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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (lDS) submitted on 12/05/2022 and 08/02/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 12/05/2022, claims foreign priority to JP Application No. 2022-105898, filed on 02/03/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, lines 9-10 recite “a plurality of irradiation beams each being the irradiation beam.” It is unclear what “the irradiation beam” refers to in the context of a plurality of irradiation beams. Stated differently, it is unclear how each beam in a plurality of irradiation beams can be “the irradiation beam.” Further, lines 16-17 recite “the plurality of irradiation beams.” The limitation lacks clear antecedent basis within the second branch of the alternative recitation (lines 11-17). Finally, the alternative recitations within the first branch (lines 3-10) and second branch (lines 11-17) do not present meaningfully distinct alternatives. Both branches cover (i) “the at least one light-emitting element includes a plurality of light-emitting elements”; (ii) “the distance measuring device comprises the plurality of light-emitting elements”; and, (iii) “the distance measuring device further comprises a light splitter configured to split light applied by the at least one light-emitting element into … plurality of irradiation beams.” The purported alternatives materially cover the same limitation, and the scope of the alternatives and intended distinction is unclear. The specification remains silent towards two distinct light splitter alternatives corresponding to the two branches of the recited “or” clause; rather, discloses only the single function of splitting light from the light-emitting element into a plurality of irradiation beams (Spec. ¶¶ 16, 39, 51, 76). Therefore, the specification fails to clarify the difference in scope, if any, intended by the two alternatives. To advance prosecution, the claim is understood to read --wherein the at least one light-emitting element includes a plurality of light-emitting elements and the distance measuring device comprises the plurality of light-emitting elements, the distance measuring device further comprises a light splitter configured to split light applied by the at least one light-emitting element into a plurality of irradiation beams--.
Claims 9-13 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hicks (US20190045173A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hicks discloses a distance measuring device (Fig. 2 as further detailed in Figs. 4-5; ¶¶ 43, 52-53, 55) comprising:
at least one light-emitting element (Fig. 2, projector 105, further detailed in Fig. 4, projector 105 and Fig. 7B, projected 105); and
an image sensor (Fig. 2, camera 104, analogous to Fig. 4, 104) including a plurality of pixel sections each of which includes a light-receiving element and which are two-dimensionally disposed (Fig. 4, sensor 402, analogous to Fig. 5; ¶ 53),
the image sensor including a position output section (Figs. 2 & 4, camera 104 outputting pixel signals 112 towards processor 101) configured to,
in a case where an amount of light received is greater than a first threshold value in the light-receiving element included in a pixel section of the plurality of pixel sections (¶¶ 36, 46, “for each pixel change [having an] increase in illumination greater than a particular amount”; Fig. 5, comparator 514), output a position of the pixel section in the image sensor (¶¶ 36, 46, “pixel signals 112 may include, for each pixel … a pixel location”; see also ¶ 54), the distance measuring device further comprising:
a position determining section (Fig. 2, module 102) configured to determine whether the position is located on a reflection trajectory (¶¶ 46-47, 50, determines correspondence matching between pixel locations constrained to the epipolar direction of the reflection trajectory on the sensor),
the reflection trajectory being a line connecting, on the image sensor, points at which a reflected beam, reflected by a physical object, of an irradiation beam from the at least one light-emitting element forms an image on the image sensor (Fig. 2, trajectory formed by irradiation beam 122 and reflection beam 123 to/from object x) and which are obtained as a distance from the physical object is changed (¶ 50, distance d to object x changes with disparity in pixel displacement); and
a distance deriving section (Fig. 2, module 102) configured to, in a case where the position is located on the reflection trajectory (¶ 50, constrained to the epipolar direction), derive, with use of a relationship between the position and the distance from the physical object, a distance to a physical object (¶ 50, distance d to object x inversely proportional to disparity, where the disparity indicates degree of pixel displacement).
Regarding claim 2, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 1, and further discloses: the plurality of pixel sections each include an event generating section (Fig. 5, differencing circuit 512 and comparators 514) configured to,
in a case where an amount of light received is greater than the first threshold value in the light-receiving element (¶¶ 36, 46, illumination change exceeds a particular threshold amount; Fig. 5, comparators 514), generate an event (¶ 53 & Fig. 5, event generation resulting in either an ON event 515 or an OFF event 516, analogous to Fig. 6, 602 & 603); and
the position output section is configured to output a position, in the image sensor, of the pixel section in which the event generating section has generated the event (¶¶ 37 & 54, output pixel location and indication of event).
Regarding claim 6, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 2, and further discloses: wherein the image sensor includes a time output section configured to output a time at which the event generating section generated the event (¶¶ 46-47, 54, “time stamp” of illumination change event).
Regarding claim 8, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the at least one light-emitting element includes a plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 4, VCSEL array 406, as further detailed in Fig. 7B, 406) and the distance measuring device comprises the plurality of light-emitting elements (¶ 55), the distance measuring device further comprises a light splitter configured to split light applied by the at least one light-emitting element (Fig. 7B, optical element 703; ¶ 58) into a plurality of irradiation beams each being the irradiation beam (Fig. 7B, beams 704; ¶ 58), or
the at least one light-emitting element includes a plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 4, VCSEL array 406, as further detailed in Fig. 7B, 406) and the distance measuring device comprises the plurality of light-emitting elements (¶ 55), and the distance measuring device further comprises a light splitter configured to split light applied by the at least one light-emitting element (Fig. 7B, optical element 703; ¶ 58) into the plurality of irradiation beams (Fig. 7B, beams 704; ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 11, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 8, and further discloses: a plurality of irradiation beams applied by the plurality of light-emitting elements or the plurality of irradiation beams as a result of split by the light splitter are arranged on a plurality of first straight lines parallel to each other (¶ 69, illumination scheme from projector 105 as detailed in Fig. 13, features 1304 and 1305; ¶ 74); and the plurality of first straight lines (Fig. 13, directionally along y-axis) differ in direction from a second straight line that connects the light-emitting element and the image sensor (Figs. 2 & 4, directionally along x-axis).
Regarding claim 16, Hicks discloses a distance measurement method for measuring a distance to a measurement target (¶ 50, measurement of depth d of object x; Figs. 2-5), the distance measurement method being to be performed in a distance measuring device (Fig. 2 as further detailed in Figs. 4-5; ¶¶ 43, 52-53, 55) that includes a light-emitting element (Fig. 2, projector 105, further detailed in Fig. 4, projector 105) and an image sensor (Fig. 2, camera 104, analogous to Fig. 4, 104) including a plurality of pixel sections each of which includes a light-receiving element and which are two-dimensionally disposed (Fig. 4, sensor 402, analogous to Fig. 5; ¶ 53), the distance measurement method comprising the steps of:
in a case where an amount of light received is greater than a first threshold value in the light-receiving element included in a pixel section of the plurality of pixel sections (¶¶ 36, 46, “for each pixel change [having an] increase in illumination greater than a particular amount”), outputting a position of the pixel section in the image sensor (¶¶ 36, 46, “pixel signals 112 may include, for each pixel … a pixel location”; see also ¶ 54);
determining whether the position is located on a reflection trajectory (¶¶ 46-47, 50, determines correspondence matching between pixel locations constrained to the epipolar direction of the reflection trajectory on the sensor),
the reflection trajectory being a line connecting, on the image sensor, points at which a reflected beam, reflected by a physical object, of an irradiation beam from the light-emitting element forms an image on the image sensor and which are obtained as a distance from the physical object is changed (Fig. 2, trajectory formed by irradiation beam 122 and reflection beam 123 to/from object x); and
in a case where the position is located on the reflection trajectory (¶ 50, constrained to the epipolar direction), deriving, with use of a relationship between the position and the distance from the physical object, the distance to the measurement target (¶ 50, distance d to object x inversely proportional to disparity, where the disparity indicates degree of pixel displacement).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Brandli (US20220224856A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 2, and further discloses: the first threshold value (¶¶ 36, 46, “increase in illumination greater than a particular amount”; Fig. 5, comparator 514 triggering ON event 515) and a second threshold value (¶¶ 36, 46, “decrease in illumination greater than a particular amount”; Fig. 5, comparator 514 triggering OFF event 516) are set to values in proportion to a reference amount of light received (¶¶ 29, 36, 46, increase/decrease detection threshold relative to “reference… intensity value”; Fig. 6 & ¶ 54), and […];
an amount of light received indicated by the first threshold value is greater by a first proportion of the reference amount of light received than the reference amount of light received (¶¶ 29, 36 & 53-54, “increase in illumination greater than a particular amount” relative to the reference intensity value; Fig. 5, differencing circuit 512 outputs illumination change relative to reference level, comparator 514 compares against threshold to decide whether an event 515, 516 is triggered), and
an amount of light received indicated by the second threshold value is smaller by a second proportion of the reference amount of light received than the reference amount of light received (¶¶ 29, 36 & 53-54, “decrease in illumination greater than a particular amount” relative to the reference intensity value; Fig. 5, differencing circuit 512 outputs illumination change relative to reference level, comparator 514 compares against threshold to decide whether an event 515, 516 is triggered); and
the event generating section (Fig. 5, differencing circuit 512 and comparators 514) is configured to generate the event not only in a case where the amount of light received in the light-receiving element is greater than the first threshold value but also in a case where the amount of light received in the light-receiving element is smaller than the second threshold value (¶¶ 29, 36 & 53-54, ON/OFF event for illumination increase/decrease over particular threshold illumination amount relative to reference intensity value).
Hicks does not disclose: “the reference amount of light received is updated after generation of the event with an amount of light received after the generation.” However, Brandli teaches the limitation in ¶ 63, “if an event is stored in the event register, the control logic… store[s] the current count as the new illumination value” where the event is the corresponding ON or OFF event; ¶¶ 54 & 60-61. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks with the teachings of Brandli with a reasonable expectation for success in order to avoid redundant data and compute operations, thereby reducing power consumption and improving system efficiency (Brandli, ¶¶ 3, 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hicks in view of Brandli teaches the distance measuring device of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the event generating section (Hicks, Fig. 5, differencing circuit 512 and comparators 514) is configured to generate an event that is distinguishable in terms of whether the amount of light received is greater than the first threshold value or is smaller than the second threshold value (Hicks, ¶¶ 29, 36 & 53-54, ON/OFF event for illumination increase/decrease over particular threshold amount relative to reference intensity value).
Regarding claim 7, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 2, however, does not disclose: wherein the image sensor includes an amount-of-light-received output section configured to output information indicating an amount of light received, at a time when the event generating section generated the event, of the light-receiving element. Brandli teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 59-63, where a new illumination value, corresponding to the amount of flight received, is set at a time after event generation (Fig. 3, Step 340). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks with the teachings of Brandli with a reasonable expectation for success in order to avoid redundant data and compute operations, thereby reducing power consumption and improving system efficiency (Brandli, ¶¶ 3, 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Brandli further in view of Hu (“v2e: From Video Frames to Realistic DVS Events,” published 2021)1.
Regarding claim 5, Hicks in view of Brandli teaches the distance measuring device of claim 4, and further teaches: [1: …]; the distance measuring device further comprises a same-pixel-event determining section (Hicks, Fig. 5, comparators 514) configured to determine whether the amount of light received is greater than the first threshold value (Hicks, ¶¶ 29, 36 & 53-54, determination of ON event 515) [2: …]; and the position determining section (Hicks, Fig. 2, module 102) is configured to determine whether a position of a pixel section of the plurality of pixel sections is located on the reflection trajectory, the pixel section including the light-receiving element that is determined, by the same-pixel-event determining section, to be the same light-receiving element in which the amount of light received is greater than the first threshold value (Hicks, ¶¶ 46-47, 50, determines correspondence matching between pixel locations constrained to the epipolar direction of the reflection trajectory on the sensor) [3: …].
Hicks in view of Brandli, as currently combined, does not disclose:
(1) “the absolute value of the first proportion used to set the first threshold value is greater than the absolute value of the second proportion used to set the second threshold value”;
(2) [determine whether the amount of light received is greater than the first threshold value] “before being smaller than the second threshold value, in the same light-receiving element within a predetermined time”; and,
(3) [determine whether the amount of light received is greater than the first threshold value] “before being smaller than the second threshold value.”
However, Brandli further teaches (2) and (3) in Figs. 3 and 5, where a set exposure time is employed to measure illumination, followed by determination of an ON event when light received is greater than first threshold value ThrON, then followed by determination of an OFF event when light received is small than second threshold value ThrOFF. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks in view of Brandli with the further teachings of Brandli with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce component requirements (e.g., single comparator, single digital memory) thereby reducing power consumption and increasing pixel density (Brandli, ¶¶ 16, 51, 54-55, 67).
Hicks in view of Brandli does not teach (1). However, Hu teaches the limitation in Table 1 on p. 1317, where the ON event illumination increase threshold of 0.73 is greater than the OFF event illumination decrease threshold of 0.43. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks in view of Brandli with the teachings of Hu, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a known variation of asymmetric thresholding, and an artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting a higher threshold magnitude for ON events over OFF events as taught by Hu would confer the advantages of reducing false positives and noise sensitivity, thereby yielding a device with greater detection reliability. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Shpunt (US20130207970A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 8. Hicks does not disclose: wherein a light-emission direction of the at least one light-emitting element is formed such that the reflection trajectory of any one of the plurality of irradiation beams does not overlap the reflection trajectory of any other one of the plurality of irradiation beams. However, Shpunt teaches the limitation in ¶ 103, where a plurality of beams producing simultaneous readings on a detector matrix do not overlap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks with the teachings of Shpunt with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce beam overlap detection ambiguity, thereby supporting more efficient and reliable depth capture across multiple measurements (Shpunt, ¶¶ 102-103).
Regarding claim 10, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 8. Hicks does not disclose: wherein a light-emission direction of the at least one light-emitting element is formed such that the reflection trajectory of any one of the plurality of irradiation beams that are simultaneously applied does not overlap the reflection trajectory of any other one of the plurality of irradiation beams. However, Shpunt teaches the limitation in ¶ 103, where a plurality of beams producing simultaneous readings on a detector matrix do not overlap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks with the teachings of Shpunt with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce beam overlap detection ambiguity, thereby supporting more efficient and reliable depth capture across multiple measurements (Shpunt, ¶¶ 102-103).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Gordon (US20080118143A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hicks discloses the distance measuring device of claim 11. Hicks does not disclose: wherein the plurality of first straight lines and the second straight line form an angle of less than 90°. However, Gordon teaches the limitation in Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶ 360-361. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measuring device of Hicks with the teachings of Gordon with a reasonable expectation for success in order to allow more sample points in the captured image, thereby yielding in higher resolution (Gordon, ¶¶ 356, 358, 360).
Regarding claim 13, Hicks in view of Gordon teaches the distance measuring device of claim 12, and further teaches: wherein the plurality of first straight lines and the second straight line form an angle of less than 45° (Gordon, Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶ 360-361).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichani (US20040045339A1) in view of Hicks.
Regarding claim 14, Nichani discloses an automatic door system (Fig. 1) comprising: […]; and an automatic door (Fig. 1, Door), the automatic door being opened and closed (¶ 10, “automatic door controlled by signals … to determine whether to open or close a door”) according to a result of detection of a passerby (¶¶ 12-13, presence of object incoming towards door; or, traffic in surrounding area) determined with use of a distance measured by the distance measuring device (Fig. 1, SDS 10; ¶¶ 18, 47 & 57, 3D localization and ranging).
Nichani does not disclose: “the distance measuring device according to claim 1.” However, Hicks teaches the limitation (see claim 1 analysis under § 102, previously presented). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic door system of Nichani with the distance measuring device of Hicks with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enhance detection reliability under difficult lighting conditions and further achieve accurate depth sensing with reduced computational burden and power (Hicks, ¶¶ 2-3).
Regarding claim 15, Nichani discloses an opening-closing system (Fig. 1) comprising: […]; and at least one selected from the group consisting of a shutter and a gate (¶ 12, sliding door understood as a gate; also see ¶ 76, gate for automobiles), the at least one selected from the group consisting of a shutter and a gate being opened and closed according to a result of detection of a passerby or a passing-by object (¶¶ 10, 12-13, 29, open/close based on passing object) determined with use of a distance measured by the distance measuring device (Fig. 1, SDS 10; ¶¶ 18, 47 & 57, 3D localization and ranging).
Nichani does not disclose: “the distance measuring device according to claim 1.” However, Hicks teaches the limitation (see claim 1 analysis under § 102, previously presented). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic door system of Nichani with the distance measuring device of Hicks with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enhance detection reliability under difficult lighting conditions and further achieve accurate depth sensing with reduced computational burden and power (Hicks, ¶¶ 2-3).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Berner (US20200288073A1) discloses an event-based sensor employing adaptive ON-event and OFF-event intensity thresholds. Lee (US20140240464A1) which discloses a depth sensor employing intensity-based motion detection event triggers. Agam (US20190218847A1) discloses a time-of-flight distance measuring device for an automatic sliding door activated by object presence. Fang (US20160289043A1) which discloses a depth sensor used for depth matching and control of a passenger conveyance door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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 on 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Y. Hu, S. -C. Liu and T. Delbruck, “v2e: From Video Frames to Realistic DVS Events,” 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), Nashville, TN, USA, 2021, pp. 1312-1321.