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 .
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© 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©. A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113© may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
Provisional Nonstatutory Obviouse Double Patenting Rejection
Claim(s) 1–20 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of copending Application No in view of Yeruhami (US 20200249345 A1). 18/126262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
To one of ordinary skill in the art, the inclusion of additional sensors as taught by Yeruhami (see 103 rejection below) , modulation signals, or steps in the instant application does not discount that the two applications disclose ToF systems and methods that operate identically, both reciting a ToF imaging system with:
a light source,
main and secondary image sensors,
an internal optical path of known distance,
a controller configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error or an offset error based on charge accumulated by the secondary sensor(s), by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated light received at the secondary sensor(s) with an expected phase relationship corresponding to the known distance.
103 Rejection (Obviousness) Format
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffey (US 20140226145 A1) in view of Amaya-Benitez (US 20200021792 A1) and further in view of Yeruhami (US 20200249345 A1).
Claim 1
Steffey teaches a time-of-flight (ToF) imaging system comprising:
a light source for outputting modulated light ([0041]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, light source (126));
a main image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, measure detector (3306));
a single secondary image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, reference detector (3308));
an internal optical path of a known distance for carrying part of the modulated light from the light source to the secondary image sensor ([0041]–[0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, paths (138), (148));
a controller configured to determine, based on charge accumulated by the secondary image sensor, an error of the ToF system ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, data processor (3400) and controller (64)).
Steffey (US 20140226145 A1) does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system, and does not explicitly mention using the phase information to determine offset and/or cyclic errors.
Amaya-Benitez (US 20200021792 A1) teaches a system where the controller is configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) or an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15) based on charge accumulated by the second image sensor ([0045] - [0046], where errors are found for light source within system based on signals detected at detectors (4) and (5)) as a result of the part of the first light carried by the internal optical path, by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated first light received at the second image sensor with an expected phase relationship corresponding to a known distance of the internal optical path ([0038], [0050] - [0055]; where the difference between a return path and a known reference path length give phase information between two modulated signals, which allows the system to determine errors such as cyclic errors from phase information).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez to include additional error analysis which includes finding an offset error and/or a cyclic error of a LIDAR system’s emissions, based on a phase relationship for a known length of a reference path with a reasonable expectation of success. Finding such errors based on phase information would easily be integrated into the system of Steffey, as Steffey teaches a frequency modulated system ([0056]) which uses a reference path to give phase information between the reference path of known distance and the incident reflected light ([0045]). As Amaya-Benitez notes, these errors occur in most time-of-flight (ToF) systems, such as ToF cameras, and may be eliminated by applying a suitable calibration ([0003] – [0008]).
However, neither Steffey nor Amaya-Benitez teaches or suggests using a plurality of secondary sensors.
Yeruhami US 20200249345 A1 teaches that a LIDAR or ToF system may include multiple calibration sensors (i.e., a plurality of secondary sensors). For example, [0240] states: “Multiple calibration sensors may be used. For example, a different calibration sensor may be included for each different type of main LIDAR sensor or set of different operational settings of a main LIDAR sensor.”
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify the system of Steffey as modified by Amaya-Benitez to include a plurality of secondary (calibration) sensors as taught by US 20200249345 A1, in order to provide robust calibration for multiple main sensors or for different operational settings. Using multiple calibration sensors is a known and predictable way to enhance calibration accuracy, system flexibility, and reliability in ToF/LIDAR systems, as described in US 20200249345 A1 ([0240]).
Claim 2
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to control the light source to emit modulated light for a first amount of time using a first laser modulation signal ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 3
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to control the charge accumulation of the plurality of secondary image sensors during the first amount of time such that each sensor accumulates charge over a different phase range of the first laser modulation signal ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 4
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to control the light source to emit light for a second amount of time using a second laser modulation signal ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 5
Steffey as modified above teaches the second laser modulation signal is a delayed version of the first ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 6
Steffey as modified above teaches the second laser modulation signal is the same as the first ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 7
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to control the charge accumulation of the plurality of secondary image sensors during the second amount of time such that each sensor accumulates charge over a different phase range of the second laser modulation signal ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 8
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to determine a phase relationship between modulated light emitted by the light source and light received by the plurality of secondary image sensors ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120], [0121]–[0125]).
Claim 9
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to determine the error of the ToF system by comparing the determined phase relationship with a theoretical phase relationship based on the known distance of the internal optical path ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0050]–[0055]).
Claim 10
Steffey as modified above teaches the plurality of secondary image sensors comprises four image sensors ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 11
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to perform a ToF distance measurement by detecting light incident on the main image sensor ([0034], [0044]).
Claim 12
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to correct the ToF measurement using the determined error of the ToF system to reduce the error ([0034], [0044]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0125]).
Claim 13
Steffey as modified above teaches the controller is configured to use the determined error to modify the light outputted from the light source to reduce the error ([0034], [0044]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0125]).
Claim 14
Steffey teaches a method of operating a ToF system comprising:
emitting modulated light from a light source ([0041]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, light source (126));detecting the emitted light at a main image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, measure detector (3306));
detecting the emitted light at a plurality of secondary image sensors via an internal optical path of known distance ([0041]–[0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, reference detectors (3308), paths (138), (148));
and using charge accumulated by the secondary image sensors for calibration ([0034], [0044]).
Steffey does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system, and does not explicitly mention using the phase information to determine offset and/or cyclic errors.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a method in which the controller determines at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) or an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15) based on charge accumulated by the second image sensor ([0045] - [0046]), as a result of the part of the first light carried by the internal optical path, by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated first light received at the second image sensor with an expected phase relationship corresponding to a known distance of the internal optical path ([0038], [0050] - [0055]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez to include a method for additional error analysis, including finding an offset error and/or a cyclic error of a LIDAR system’s emissions, based on a phase relationship for a known length of a reference path, with a reasonable expectation of success. As Amaya-Benitez notes, these errors occur in most ToF systems and may be eliminated by applying a suitable calibration ([0003] – [0008]).
However, neither Steffey nor Amaya-Benitez teaches or suggests using a plurality of secondary sensors.
Yeruhami US 20200249345 A1 teaches that a LIDAR or ToF system may include multiple calibration sensors (i.e., a plurality of secondary sensors). [0240]: “Multiple calibration sensors may be used. For example, a different calibration sensor may be included for each different type of main LIDAR sensor or set of different operational settings of a main LIDAR sensor.”
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify the method of Steffey as modified by Amaya-Benitez to include a plurality of secondary (calibration) sensors as taught by US 20200249345 A1, in order to provide robust calibration for multiple main sensors or for different operational settings. Using multiple calibration sensors is a known and predictable way to enhance calibration accuracy, system flexibility, and reliability in ToF/LIDAR systems, as described in US 20200249345 A1 ([0240]).
Claim 15
Steffey as modified above teaches controlling charge accumulation of the plurality of secondary image sensors during a first time period such that each sensor accumulates charge over a phase range of the emitted light different from that of other sensors ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 16
Steffey as modified above teaches controlling charge accumulation of the plurality of image sensors during a second time period such that each sensor accumulates charge over a phase range different from the others and different from the first time period ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0120]).
Claim 17
Steffey as modified above teaches determining at least one of an offset and cyclic error by determining a phase relationship between the emitted modulated light and light received by the plurality of secondary image sensors, and comparing a determined phase relationship with a theoretical phase relationship based on the known distance ([0056]; Amaya-Benitez [0050]–[0055]).
Claim 18
Steffey as modified above teaches applying a calibration to the ToF system based on the determined offset and cyclic error ([0034], [0044]; Amaya-Benitez [0115]–[0125]).
Claim 19
Steffey as modified above teaches determining a ToF distance measurement based on the light detected at the main image sensor ([0034], [0044]).
Claim 20
Steffey teaches a ToF imaging system comprising:
a light source configured to emit light ([0041]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, light source (126));
a plurality of secondary image sensors ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, reference detectors (3308));
an optical path of a known distance between the light source and the plurality of secondary image sensors ([0041]–[0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, paths (138), (148));
and a controller configured to control the secondary image sensors and accumulate charge ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7).
Steffey does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system, and does not explicitly mention using the phase information to determine offset and/or cyclic errors.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a method in which the controller determines at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) or an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15) based on charge accumulated by the second image sensor ([0045] - [0046]), as a result of the part of the first light carried by the internal optical path, by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated first light received at the second image sensor with an expected phase relationship corresponding to a known distance of the internal optical path ([0038], [0050] - [0055]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez to include a method for additional error analysis, including finding an offset error and/or a cyclic error of a LIDAR system’s emissions, based on a phase relationship for a known length of a reference path, with a reasonable expectation of success. As Amaya-Benitez notes, these errors occur in most ToF systems and may be eliminated by applying a suitable calibration ([0003] – [0008]).
However, neither Steffey nor Amaya-Benitez teaches or suggests using a plurality of secondary sensors.
Yeruhami US 20200249345 A1 teaches that a LIDAR or ToF system may include multiple calibration sensors (i.e., a plurality of secondary sensors). [0240]: “Multiple calibration sensors may be used. For example, a different calibration sensor may be included for each different type of main LIDAR sensor or set of different operational settings of a main LIDAR sensor.”
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify the method of Steffey as modified by Amaya-Benitez to include a plurality of secondary (calibration) sensors as taught by US 20200249345 A1, in order to provide robust calibration for multiple main sensors or for different operational settings. Using multiple calibration sensors is a known and predictable way to enhance calibration accuracy, system flexibility, and reliability in ToF/LIDAR systems, as described in US 20200249345 A1 ([0240]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELAL A ALGAHAIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5227. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joseph Thomas. 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.
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights