0033-36; 0048]; recording a timestamp of the detection period and outputting time-to-digital converter (TDC) data [0044-47] in response to both of the conditions… (i) a count of the pixel event signals with logical high in one detection period reaching a predetermined threshold and (ii) the selected SPAD cell receiving a reflected light pulse in the detection period [0023-24; 0034-36; 0040].
Regarding Claim 2, Yin also discloses wherein the PCD circuit further comprises a timestamp counter for outputting a timestamp signal, wherein the timestamp signal is reset at the beginning of each repeated cycle [0024; 0031-36; 0044; 0048-49].
Regarding Claim 3, Yin also discloses wherein when the TDC is valid, a timestamp signal of the detection period is stored [0039; 0043; 0045; 0047].
Regarding Claim 5, Yin also discloses wherein the TDC data outputs a TDC data if the TDC is valid [0024; 0031-33]
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Yin also discloses wherein the PCD circuit stops counting the pixel event signals when the TDC is valid [Fig 12A; 0048]
Regarding Claim 8, Yin also discloses wherein the TDC is valid if a count of the pixel event signals with logical high in one detection period reaches a predetermined threshold and if the selected pixel event signal of the selected SPAD cell is detected in the detection period [0023; 0028-29; 0044; 0047-48; 0052]
Regarding Claim 9, Yin also discloses wherein the selected pixel event signals of the plurality of SPAD cells are transmitted to both the PCD circuit and the TDC [0023-24; 0031-36; 0044; 0052-55]
Regarding Claims 10 and 15, Yin also discloses wherein the plurality of SPAD cells are arranged in x rows and y columns in each of the sensing modules [0023; 0029; 0044; 0052]… and wherein after a last time-of-flight is measured, another SPAD cell of the plurality of SPAD cells is assigned as the selected SPAD cell [0029; 0044; 0047; 0052].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2022/0137192), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henderson (US 20200158836)
Regarding Claim 4, Yin does not explicitly teach – but Henderson does teach wherein when a repeated cycle ends, another SPAD cell of the plurality of SPAD cells is assigned as the selected SPAD cell [0079; 0084]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include assigning after a cycle ends to address pile-up distortion and which can inaccurately weight the estimated average time of arrival to earlier times.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2022/0137192), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mandai (US 2020/0278429).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Yin also teaches wherein each of the plurality of the SPAD cells further outputs a selected pixel event signal, and wherein the selected pixel event signal of the selected SPAD cell is configured to be logical high when the pixel event signal of the selected SPAD cell is logical high [0023; 0028-29; 0044; 0047-48; 0052]. Yin does not explicitly teach – but Mandai does teach each of the SPAD cells includes a decoder for generating the selected pixel event signal based on the address selection signals [0060]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include a decoder to produce the gating signal(s) to select pixels or columns of pixels and to enable the SPADs in the selected pixels.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2022/0137192), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Erdogan (US 2020/0116838).
Regarding Claim 12, Yin does not explicitly teach – but Erdogan does teach the timestamp signal increments for each detection period until the TDC being valid [0104]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include timestamp increments provided to the histogramming memory to increment the corresponding histogram bin counter.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2022/0137192) and Erdogan (US 2020/0116838), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Strassman (US 2024/0393746).
Regarding Claim 13, Yin does not explicitly teach – but Strassman does teach wherein, in the first operating mode: in response to the TDC being determined to be valid in a first detection period during a first repeat cycle, the timestamp data comparator stores a first timestamp signal of the first detection period, in response to the TDC being determined to be valid in a second detection period during a second repeat cycle right after the first repeat cycle, the timestamp data comparator compares the first timestamp signal with a second timestamp signal of the second detection period, and if the first timestamp signal is identical to the second timestamp signal, the first timestamp signal is set as a fixed timestamp signal, and the PCD circuit switches to the second operating mode [0038; 0047; 0054-58]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include data comparators and timestamp increments to a threshold as time stamps from consecutive triggers (from consecutive detection cycles) to be compared in a meaningful way, and any events that are not repeated in consecutive detection cycles are filtered out.
Regarding Claim 14, Yin does not explicitly teach – but Strassman does teach wherein, in the second operating mode: the timestamp signal increments for each detection period, and the TDC is valid if the count of the pixel event signals in a detection period reaches a predetermined threshold, if the selected SPAD cell receives a reflected light pulse in the detection period and if a timestamp signal of the detection period is identical to the fixed timestamp signal [0038; 0047; 0054-58]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include data comparators and timestamp increments to a threshold as time stamps from consecutive triggers (from consecutive detection cycles) to be compared in a meaningful way, and any events that are not repeated in consecutive detection cycles are filtered out.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2022/0137192), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Strassman (US 2024/0393746).
Regarding Claim 19, Yin also teaches determining whether a last time-of-flight condition is reached [0023; 0028-29; 0044; 0047-48; 0052]. Yin does not explicitly teach- but Strassman does teach whether the recorded timestamp of a current cycle is identical to the recorded timestamp of a previous cycle; in response to the recorded timestamp of the current cycle being determined to be identical to the recorded timestamp, storing the recorded timestamp of the current cycle as a fixed timestamp and switching to a time-gating mode; in response to the recorded timestamp of the current cycle being not identical to the recorded timestamp of the previous cycle, [0038; 0047; 0054-58]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include data comparators and timestamp increments to a threshold as time stamps from consecutive triggers (from consecutive detection cycles) to be compared in a meaningful way, and any events that are not repeated in consecutive detection cycles are filtered out.
Regarding Claim 20, Yin also teaches in response to the number of the SPAD cells that receive the reflected light pulses reach a predetermined threshold and if the selected SPAD cell receives the reflected light pulses, outputting the TDC data; determining whether a last time-of-flight condition is reached; and in response to the last time-of-flight condition being determined being reached [0023; 0028-29; 0044; 0047-48; 0052]. Yin does not explicitly teach- but Strassman does teach wherein the fixed timestamp mode comprises: determining whether a timestamp of the detection period is identical to the fixed timestamp; in response to the timestamp of the detection period being identical to the fixed time stamp, determining whether the number of the SPAD cells that receive the reflected light pulses in a detection period reach a predetermined threshold and determining whether the selected SPAD cell receives the reflected light pulses in the detection period; …switch to the first operating mode [0038; 0047; 0054-58]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Yin to include data comparators and timestamp increments to a threshold as time stamps from consecutive triggers (from consecutive detection cycles) to be compared in a meaningful way, and any events that are not repeated in consecutive detection cycles are filtered out.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments on Page 2 regarding independent Claims 1, 11 and 19, which attempt to clarify that both conditions need to be met in order for the Time-of-flight sensor to operate correctly, this appears merely to be a re-phrasing of the previously presented limitations. Primary reference Yin teaches each of these limitations rather explicitly in [0023] – [0028] and [0031] – [0036]. The last sentence of [0031], while not using the word “both” states that condition (i) AND (ii) must be met in order for the TDC to operate correctly. As such this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (for Claims 4, 12-14 and 19-20), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s arguments on Page 3 regarding dependent Claims 7 and 17, additional reference Mandai has been cited which teaches a SPAD decoder. Further references have been included on the 892 which similarly teach this limitation.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. 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