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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/7/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/7/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Branca (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0175586).
With respect to claim 1, Branca disclose: A system comprising: a light emission unit [ taught by figure 4 ] comprising: at least one light source [ taught by the array (3) of optical sources ]; and two or more drivers coupled to the at least one light source, each configured to output a respective drive signal to the at least one light source to drive the at least one light source to emit light [ taught by transistors (TC1 toTC4) ]; paragraphs [0052] and [0053] ]; a controller coupled to the light emission unit and configured to control a timing and a modulation of the two or more drive signals [ taught by switches (COM1 to COM4); paragraphs [0052] and [0053] ], wherein the controller is configured to output to the light emission unit a first modulated control signal and a second modulated control signal [ taught by square waves (SC1 to SC4) ], the first modulated control signal and the second modulated control signal each having a fundamental component at a fundamental frequency and one or more harmonic components at one or more harmonic frequencies [ a square wave is comprised of fundamental components and harmonic components ], and wherein the controller is configured to output to the light emission unit a first modulated control signal and a second modulated control signal, the first modulated control signal and the second modulated control signal each having a fundamental component at a fundamental frequency and one or more harmonic components at one or more harmonic frequencies [ taught by (TC1 to TC4) and (COM1 to COM4) applying control signals to the optical source array (3) ], and wherein the light emission unit is configured to emit light having a modulation resulting from a combination of the first modulated control signal and the second modulated control signal [ taught by figure 6, wherein the combination of square waves produces an approximation of a sine wave ], the modulation of the output light having a fundamental component at the fundamental frequency and one or more harmonic components at the one or more harmonic frequencies [ an approximated sine wave has fundamental and harmonic components ], wherein an amplitude of at least one of the harmonic components of the output light is less than an amplitude of corresponding harmonic components of the first modulated control signal and the second modulated control signal [ an approximated sine wave has lower amplitude harmonics than a square wave due to being closer in shape to a pure sine wave ].
Claims 3 to 5 are shown by figure 5.
Figure 4 shows (TC1 to TC4) and (COM1 to COM4) coupled to array light source (3), thus meeting claim 6.
Figure 4 shows (TC1 to TC4) and (COM1 to COM4) coupled to individual elements (G1 to G4), thus meeting claim 8.
Figure 5 shows each of the square waves being generated withing the same period, thus meeting claim 10.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branca (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0175586) in view of Mathy et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0272651).
Branca does not disclose the light sources being coupled with a diffuser.
Paragraph [0075] of Mathy et al states, “…According to some embodiments, to determine a distance map, an image sensor may perform the above calculation independently for each pixel based on how much light the pixel collects during each of the S0 and S1 shutter periods. The illumination light pulse may be emitted from a single illumination light source and spread to objects in the environment using a diffuser, as discussed above…” ; thus, establishing the use of a diffuser in combination with a light source was known before the effective filing date of the present application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a diffuser to the device of Branca, when seeking to spread light to objects in the field of view.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-22 are allowed.
With respect to claim 12, the cited prior art, taken alone or in combination does not teach or suggest using a first control signal for charge accumulation at a first time and a second control signal at a second time wherein the first and second control signals have different duty cycle ratios, as set forth in entire context.
Claims 13-16 depend on claim 12.
With respect to claim 17, the cited prior art, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest that the second modulation signal have a duty cycle ration different to that of the first modulation signal, as set forth in entire context.
Claims 18-22 depend on claim 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights