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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application # 18/080,125 that was filed on 12/13/2022. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the dependent claims 2-12 need to be changed into “The apparatus….” Instead of the recitation “An apparatus…” to have a consistent antecedent basis for the apparatus recited in the independent claim 1 . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “photo diode” needs to be a one word “photodiode”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 defines that the “…a first measurement during emission of a light pulse and a second measurement after emission of the light pulse such that the first measurement…” in lines 6-7 of the claim. It is not clear to the examiner what exactly the word “obtaining” of the measurement limits: does it mean that a measurement value is sampled in the defined time range? Or does it mean that light signals are integrated in the defined time range? Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claim 1 further defines the measurements according to a result to be achieved: "... such that the first measurement and second measurement are dependent upon the time of flight...". This definition depends on the target distance, as understood by one of ordinary skill. But this result to be achieved does not comply with the definition for obtaining the first/second measurement: in which way it is realized, that the light reflected from the target arrives at the detector "during emission of [the emitted] light pulse"? there seem to be some contradiction in the operation of the claimed apparatus. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claim 1 also defines that the first measurement is performed "during emission of a light pulse", where it is not clear whether this first measurement is limited onto the light emission period; from the wording, "during" does not exclude that the first measurement period is longer than the light emission period. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
It is not clear what the recitation "... to enable the distance ..." in line 5 of claim 2 mean. In is not clear how the distance determination is enabled and to what context or degree. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
It’s not clear from the recitation in claims 2 and 3 what “distance” is being measured/determined. Is it the distance of the light pulse emitter from the object , the distance between the light detector from the object, or the distance between the apparatus (holding both the light pulse emitter and light detector) and the object? Appropriate correction/clarification required.
It is not clear what the recitation "... to enable the distance ..." in line 3 of claim 3 mean. In is not clear how the distance determination is enabled and to what context or degree. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
It is not clear what the recitation "... enabling an output of the first portion to be compared ..." in line 3 of claim 9 mean. In is not clear how the comparison is being enabled and to what context or degree. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
It is not clear what the recitation "... enabling an output of the second portion to be compared ..." in line 4-5 of claim 9 mean. In is not clear how the comparison is being enabled and to what context or degree. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 1 above solely based on their dependency from the rejected claim 1 above.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kitamura et al. (US 10,794,695).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (4, Fig. 1-2); and
at least one non-transitory memory (44, Fig, 1) storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform:
obtaining a reference measurement indicative of background light (Fig. 5, ‘first gate’ signal 5c; col.7, lines 64-col.8, line 8);
obtaining a first measurement during emission of a light pulse and a second measurement after emission of the light pulse such that the first measurement and second measurement are dependent upon the time of flight of the light pulse (Fig. 5, col. 8, lines 10-35); and
using the first measurement, second measurement and reference measurement to determine a parameter dependent upon the time of flight of the light pulse (col. 8, lines 49 to col. 9, lines 32).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the light pulse is emitted by a light pulse emitter (2, Fig. 1), and the light is detected by a light detector (3, Fig. 1), and the distance between the light pulse emitter and the light detector is known, where the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to enable the distance to an object from which the light pulse is reflected to be determined (Fig. 1, col. 3 line 63 to Col. 4, line 14).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to enable a distance between an object and the light detector and the light emitter to be determined (Fig. 1, col. 3 line 63 to Col. 4, line 14).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to obtain the measurements from detection circuitry and the reference measurement, first measurement and second measurement comprise samples of a voltage within the detection circuitry (Fig. 4a/b, col. 6, lines 11 to Col. 7, lines 4).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein a first portion of detection circuitry is used to obtain the first measurement and a second portion of detection circuitry is used to obtain the second measurement (Fig. 4a/b, col. 6, lines 11 to Col. 7, lines 4).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the first portion of the detection circuitry and the second portion of the detection circuitry to be actuated sequentially (col. 5, lines 63-67; Fig. 4a/b, col. 6, lines 11 to Col. 7, lines 4).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the first portion of the detection circuitry and the second portion of the detection circuitry are corresponding to each other (Fig. 4a/b, col. 6, lines 11 to Col. 7, lines 4).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause a reference portion of detection circuitry is used to obtain the reference measurement (Fig.5, Fig. 4a/b, col. 6, lines 11 to Col. 7, lines 4).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform enabling an output of the first portion to be compared to an output of the reference portion, and enabling an output of the second portion to be compared to an output of the reference portion (Fig.5, Fig. 4a/b, col. 6, lines 11 to Col. 7, lines 4).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the second measurement to be obtained immediately after the emission of the light pulse (Fig. 5, ‘third gate signal’).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the light pulse to be emitted by at least one of: light emitting diode (col. 3, lines 64-65) or a laser.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses an apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the light pulse to be detected by a photo diode (Fig. 4A, col. 6, lines 12, photodiode).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood and broadly interpreted, Kitamura discloses a device comprising an apparatus as claimed in claim1 wherein the device comprises, a personal communication device, a positioning device, a vehicle, or a part of a vehicle (col. 4, lines 2-14).
Regarding Claim 14, The method claim 14 is rejected under the same rational over Kitamura since it is a method claim according to the apparatus rejected in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Kitamura discloses non-transitory program storage device (44, Fig, 1) comprising a computer program (col. 5, lines 37-50) tangibly embodying computer program instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry(4, Fig. 1, 2), performs the limitations in method claim 14 or the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito et al. (US-2016/161611) describes an optical pulse time-of-flight distance measuring system (fig.1, para.76). Background light is subtracted using a background light measurement period. First and second light measurement periods are used for determining the object distance (fig.10, para.120,121). The first light detecting period (fig.10) lasts longer than the light emission pulse.
Geuens et al. ((US 10768301) describes an optical pulse time-of-flight distance measuring system (fig.2, col.14, lines 30-39). Background light is subtracted using a background light measurement. First and second light measurement periods are used for determining the object distance (fig.3,4, col.15, lines 1 to col.16, line 38, col.17, lines 15-27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642