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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112 Rejections are withdrawn.
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(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dielacher (20200132819) in view of Tubert (20220276356).
Referring to claims 1, 10, and 20, Dielacher shows a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system comprising (see figure 1):
a laser for emitting laser light (see paragraph 17);
an imaging sensor (see figure 1 Ref 130), the image sensor comprising a pixel array for accumulating charge based on incident light comprising reflected laser light off an object (see paragraph 17-19), the pixel array comprising a plurality of rows of pixels (see paragraph 33 also see figure 6 Ref 604); and
a control system coupled to the imaging sensor (see figure 6 Ref 612) and configured to control the pixel array to:
identify at least a first row and a second row of the plurality of rows, wherein the first row and the second row are adjacent one another in the pixel array (see paragraph 33);
accumulate charge in the pixels of the first row using
accumulate charge in the pixels of the second row using
read out a set of charge samples, wherein the first row contains a first charge from accumulating using the
Tubert shows a similar device that includes accumulate charge in the pixels of the first row using a first integration setting for a first time period (see figure 7 note the INT between T1 and T3 for TG1);
accumulate charge in the pixels of the second row using a second integration setting for the first time period (see figure 7 note the INT between T1 and T3 for TG2); and
read out a set of charge samples, wherein the first row contains a first charge from accumulating using the first integration setting and the second row contains a second charge from accumulating using the second integration setting, and wherein the second integration setting is phase delayed relative to the first integration setting (see the phase delay between TG1 and TG2 also see). It would have been obvious to include the integration setting as shown by Tubert because this allows for parallel readout of the charges stored in the pixels as shown in paragraph 120-122).
Referring to claims 2 and 11, Dielacher shows the first integration setting is a first phase of the emitted laser light over which accumulation occurs (see paragraph 18 note the modulation signal).
Referring to claims 3 and 12, Dielacher shows the second integration setting is a second phase of the emitted laser light over which accumulation occurs (see paragraph 33).
Referring to claims 4 and 13, Dielacher in combination with Tubert shows the phase delay between the first integration setting and the second integration setting is achieved by adjusting the pixel demodulation signal or by adjusting the laser modulation signal, preferably using buffers to ensure synchronicity between rows (see paragraph 35).
Referring to claims 6 and 15, Dielacher in combination with Tubert shows the phase delay between the first integration setting and the second integration setting is π/2 (see paragraph 33).
Referring to claims 7 and 16, Dielacher in combination with Tubert shows the phase delay between the first integration setting and the second integration setting is 3π/2 (see paragraph 22).
Referring to claims 8 and 17, Dielacher shows the control system is configured to control the pixel array to combine the first charge and the second charge in order to determine a combined depth value (see figure 5 note the last step).
Referring to claim 19, Dielacher shows in combination with Tubert comprising changing the integration setting of the first row and/or the second row (see paragraph 22).
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(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dielacher (20200132819) in view of Tubert (20220276356) and Hurwitz (20210356597).
Referring to claims 9 and 18, Dielacher fails to show but Hurwitz shows a macropixel comprises at least a pixel in the first row and an adjacent pixel in the second row, and wherein the control system is configured to read out combined depth values from a plurality of macropixels, the macropixels being shifted by one row at a time (see figure 8 Ref 822 and paragraph 102-103). It would have been obvious to include the micropixel as shown by Hurwitz because it allows imaging pixels the number of values/data points in each of the first set of charge samples will be lower than the number of values/data points in each of the second set of charge samples as taught by Hurwitz in paragraph 103.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dielacher (20200132819) in view of Tubert (20220276356) and Yasu (20220252727).
Referring to claim 5 and 14, Dielacher fails to specifically show but Hurwitz shows the phase delay between the first integration setting and the second integration setting is of an order of magnitude smaller relative to the first time period, preferably two orders of magnitude smaller relative to the first time period (see figure 5 note the exposure period and the phase shifts). It would have been obvious to include the ratio of shifts to the time period as shown by Yasu because this allows for a complete capture of each pulse.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights