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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, line 6, “Ov” should be changed to --Of--.
On page 5, line 10, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “onto e corresponding”.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any additional of which applicant become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “40” in Fig.1 has been used to designate both a modulator and an object. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what constitutes the scope of the term “PMD” due to the use of the abbreviation “PMD”. Clarification is required.
Claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected claim.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al (US 2018/0247968) in view of Schneider et al (DE 102016205073).
Regarding claim 1, as far as the claim is understood, Na et al shows in Figs.28A-31I the following elements of applicant’s claim: a PMD time-of-flight sensor (Figs.28A-29) for an optical distance measurement system (paragraph 372) comprising an array of PMD time-of-flight pixels (Fig.30), wherein the time-of-flight pixels comprise diode nodes for an A channel and a B channel, and are connectable via a first switch to an associated column line and via a second switch to a reset potential (paragraphs 382-383; Fig.31A); a switch matrix (3020) which is configured in such a way that the column lines can be switched to one of a plurality of amplifiers (3020), and a plurality of column lines can be switched to a common amplifier (Fig.30; paragraph 375); the time-of-flight sensor is configured in such a way that during an integration time, the charges photogenerated at the time-of-flight pixel are accumulated at the diode nodes and the connected column lines (paragraph 378). Na et al does not explicitly discloses that the time-of-flight sensor has a plurality of shift registers that are connected to the pixels in such a way that, starting from register entries of the individual registers, the two switches can be switched over alternately, wherein at least partially a plurality of columns or rows are assigned to a shift register. However, Schneider et al discloses a PMD time-of-flight sensor discloses a read circuit on the basis of a shift register (paragraphs 33-34; Fig.4, i.e. row lines 201 of pixel array 200 is connected with a first address decoder 100 and column lines 202 is connected to amplifier 310, wherein the amplifier in turn be controlled column by column by second address decoder 300, the address decoder 110, 300 is configured as a shift register, wherein for reading the pixel array 200, a logic 1 is driven as a switching signal by the shift register 100, 300 at a predetermined clock or frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings of Schneider et al in the time-of-flight sensor of Na et al in view of the desire to provide the effective performance in reading out signals resulting in improving the accuracy of distance measurements of the time-of-flight sensor.
Regarding claim 2, while Na et al discloses (paragraph 375) the feature of combining the time-of-flight pixels of the array 3010 in a column into a group of at least two pixels, it doesn’t specifically mention that this pixel group comprises, in a channel-wise manner, a single first switch and a single second switch. However, the specific configuration utilizing to implement the read circuit would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations therein are shown in Figs.1-2 of Schneider et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imoto et al (US 2023/0061837) and Nakada (US 2024/0264307) are cited for disclosing a distance measuring device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878