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 .
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 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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the phrase "preferably" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubert US 20220276356 A1 in view of Dielacher US 20200132819 A1 and Webster US 20220128403 A1.
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Tubert teaches a TOF camera system (Fig. 6, [0044]) comprising:
an imaging sensor, the image sensor comprising a pixel array for accumulating charge based on incident light comprising reflected laser light off an object, the pixel array comprising a plurality of rows of pixels (iToF sensor with array of pixels, Figs. 1, 3-4, [0010, 47]); and
a control system coupled to the imaging sensor and configured to control the pixel array (control circuit 12, Fig. 1, [0010, 58]) to:
reset 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 (rstS and rstL in Figs. 7-8, [0124, 133]);
accumulate charge in the pixels of the pixel array using a first integration setting for a first time period (int from t1 to t2 in Figs. 7-8 and 10, [0121-137]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claim language does not require ALL pixels to accumulate charge for the first time period);
reset the first row of the plurality of rows (rstS in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]);
accumulate charge in the pixels of the pixel array using the first integration setting or a second integration setting for a second time period subsequent to the first time period (int from t2-t3 in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]);
read out a set of charge samples, wherein the first row contains a first charge from accumulating after the second time period and the second row contains a second charge from accumulating after the first and second time periods (Rd in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]) and
Tubert does not explicitly teach a continuous wave, a laser for emitting laser light, and use the set of charge samples to approximate a charge from sampling after the first time period.
Dielacher teaches a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system (Fig. 6, [0044]) and a laser for emitting laser light (624 in Fig. 6, [0045]);
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 Tubert to include a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system, and a laser for emitting laser light similar to Dielacher with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to control light emission for iToF imaging as would be necessary for iToF functionality.
Webster teaches subtracting a first voltage level from a second voltage level to determine a second charge level ([0078]; so that charge levels of the first and second charge carriers can be determined while reducing time consumed by the readout; examiner notes that Webster subtracts the first number (from a first period) from the second number (including both first and second periods), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when you instead have a first number that includes both first and second periods and a second number (from only the second period), they could subtract the second number from the first number to obtain the result of having charge numbers from the first and second periods individually because it is a simple mathematical operation)
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 Tubert to include use the set of charge samples to approximate a charge from sampling after the first time period similar to Webster with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing time needed for readout (Webster: [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, Tubert teaches a method of reading out a pixel array of an imaging sensor of a time of flight camera system (Fig. 6, [0044]), the pixel array comprising a plurality of rows of pixels (iToF sensor with array of pixels, Figs. 1, 3-4, [0010, 47]), the method comprising:
resetting 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 (rstS and rstL in Figs. 7-8, [0124, 133]);
accumulating charge in the pixels of the pixel array using a first integration setting for a first time period (int from t1 to t2 in Figs. 7-8 and 10, [0121-137]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claim language does not require ALL pixels to accumulate charge for the first time period; additionally, integration occurs during the reset period but the charges are drained off);
resetting the first row of the plurality of rows (rstS in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]);
accumulating charge in the pixels of the pixel array using the first integration setting or a second integration setting for a second time period subsequent to the first time period (int from t2-t3 in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]);
reading out a set of charge samples, wherein the first row contains a first charge from accumulating after the second time period and the second row contains a second charge from accumulating after the first and second time periods (Rd in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]); and
Tubert does not explicitly teach a continuous wave, and using the set of charge samples to approximate a charge from sampling after the first time period.
Dielacher teaches a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system (Fig. 6, [0044]);
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 Tubert to include a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system, and a laser for emitting laser light similar to Dielacher with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to control light emission for iToF imaging as would be necessary for iToF functionality.
Webster teaches subtracting a first voltage level from a second voltage level to determine a second charge level ([0078]; so that charge levels of the first and second charge carriers can be determined while reducing time consumed by the readout; examiner notes that Webster subtracts the first number (from a first period) from the second number (including both first and second periods), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when you instead have a first number that includes both first and second periods and a second number (from only the second period), they could subtract the second number from the first number to obtain the result of having charge numbers from the first and second periods individually because it is a simple mathematical operation)
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 Tubert to include use the set of charge samples to approximate a charge from sampling after the first time period similar to Webster with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing time needed for readout (Webster: [0078]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, wherein pixels of the first row and pixels of the second row are differential pixels each having two or more areas that accumulate charge during different accumulation periods; and wherein the two or more areas of each pixel are driven by a common clock (Figs. 2, 7-8, [0052-59, 121-137]; TG1 and TG2 are just opposite phases of the same clock).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1 and method of claim 10,
Tubert does not explicitly teach but Dielacher teaches wherein the first integration setting is a first phase of the emitted laser light over which accumulation occurs ([0025-28]).
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 Tubert such that the first integration setting is a first phase of the emitted laser light over which accumulation occurs similar to Dielacher with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping enable iToF sensing.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1 and method of claim 10,
Tubert does not explicitly teach but Dielacher teaches wherein the second integration setting is a second phase of the emitted laser light over which accumulation occurs ([0025-28]).
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 Tubert such that the first integration setting is a first phase of the emitted laser light over which accumulation occurs similar to Dielacher with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping enable iToF sensing.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, wherein, when accumulating using the first integration setting for the second time period, the first time period is larger than the second time period (Figs. 7-8, [0128]).
Regarding claim 7, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1,
Tubert does not explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to control the pixel array to subtract the second charge from the first charge to approximate the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period, preferably wherein the control system is configured to control the pixel array to approximate a charge accumulated on the second row after the first and second time periods, respectively, to be substantially the same as the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period.
Webster teaches subtracting a first voltage level from a second voltage level to determine a second charge level ([0078]; so that charge levels of the first and second charge carriers can be determined while reducing time consumed by the readout; examiner notes that Webster subtracts the first number (from a first period) from the second number (including both first and second periods), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when you instead have a first number that includes both first and second periods and a second number (from only the second period), they could subtract the second number from the first number to obtain the result of having charge numbers from the first and second periods individually because it is a simple mathematical operation)
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 Tubert to include to control the pixel array to subtract the second charge from the first charge to approximate the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period similar to Webster with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing time needed for readout (Webster: [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1, wherein the two or more areas of the pixels or two or more of the pixels of the first row and the two or more areas of the pixels or two or more of the pixels of the second row are arranged in a checkerboard pattern (Figs. 5-6, [0095]).
Regarding claim 16, Tubert as modified above teaches the method of claim 10,
Tubert does not explicitly teach further comprising subtracting the second charge from the first charge to approximate the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period.
Webster teaches subtracting a first voltage level from a second voltage level to determine a second charge level ([0078]; so that charge levels of the first and second charge carriers can be determined while reducing time consumed by the readout; examiner notes that Webster subtracts the first number (from a first period) from the second number (including both first and second periods), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when you instead have a first number that includes both first and second periods and a second number (from only the second period), they could subtract the second number from the first number to obtain the result of having charge numbers from the first and second periods individually because it is a simple mathematical operation)
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 Tubert to include subtracting the second charge from the first charge to approximate the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period similar to Webster with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing time needed for readout (Webster: [0078]).
Regarding claim 19, Tubert as modified above teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising changing the integration setting of the first row and/or the second row (Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]; different periods of integration after reset are changed integration settings).
Regarding claim 20, Tubert teaches a method of reading out a pixel array of an imaging sensor of a time of flight camera system (Fig. 6, [0044]), the pixel array comprising a plurality of rows of pixels (iToF sensor with array of pixels, Figs. 1, 3-4, [0010, 47]), the method comprising:
resetting 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 (rstS and rstL in Figs. 7-8, [0124, 133]);
accumulating charge in the pixels of the pixel array using a first integration setting for a first time period (int from t1 to t2 in Figs. 7-8 and 10, [0121-137]; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claim language does not require ALL pixels to accumulate charge for the first time period; additionally, integration occurs during the reset period but the charges are drained off);
resetting the first row of the plurality of rows (rstS in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]);
accumulating charge in the pixels of the pixel array using the first integration setting or a second integration setting for a second time period subsequent to the first time period (int from t2-t3 in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]);
reading out a set of charge samples, wherein the first row contains a first charge from accumulating after the second time period and the second row contains a second charge from accumulating after the first and second time periods (Rd in Figs. 7-8, [0121-137]); and
Tubert does not explicitly teach a continuous wave, and using the set of charge samples to approximate a charge from sampling after the first time period by subtracting the second charge from the first charge to approximate the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period.
Dielacher teaches a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system (Fig. 6, [0044]);
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 Tubert to include a continuous wave time of flight, CW-ToF, camera system, and a laser for emitting laser light similar to Dielacher with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to control light emission for iToF imaging as would be necessary for iToF functionality.
Webster teaches subtracting a first voltage level from a second voltage level to determine a second charge level ([0078]; so that charge levels of the first and second charge carriers can be determined while reducing time consumed by the readout; examiner notes that Webster subtracts the first number (from a first period) from the second number (including both first and second periods), however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when you instead have a first number that includes both first and second periods and a second number (from only the second period), they could subtract the second number from the first number to obtain the result of having charge numbers from the first and second periods individually because it is a simple mathematical operation)
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 Tubert to include using the set of charge samples to approximate a charge from sampling after the first time period by subtracting the second charge from the first charge to approximate the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period similar to Webster with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing time needed for readout (Webster: [0078]).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubert US 20220276356 A1 in view of Dielacher US 20200132819 A1 and Webster US 20220128403 A1, and further in view of Vaello Panos US 20180348371 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, wherein,
Tubert does not explicitly teach when accumulating using the second integration setting for the second time period, the first time period and the second time period are substantially equal to one another.
Vaello Panos teaches equal integration times ([0005])
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 Tubert such that when accumulating using the second integration setting for the second time period, the first time period and the second time period are substantially equal to one another similar to Vaello Panos with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result increasing operational speeds (Vaello Panos: [0005]) and helping keep the charge accumulated during each period to be comparable.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubert US 20220276356 A1 in view of Dielacher US 20200132819 A1 and Webster US 20220128403 A1, and further in view of Kim US 20210325541 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tubert as modified above teaches the CW-ToF camera system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, wherein the pixel array comprises a third row and a fourth row, the control system is configured to control the third row and the fourth row in the same way as the first row and the second row (Figs. 3-4, 7-8, [0121-137]), respectively, and
Tubert does not explicitly teach the control system is further configured to interpolate the first row and the third row to approximate charge accumulated on the second row after the first and second time periods, respectively.
Kim teaches interpolating missing pixels by weighted averaging of neighbors ([0141]).
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 Tubert such that the control system is further configured to interpolate the first row and the third row to approximate charge accumulated on the second row after the first and second time periods, respectively similar to Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the resolution of the data.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubert US 20220276356 A1 in view of Dielacher US 20200132819 A1 and Webster US 20220128403 A1, and further in view of Sezan US 5473383 A
Regarding claim 17, Tubert as modified above teaches the method of claim 10,
Tubert does not explicitly teach further comprising approximating a charge accumulated on the second row after the first and second time periods, respectively, to be substantially the same as the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period.
Sezan teaches setting missing pixel values equal to adjacent pixel values (Col. 7 lns. 58-60).
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 Tubert to include approximating a charge accumulated on the second row after the first and second time periods, respectively, to be substantially the same as the charge accumulated on the first row after the first time period similar to Sezan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the resolution of the data while using little processing power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights