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 filed 9/15/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/24/2023 are approved by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/126,255 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the would be able to construe the subject matter of claims 1-19 of the present application, when given the subject matter of copending application number 18/126,255.
For example, with respect to claim 1 of the present application:
A time-of-flight, ToF, imaging system, the ToF imaging system comprising [ taught by line 1 of claim 1 of 18/126,255 ] : a light source [ taught by line 2 of claim 1 of 18/126,255 ]; an image sensor [ taught by line 3 of claim 1 of USPN 18/126,255 ]; and a controller coupled to the light source and the image sensor [ taught by line 8 of claim 1, claim 2 and claim 3 of 18/126,255 ], wherein the controller is configured to: control the light source to emit modulated light using a modulated control signal [ taught by claim 2 of 18/126,255 ]; determine, based on charge accumulated by the image sensor, an error of the ToF system, wherein the error comprises at least one of a cyclic error and an offset error [ taught by lines 9-1 of 18/126,255 ]; and modify the light emitted from the light source to reduce the error of the ToF system [ taught by claim 13 of 18/126,255 ].
Claim 2 is taught by claim 1 and claim 3 of 18/126,255.
Claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious means to drive a light source to produced modulated light, as suggested by claim 1 of 18/126,255.
The use of modulation at a first amount of time and second amount of time, as set forth by claims 2 and 4 of 18/126,255, suggests the iterative process of claim 8.
Claim 9 is taught by lines 5-6 of claim 1 of 18/126,255.
Claim 10 is suggested by lines 3 and 4 of 18/126,255.
With respect to claim 11:
A method of operating a time-of-flight (ToF) system [ taught by line 1 of claim 14 of 18/126,255 ], the method comprising: emitting light from at least one light source [ taught by line 3 of claim 1 of 18/125,255 ]; detecting light emitted from the at least one light source on a secondary image sensor [ taught by lines 4-5 of claim 14 of 18/126,255 ]; determining one or more of an offset and cyclic error present in the ToF system based on the light detected at the secondary image sensor [ taught by lines 6-7 of claim 14 of 18/126,255 ]; compensating for one or more of the offset cyclic error determined by modifying a signal input to the at least one light source [ taught by claim 18 of 18/126,255 ].
Claim 12 is suggested by claims 2 and 4 of 18/126,255.
Claim 13 is suggested by claim 5 of 18/126,255.
The use of modulation at a first amount of time and second amount of time, as set forth by claims 2 and 4 of 18/126,255, suggests the iterative process of claim 14.
Claim 16 is taught by claim 19 of 18/126,255.
With respect to claim 17:
A time-of-flight (ToF) system, the ToF system comprising [ taught by line 1 of claim 20 of 18/126,255 ]: a light emission unit comprising: at least one light source configured to emit light [ taught by line 2 of claim 20 of 18/126,255 ]; at least one secondary image sensor [ taught by line 3 of claim 20 of 18/126,255 ]; an optical path of a known distance between the at least one light source and the at least one secondary image sensor [ taught by lines 4-5 of claim 20 of 18/126,255 ]; a processor configured to determine offset and/ or cyclic errors of the ToF system based on an output of the secondary image sensor, the processor further configured to alter a control signal input to the light emission unit to compensate for the offset and/ or cyclic errors of the ToF system [ taught by lines 6-12 of claim 20 of 18/126,255 ].
The use of modulation at a first amount of time and second amount of time, as set forth by claims 2 and 4 of 18/126,255, suggests the iterative process of claim 18.
Claim 19 is taught by line 4 of claim 14 of 18/126,255.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ding et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0146673).
With respect to claim 1, Ding et al disclose: A time-of-flight, ToF, imaging system [ taught by figure 1 ], the ToF imaging system comprising: a light source [ taught by light source (2) ]; an image sensor [ taught by image sensor (6) ]; and a controller coupled to the light source and the image sensor [ taught by circuitry (8); paragraph [0052] states, “…The ToF device 1 has a circuitry 8 which is configured to perform the methods as discussed herein (and which will be discussed further below) and which forms a control of the ToF device 1 (and it includes, not shown, corresponding processors, memory and storage as it is generally known to the skilled person)…” ], wherein the controller is configured to: control the light source to emit modulated light using a modulated control signal [ paragraph [0054] states, “…The light source 2 emits pulsed light, i.e. pulse density modulates light pulses, as discussed herein, to a scene 3 (region of interest or object)…” ]; determine, based on charge accumulated by the image sensor [ paragraph [0055] states, “…The light detector 5 has an image sensor 6, which is implemented based on multiple SPADs (Single Photon Avalanche Diodes) formed in an array of pixels…” – a SPAD is a component that accumulates charge ], an error of the ToF system, wherein the error comprises at least one of a cyclic error and an offset error [ paragraph [0044] states, “…In some embodiments, the control is further configured to detect a cyclic error in a phase measurement of the detected pulse density modulated light pulses…” ]; and modify the light emitted from the light source to reduce the error of the ToF System [ paragraph [0044] states, “…and to adjust the predefined light waveform based on the detected cyclic error…”].
Paragraph [0051] states, “…In some embodiments, the cyclic error is minimized by iteratively adjusting the light waveform and detecting the cyclic error…”; thus, anticipating claim 8.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0146673).
Claim 5 recites: driver configured to receive the modulated control signal, generate a drive signal based on the modulated control signal and drive the light source to emit light using the drive signal, wherein the controller is configured to modify the light emitted from the light source by adjusting at least one setting of the light source driver so as to adjust the drive signal generated by the light source driver.
Figure 2 of Ding et al teaches that the intensity of the light output from source (2) has an intensity that varies with respect to time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art of LIDAR to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a voltage driver to cause the light source (2) to produce variable intensity over time in that voltage drivers were a commonly-known means of controlling the output of a light source, known before the effective filing date of the present application.
Claim 6 is met by the argument applied to claim 5 because a voltage driver meets a component for analog adjustment.
Claims 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0146673) in view of Amaya-Benitez et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0021792).
With respect to claim 11, Ding et al disclose: A method of operating a time-of-flight (ToF) system [ taught by figure 1 ], the method comprising: emitting light from at least one light source [ taught by light source (2) ]; detecting light emitted from the at least one light source on a secondary image sensor [ figure 1 discloses an image sensor (6) ]; determining one or more of an offset and cyclic error present in the ToF system based on the light detected at the secondary image sensor [ paragraph [0044] states, “…In some embodiments, the control is further configured to detect a cyclic error in a phase measurement of the detected pulse density modulated light pulses…” ]; compensating for one or more of the offset cyclic error determined by modifying a signal input to the at least one light source [ paragraph [0044] states, “…In some embodiments, the control is further configured to detect a cyclic error in a phase measurement of the detected pulse density modulated light pulses and to adjust the predefined light waveform based on the detected cyclic error…”].
Claim 11 differs from Ding et al by using a secondary image sensor.
Amaya-Benitez et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date to have used a secondary image sensor (5) in a time of flight imaging system for the purpose of detecting cyclic and offset errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a secondary image sensor, as taught by Amaya-Benitez et al, in the system of Ding et al, when seeking to dedicated image sensing elements to the sole function of error detection.
Claim 16 is rejected by the combination of Ding et al and Amaya-Benitez et al, as applied to claim 11, because the primary sensor (6) of Ding et al is disclosed for the function of range determination.
With respect to claim 17, Ding et al disclose: A time-of-flight (ToF) system, the ToF system [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a light emission unit comprising: at least one light source configured to emit light [ taught by light source (2) ]; at least one secondary image sensor [ figure 1 discloses an image sensor (6) ]; an optical path of a known distance between the at least one light source and the at least one secondary image sensor; a processor configured to determine offset and/ or cyclic errors of the ToF system based on an output of the secondary image sensor [ paragraph [0044] states, “…In some embodiments, the control is further configured to detect a cyclic error in a phase measurement of the detected pulse density modulated light pulses…” ], the processor further configured to alter a control signal input to the light emission unit to compensate for the offset and/ or cyclic errors of the ToF system [ paragraph [0044] states, “…In some embodiments, the control is further configured to detect a cyclic error in a phase measurement of the detected pulse density modulated light pulses and to adjust the predefined light waveform based on the detected cyclic error…”].
Claim 17 differs from Ding et al by using a secondary image sensor.
Amaya-Benitez et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date to have used a secondary image sensor (5) in a time of flight imaging system for the purpose of detecting cyclic and offset errors wherein the abstract states, “…wherein a predetermined optical path is provided between the light source and the second imaging sensor…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a secondary image sensor, as taught by Amaya-Benitez et al, in the system of Ding et al, when seeking to dedicated image sensing elements to the sole function of error detection.
With regard to the limitation reciting optical path of a known distance between the at least one light source and the at least one secondary image sensor; this limitation is met by a skilled artisan taking into account a predetermined path between the light source and the second image sensor, as taught by Benitez et al.
Paragraph [0051] of Ding et al states, “…In some embodiments, the cyclic error is minimized by iteratively adjusting the light waveform and detecting the cyclic error…”; thus, rendering claim 18 taught by the combination of Amaya-Benitez et al and Ding et al, as applied to claim 17.
Claim 19 is met by the combination of Amaya-Benitez et al and Ding et al, as applied to claim 17, because Ding et al disclose a primary image sensor (6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 15 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.
Upon filing of a disclaimer, claims 2 and 9-14 would be 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.
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