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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 7/3/2023 and 1/23/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/3/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6-9, 12, 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meynants (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0223371).
With respect to claim 1, Meynants discloses: Time-of-flight demodulation circuitry [ taught by the abstract ] configured to: determine a light event pattern with an event-based light detection element of a plurality of event-based light detection elements [ paragraph [0075] states, “…The control unit CTRL controls operation of the image sensor IS, the driver logic DRV and the output stages OUT. The control involves timing of the pixels in the array, e.g. in an imaging mode IM…”; detection of an image meets an event ]; and determine, for a demodulation element of a plurality of demodulation elements, a timing for a demodulation signal to be applied to the demodulation element based on the light event pattern, wherein the demodulation element is associated with the event-based light detection element [ paragraph [0075] states, “…and in a time-of-flight mode TM according to an imaging timing sequence and according to a time-of-flight, TOF, timing sequence, respectively. The control unit CTRL determines timing, exposure and bias of the individual pixels in the array…”].
Claim 7 is anticipated by the subject matter of Meynants, as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 8, [ paragraph [0103] states, “…The imaging mode IM includes a global shutter timing sequence to operate a pixel as shown in FIG. 3. The global shutter timing sequence can be applied to all pixels in the image sensor or only to part of pixels, e.g. in a defined region of interest, ROI…”; part of the pixels defining a region of interest meets a subset; thus, anticipating claims 2 and 8.
With regard to claims 3 and 9, a region of interest, such target objects in figure 8, create a light event pattern in the sensed image; thus, anticipating claims 3 and 9.
The 2D image produced during the imaging mode meets representing ambient light, thus anticipating claim 6 and 12.
With respect to claim 13, Meynants discloses: A time-of-flight imaging apparatus [ taught by the abstract ] comprising: a plurality of event-based light detection elements each configured to detect a light event, based on which at least one light event pattern is determined [ taught by the image sensor (IS) in figure one operating in the imaging mode; paragraph [0075] states, “…The control unit CTRL controls operation of the image sensor IS, the driver logic DRV and the output stages OUT. The control involves timing of the pixels in the array, e.g. in an imaging mode IM and in a time-of-flight mode TM according to an imaging timing sequence and according to a time-of-flight, TOF, timing sequence, respectively. The control unit CTRL determines timing, exposure and bias of the individual pixels in the array…” ]; a plurality of demodulation elements, wherein each demodulation element is associated with at least one event-based imaging element [ taught by paragraphs [0078] to [0080] ]; a light source configured to emit modulated light [ paragraph [0026] states, “…In at least one embodiment an emitter is configured to emit a plurality of light pulses in response to respective trigger pulses of an emitter control signal. In the time-of-flight mode, the control unit generates the emitter control signal. The phases are defined with respect to the trigger pulses of the control signal…” ]; and control circuitry [ the control unit taught by paragraph [0075] ] configured to: determine the at least one light event pattern [ an image produced by the imaging mode meets a light event pattern ]; control the light source to emit modulated light based on the determined at least one light event pattern [ the pulse signal used in the TOF mode meets modulated light (pulse modulation) ]; and control a subset of the plurality of demodulation elements to apply a demodulation signal, if the at least one light event pattern is detected with a subset of associated event-based light detection elements [ paragraph [0103] states, “…The imaging mode IM includes a global shutter timing sequence to operate a pixel as shown in FIG. 3. The global shutter timing sequence can be applied to all pixels in the image sensor or only to part of pixels, e.g. in a defined region of interest, ROI…”; part of the pixels defining a region of interest meets a subset ].
Claim 19 is anticipated by the subject matter of Meynants, as applied to claim 13.
Figure 1 shows the sensor elements for imaging and the circuits for demodulating TOF data integrated together, thus anticipating claim 16.
The 2D image produced during the imaging mode meets representing ambient light, thus anticipating claim 17.
Paragraph [0076] teaches a control resetting the pixels to control the start of an exposure period, thus anticipating deactivation, as set forth by claims 18 and 20.
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 4, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynants (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0223371).
With regard to claims 4, 5, 10 and 11, paragraph [0076] of Meynants states, “…In more detail, the control unit CTRL comprises means, such as a dedicated logic or a microcontroller, for controlling exposure of pixels, timing sequences and bias of individual pixels or groups of pixels in the array. The control unit CTRL can control resetting of the pixels to control the start of an exposure period (e.g. including operation of transfer gates and reset via a control signal), operation of transfer gates to transfer charges to a charge storage node and/or floating diffusion fd, operation of switches by means of a control signal to control read-out from a pixel…”; thus, implicitly suggesting a series of measurement frames.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have had a reasonable expectation to have have configured the device of Meynants to have met the limitation of claims 4, 5, 10 and 11, when doing measurements over a series of exposure periods, as inferred by paragraph [0076].
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meynants (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0223371) in view of Ou et al (CN 111598072 A).
Claim 14 differs from Meynants by reciting a first imaging portion including the plurality of event-based light detection elements; and a second imaging portion including the plurality of demodulation elements.
Figure 1 of Ou et al teaches that it was known in combined range/imaging systems to have used a TOF system (111) and imaging system (112) in a side-by-side arrangement next to the transmission element (110).
` Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the hybrid detection array disclose by Meynants to use a side-by-side arrangement, as shown by Ou et al, because the Ou et al arrangement was an alternative structure producing the same expected result.
Claim 15 is met by the combination of Meynants and Ou et la, as applied to claim 14, because figure 1 of Ou et al shows the TOF system (111) between the transmission element (110) and imaging system (112).
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 3648