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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 5/16/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 4 and 16 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.
Claims 4 and 16 recite “…the gating range…” and, as such, this element has no antecedent basis in claims 1 and 11; to which claims 4 and 16 presently depend.
It appears that claims 4 and 16 were meant to respectively depend on claims 3 and 15.
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, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Niclass et al (United States Patent No. 7,262,402).
With respect to claim 1, Niclass et al disclose: A direct-time-of-flight (dTOF) detecting device [ taught by figure 5 ], comprising: a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensor, configured to receive a reflective light reflected from an object and output an original data based on the reflective light [ figure 9 teaches an array of 2D SPAD pixels (101) and 3D SPAD pixels (100) ]; and a processor , coupled to the SPAD sensor and configured to process the original data to generate depth data and intensity data, wherein the depth data comprises depth information of the object and the intensity data comprises a two-dimensional image of the object [ the abstract states, “…An integrated imager circuit having a monolithic array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) for capturing an image of a scene when said scene is hit by an optical pulse. The array has a plurality of SPADs connected to 2D readout circuits which determines the intensity of the light reflected by the scene by counting the number of photons received by the SPADs during a period of time. A plurality of SPADs connected to 3D readout circuits determines the distance to the scene by determining the elapsed time between the emission of each pulse and reception of the corresponding reflected photons…”; therefore, the readout circuits meet a processor wherein 3D readout meets depth data and 2D readout meets image data ].
Claim 20 is anticipated by the subject matter of Niclass et al, as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, Niclass et al disclose: A dTOF detecting system [ taught by figure 5 ], comprising: a light source, configured to emit an incident light to an object [ taught by pulsed laser light source (32) ]; an optical system, configured to receive the reflective light after the incident light being reflected by the object and output the reflective light [ figure 5 shows a reception system (34 and 33 ]; a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensor [ figure 9 shows an array of SPAD elements ], configured to receive the reflective light from the optical system and output an original data based on the reflective light [ the abstract teaches the SPAD elements output data pertaining to intensity and depth ]; and a processor, coupled to the SPAD sensor and configured to process the original data to generate depth data and intensity data, wherein the depth data comprises depth information of the object and the intensity data comprises a two-dimensional image of the object [ the abstract states, “…An integrated imager circuit having a monolithic array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) for capturing an image of a scene when said scene is hit by an optical pulse. The array has a plurality of SPADs connected to 2D readout circuits which determines the intensity of the light reflected by the scene by counting the number of photons received by the SPADs during a period of time. A plurality of SPADs connected to 3D readout circuits determines the distance to the scene by determining the elapsed time between the emission of each pulse and reception of the corresponding reflected photons…”; therefore, the readout circuits meet a processor wherein 3D readout meets depth data and 2D readout meets image data ].
Claim 8 is anticipated by figures 7 and 8.
Claim 10 is anticipated by the time-to-digital converter (33).
Column 3, lines 23-26 state, “…In a preferred embodiment, the SPADs are CMOS-implemented and operated in the Geiger mode. CMOS implementation allows for an inexpensive integration and better scalability…”; thus, anticipating claim 13.
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niclass et al (United States Patent No. 7,262,402) in view of Wang et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0113407).
Paragraph [0025] of Wang et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used laser beams in the near infrared range in time-of-flight cameras utilizing an array of SPAD elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using near infrared for the transmission wavelength in the device of Niclass et al because Wang et al taught this band was workable for time-of-flight cameras utilizing an array of SPAD elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 14, 15 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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