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 Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 5 January 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 17-20 were amended. Claim 7-8 were cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 9-20 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., compensating for wiring-induced timing deviation with an overlapping portion) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Ko teaches the amended claim limitations because the overlapping light emitted from the VCSEL are located at a position away from the laser driver and corresponding connector located on the planar board, as shown in Fig. 5a (low profile connector 501, planar board 502, VCSEL 505). Thus, the rejection over Ko in view of Niclass is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al., US 20160182895 A1 (“Ko”) in view of Niclass et al., US 20180341009 A1 (“Niclass”).
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses a distance measurement apparatus comprising: a light emitting unit that has a plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 2a, light source array 204, Paragraph [0031]-[0032]), and is able to be driven independently in a plurality of regions (Paragraph [0032]: some embodiments may have subsets of light sources turn on/off together); a light receiving unit provided with a plurality of light receiving elements that receive reflected light of light applied to an object from the light emitting unit (Fig. 5a, RGBZ sensor 503, Paragraph [0050]-[0051]); an irradiation optical system comprising at least one lens that causes an overlapping portion to be generated in which light reception of the reflected light overlaps in the adjacent regions, on the light receiving unit (Fig. 2a, objective lens 202, electro-mechanical motors 203, Paragraph [0031]; Fig. 1d, larger area 105, locations 106, 107, 108, 109, Paragraph [0027]); and a controller configured to: measure a distance to the object, from a difference between a waveform of light received by the light receiving unit and a waveform of light emitted by the light emitting unit (Fig. 5a, integrated image sensor 503, Paragraph [0050]-[0052]; Fig. 5b, step 554, Paragraph [0057]), […], wherein the controller is configured to cause the overlapping portion to be generated in some of the adjacent regions, on the light receiving unit (Fig. 2a, objective lens 202, electro-mechanical motors 203, Paragraph [0031]; Fig. 1d, larger area 105, locations 106, 107, 108, 109, Paragraph [0027]), by light emitted from the light emitting element located at a position away from a coupling portion between a wiring portion that transmits a signal to each region of the light emitting unit and the light emitting unit (Fig. 5a, planar board 502, connector 501, VCSEL 505, Paragraph [0055]: laser driver circuitry may be mounted on planar board 502 and receives information through connector 501).
Ko does not teach: correct a distance difference in the reflected light in the adjacent regions, by using a distance measurement value in the overlapping portion.
However, Niclass teaches a detector array that collects images of a scanned illumination spot in overlapping and adjacent super pixels. As the illumination spot moves to an adjacent region, an overlapping super pixel continues to collect signal data to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. (Fig. 7A-C, detector array 28, illumination spot 110, 120, 124, super pixels 112, 114, 116, 122, Paragraphs [0062]-[0065]; See also Paragraph [0067]: control circuit 38 uses calculation to optimize signal-to-noise).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko’s integrated image sensor by using overlapping super pixels to collect a signal from illumination spots, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the irradiation optical system (Ko, Fig. 2a, objective lens 202, electro-mechanical motors 203, Paragraph [0031]) shapes light emitted from the light emitting unit to cause the overlapping portion to be generated (Ko, Fig. 1d, larger area 105, locations 106, 107, 108, 109, Paragraph [0027]) in which light reception of the reflected light overlaps in the adjacent regions, on the light receiving unit (Niclass, Fig. 7A-C, detector array 28, illumination spot 110, 120, 124, super pixels 112, 114, 116, 122, Paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko’s integrated image sensor by using overlapping super pixels to collect a signal from illumination spots, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the irradiation optical system includes a lens (Ko, Fig. 2a, objective lens 202, electro-mechanical motors 203, Paragraph [0031]), and causes the overlapping portion to be generated by shifting a position of a focal length of the lens from a position of the light emitting unit (Ko, Fig. 3a, illuminated region 310, vertical distance 312, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the irradiation optical system causes the overlapping portion to be generated by shifting the position of the light emitting unit from the position of the focal length toward the lens side (Ko, Fig. 3a, illuminated region 310, vertical distance 312, Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the irradiation optical system causes the overlapping portion to be generated by allowing light emitted from adjacent regions of the light emitting unit to be received in the light receiving region of the light receiving unit (Ko, Fig. 2a, objective lens 202, electro-mechanical motors 203, Paragraph [0031]; Fig. 1d, larger area 105, locations 106, 107, 108, 109, Paragraph [0027]), the light receiving region being regarded as one piece of data (Niclass, illumination spot 110, pixels 112, 114, and 116, Paragraph [0063]), and the controller corrects the distance difference by matching a distance measurement value in one region received in the light receiving region with a distance measurement value in the other region (Niclass, Fig. 7A-B, detector array 28, illumination spot 110, 120, super pixels 112, 114, 116, 122, Paragraphs [0064]: super pixels 112, 114, 116 continue collecting signal at second time to improve signal-to-noise ratio).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko’s integrated image sensor by using overlapping super pixels to collect a signal from illumination spots, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 17, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1. wherein the controller corrects at least one of the light emission of the light emitting unit or the light reception of the light receiving unit to correct the distance difference (Niclass, Paragraph [0067]: control circuit 38 chooses sensors to activate to optimize signal-to-noise).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ko’s integrated image sensor by using overlapping super pixels to collect a signal from illumination spots, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 20, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a distance measurement program causing a computer to function as the controller of the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Ko, Fig. 6, computing system 600, applications processor or multi-core processor 650, image signal processing pipelines 619, Paragraph [0058]-[0059]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, in further view of Park, US 20240056669 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 4, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 3.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, does not teach: wherein the lens includes a plurality of lenses, and the overlapping portion is generated by shifting a position of a combined focal length of the plurality of lenses from the position of the light emitting unit.
However, Park discloses a lens assembly with multiples lenses that is moved in a vertical direction to change the light pattern of the light source (Fig. 4, lens assembly 200, driving module 300, Paragraph [0067]; See also Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens disclosed by Ko and Niclass by adding multiple lenses in an assembly, which is disclosed by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maximize advantages from both a spot light pattern and a flood light pattern, as suggested by Park (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Park, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the irradiation optical system causes the overlapping portion to be generated by shifting the position of the light emitting unit from the position of the focal length toward the lens side (Ko, Fig. 3a, illuminated region 310, vertical distance 312, Paragraph [0039]; Park, Figs. 4 and 5, lens assembly 200, driving module 300, Paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens disclosed by Ko and Niclass by adding multiple lenses in an assembly, which is disclosed by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maximize advantages from both a spot light pattern and a flood light pattern, as suggested by Park (Paragraph [0064]).
Claims 10-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, in further view of Sato et al., US 20190146086 A1 (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 10, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, does not teach: further comprising: a distance reference unit that measures a distance reference in the apparatus.
However, Sato teaches a cover panel that transmits part of light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflects the other part. A light receiving element receives both light and calculates a crosstalk value (Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 11, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 2.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, does not teach: further comprising: a distance reference unit that measures a distance reference in the apparatus.
However, Sato teaches a cover panel that transmits part of light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflects the other part. A light receiving element receives both light and calculates a crosstalk value (Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 3,
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, does not teach: further comprising: a distance reference unit that measures a distance reference in the apparatus.
However, Sato teaches a cover panel that transmits part of light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflects the other part. A light receiving element receives both light and calculates a crosstalk value (Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 5,
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, does not teach: further comprising: a distance reference unit that measures a distance reference in the apparatus.
However, Sato teaches a cover panel that transmits part of light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflects the other part. A light receiving element receives both light and calculates a crosstalk value (Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Sato, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the distance reference unit is provided in a partial region of a cover glass (Sato, Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Park, in further view of Sato.
Regarding claim 13, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Park, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 4.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Park, does not teach: further comprising: a distance reference unit that measures a distance reference in the apparatus.
However, Sato teaches a cover panel that transmits part of light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflects the other part. A light receiving element receives both light and calculates a crosstalk value (Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Park, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 6.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass and Park, does not teach: further comprising: a distance reference unit that measures a distance reference in the apparatus.
However, Sato teaches a cover panel that transmits part of light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflects the other part. A light receiving element receives both light and calculates a crosstalk value (Fig. 1, light emitting element 3, cover panel 4, first light receiving unit 5, L1, L2, Paragraph [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by a partially reflective cover panel, which is disclosed by Sato. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “correct an incorrect distance with a correct distance”, as suggested by Sato (Paragraph [0013]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, in further view of Ueno et al., US 20190265356 A1 (“Ueno”).
Regarding claim 18, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass does not teach: further comprising: an abnormality specifying unit that specifies a region in which an abnormality is likely to occur, wherein the controller performs correction, with the region where there is no abnormality as a reference.
However, Ueno teaches a calibration subroutine for a light receiving area. In the routine, a CPU determines that at least one location in the image is abnormal. If there is an abnormality, an abnormal-state addressing task is performed to correct the abnormality. (Fig. 8, steps 260 – 280, Paragraph [0179]-[0181]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated sensor array and processing system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by including an abnormality detection calibration step, which is disclosed by Ueno. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a reduction in accuracy of measuring a distance of a target object, as suggested by Ueno (Paragraph [0265]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, in further view of Donovan et al., US 20200386868 A1 (“Donovan”).
Regarding claim 19, Ko, as modified in view of Niclass, discloses the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Ko, as modified in view of Niclass does not teach: wherein in a case where there are a plurality of light emitting elements corresponding to the overlapping portion, the controller calculates an average value as the distance measurement value in the overlapping portion and performs correction.
However, Donovan teaches a detector averaging the recorded data from each VCSEL laser firing and calculating the time of flight based on the average (Fig. 7, steps 708 – 714, Paragraph [0062]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the integrated sensor array and processing system disclosed by Ko and Niclass by calculating the TOF based on an average of each data corresponding to each laser firing, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to meet desired eye safety thresholds and thermal considerations, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0070]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645