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 Objections
Claims 31 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 31 line 2, the phrase “group of… element” is a grammatical error.
In claim 31 line 4, the phrase “group of… element” is a grammatical error.
In claim 34 line 2, the phrase “trigger a generating” is a grammatical error.
In claim 34 line 2, the phrase “group of… element” is a grammatical error.
In claim 34 line 4, the phrase “trigger a generating” is a grammatical error.
In claim 34 line 4, the phrase “group of… element” is a grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, 17, 21, 25, 27-29, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappel (US 2022/0026535).
In re. claim 1, Kappel teaches a distance measurement (DM) optical sensor, comprising: a two-dimensional sensing array (fig. 2) comprising sensing elements; wherein the sensing elements comprise DM sensing elements (first active subarray (11)) and feedback sensing elements (second inactive subarray (12)); wherein the feedback sensing elements are statically allocated to act as feedback sensing elements (when allocated to account for misalignment) (para [0007]); and output paths that comprise DM output paths (four TDCs for active subarray) (para [0096]) and feedback output paths (12 TDCs (para [0009]) activated as needed) (para [0097]); wherein a group of DM sensing elements of the DM sensing elements are configured to generate DM output signals that are indicative of light sensed by the group of DM sensing elements (para [0088]); wherein the DM output paths are configured to output the DM output signals (para [0098]); wherein a group of feedback sensing elements of the feedback sensing elements are configured to generate feedback output signals that are indicative of light sensed by the group of feedback sensing elements (the different photodetectors are used for the calibration process) (para [0026]); and wherein the feedback output paths are configured to output the feedback output signals (when activated) (para [0097]).
In re. claim 14, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein a DM sensing element comprises a 2D array (11) of DM detection elements and a feedback sensing element comprises a 2D array (12) of feedback sensing elements (fig. 2).
In re. claim 17, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the feedback output paths comprises a subtraction circuit for calculating a difference between light sensed by different feedback detection elements (alignment correction subtracting 1 row and 1 column in figure 2).
In re. claim 21, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein a number of feedback output paths (for subarray (12)) that are configured to perform time division multiplexing (by multiplexers (15)) (para [0010]) between feedback output signals of a number of feedback sensing elements (12), the number of the feedback sensing element exceeds a number of the output paths (SPAD array (12) connected to only 4 TDCs) (para [0010]) (fig. 6B).
In re. claim 25, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, comprising one or more misalignment compensation circuits (20) for compensating for a misalignment between the actual location of light sensed by at least some of the sensing elements and the expected location of the light (fig. 2).
In re. claim 27, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein the group of feedback sensing elements comprises vertical alignment indicative feedback sensing elements (e.g. SA1 and SA2 in figure 2).
In re. claim 28, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein the group of feedback sensing elements comprises horizontal alignment indicative feedback sensing elements (e.g. SA1 and SB1 in figure 2).
In re. claim 29, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein at least one feedback sensing element has a lower spatial resolution from at least one DM sensing element (understood to provide no resolution when inactive) (para [0096]).
In re. claim 31, Kappel teaches a method for distance measurement (DM), the method comprising: (a) generating, by a group of DM sensing element of a DM optical sensor (first active subarray (11)), DM output signals indicative of light sensed by the group of DM sensing element (para [0088]); (b) generating, by a group of feedback sensing element of a DM optical sensor (second inactive subarray (12)), feedback output signals indicative of light sensed by the feedback sensing element (12 TDCs (para [0009]) activated as needed) (para [0097]); the group of feedback sensing elements comprise one or more feedback sensing elements that are associated with the group of DM sensing elements (associated by location) (fig. 2); the feedback sensing elements are statically allocated to act as feedback sensing elements (12 TDCs (para [0009]) activated as needed) (para [0097]); and outputting, by output paths of the DM optical sensor, the DM output signals and the feedback output signals (para [0098]).
In re. claim 34, Kappel teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions that once executed by a controller (encompassed by embedded in a computer) (para [0052]-[0053]), causes the controller to:(a) trigger a generating, by a group of DM sensing element of a DM optical sensor (first active subarray (11)), DM output signals indicative of light sensed by the group of DM sensing element (photodetectors used in time of flight) (para [0098]); trigger a generating, by a group of feedback sensing element of a DM optical sensor (second inactive subarray (12)), feedback output signals indicative of light sensed by the feedback sensing element (photodetector subarray) (para [0097]); the group of feedback sensing elements comprise one or more feedback sensing elements that are associated with the group of DM sensing elements (associated by location) (fig. 2); the feedback sensing elements are statically allocated to act as feedback sensing elements (when allocated to account for misalignment) (para [0007]); and (c) trigger an outputting, by output paths of the DM optical sensor, the DM output signals and the feedback output signals (to TDC output terminals when activated for calibration) (para [0097]).
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 3-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finkelstein et al. (US 2020/0057151), hereinafter Finkelstein.
In re. claims 3-4, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, comprising a controller (23) that is configured to trigger multiple times (when activated or deactivated) (para [0041]) an outputting of the DM output signals and an outputting of the feedback signals (to alter the readout paths connected the SPAD arrays) (para [0081]).
Kappel fails to disclose triggering a generation of the DM output signals and a generation of the feedback output signals.
Finkelstein teaches a controller (105) that is configured to trigger a generation of output signals (via emitter array (115)) (para [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kappel to incorporate the teachings of Finkelstein to have a controller to trigger a generation of the DM output signals and a generation of the feedback output signals, for the purpose of utilizing the invention in time of flight systems.
In re. claim 5, Kappel as modified by Finkelstein (see Finkelstein) teach the DM optical sensor according to claim 4, wherein different times of the multiple times occur during different pulse related transmission and reception windows (different pulse intensities or power levels) (para [0054]).
In re. claim 10, Kappel as modified by Finkelstein (see Finkelstein) teach the DM optical sensor according to claim 5, wherein at least some of the different times have different delays from starts of at least some of the corresponding pulse related transmission and reception windows (delay possible using timing generator) (para [0041]).
In re. claim 11, Kappel as modified by Finkelstein (see Finkelstein) teach the DM optical sensor according to claim 4, wherein there are two or more times of the multiple times per each pulse related transmission and reception windows (multiple delays possible using timing generator) (para [0041]).
In re. claim 12, Kappel as modified by Finkelstein (see Finkelstein) teach the DM optical sensor according to claim 4, wherein the DM sensing elements are arranged in sets of DM sensing elements (2 sets in elements (11)), each set of DM sensing elements is allocated to receive, during a time of the multiple times, a spot of light (13) (fig. 2); wherein a height of the spot of light exceeds a height of the set of DM sensing elements (dashed lines in figure 2).
In re. claim 13, Kappel as modified by Finkelstein fail to disclose the height of the spot of light exceeds by three till fifteen percent the height of the set of DM sensing elements.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kappel as modified by Finkelstein to have the height of the spot of light exceeds by three till fifteen percent the height of the set of DM sensing elements, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II) Doing so would allow the teachings of the invention to be utilized with alignment of different spot sizes, improving the utility of the invention.
Claims 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel.
In re. claim 22, Kappel fails to disclose one feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements has a different size than another feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kappel to have one feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements has a different size than another feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would enable the teachings of the invention to be utilized with sensing elements of a different size.
In re. claim 23, Kappel fails to disclose one feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements has a different shape than another feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have one feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements as a different shape than another feedback sensing element of the group of feedback sensing elements, as a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Doing so would enable the teachings of the invention to be utilized with sensing elements of a different shape.
In re. claim 26, Kappel teaches the DM optical sensor according to claim 1, wherein a number of the output paths (4 TDCs) (fig. 2) is smaller than a number of the sensing elements (TDC1 for SPADS 1-16) (fig. 6B),
Kappel fails to disclose a number of the feedback sensing elements are smaller than a number of the DM sensing elements.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kappel to have a number of the feedback sensing elements smaller than a number of the DM sensing elements, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would enable the teachings of the invention to be utilized with sensing elements of a different size.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647