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. This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 06/23/2023. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and examined below. 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 1-2, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannes Plank (US 20200182984 A1, “Plank”) in view of Newcombe et al. (EP 3393122 A1, “Newcombe”). Regarding claim 1, Plank teaches an apparatus for determining changes in distance ( [0005]-[0007], Claim 10 ), the apparatus comprising: an electromagnetic (EM)-radiation emitter configured to emit EM radiation toward an environment (at least Fig. 2, [0025], illumination element 210); a detector configured to receive reflected EM radiation from the environment (at least Fig. 2, para 25, light capturing element 220); phase-calculation circuitry (claim 10, [0106] - [0107]) configured to calculate a phase-difference value indicative of a difference between a phase of the emitted EM radiation and a phase of the reflected EM radiation (NewPlank teaches phase images, phase-distance functions, and determination of depth from phase values obtained from reflected modulated light ([0027]-[0036], [0051]-[0060])); and Plank fails to explicitly teach differencing circuitry configured to trigger an event responsive to a difference between a current phase-difference value and a prior phase-difference value exceeding a threshold. Plank teaches comparing first and second depth/phase-derived values to determine motion (Claim 1; [0043]-[0049], [0071]-[0077]), while Newcombe teaches an event camera comprising an event sensor having a plurality of photodiodes, wherein, in event mode, each photodiode asynchronously outputs a data value based at least in part on a difference between a previously output value and a current intensity value relative to a threshold value, and further teaches generating event data associated with photodiode positions and signed event values ( [0003], [0007], [0011]-[0016], [0039]-[0054]). Newcombe therefore teaches threshold-based event generation from a prior/current comparison and outputting event information in sparse event form. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the ToF depth-motion comparison of Plank to generate an event when a compared phase/depth-related change exceeds a threshold, as taught by Newcombe , because doing so would reduce latency and bandwidth by reporting only meaningful scene changes instead of requiring full-frame depth processing for every update. Regarding claim 2, Plank, in view of Newcombe, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the detector comprises an array of detectors (Newcombe teaches that the detector comprises an array of detectors because event sensor 210 includes a plurality of photodiodes ([0044]).); and each detector of the array of detectors corresponds to a respective portion of the reflected EM radiation (Newcombe further teaches that each detector of the array corresponds to a respective portion of the reflected EM radiation because optical assembly 220 directs light from a local area to the event sensor 210 ([0047]), such that the plurality of photodiodes receive light from different spatial portions of the imaged scene. Thus, the plurality of photodiodes forms a detector array in which each detector corresponds to a respective spatial portion of the scene light incident on the sensor ([0044], [0047]). It would have been obvious to further modify the detector arrangement of the Plank in view of Newcombe so that the detector comprises an array of photodiode detectors corresponding to respective spatial portions of the imaged reflected radiation, because such an arrangement predictably provides location-specific sensing of changes in the scene, which improves the system’s ability to determine where in the environment a change in distance occurred. Regarding claim 10, Plank in view of Newcombe, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the differencing circuitry is configured to output a data stream representative of the event (Newcombe teaches in event mode, threshold-triggered detector outputs are produced as an asynchronous stream of photodiode address events rather than as a conventional image frame (at least [0003], [0040]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the differencing/event circuitry of the combined system to output a data stream representative of the event as taught by Newcombe, because doing so would have predictably reduced bandwidth and latency by transmitting only meaningful localized depth-change events rather than full-frame data.). Regarding claim 11, Plank in view of Newcombe, teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the data stream comprises position information and direction information. Newcombe teaches that the controller 230 organizes event output using the positions of photodiodes associated with the received event data, thereby teaching position information ([0049]-[0050], [0051]-[0053]), and further teaches signed event/change values, such as +τ and -τ , thereby teaching direction information indicative of the polarity or sense of the detected change ([0053], [0062]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the event data stream of the combined system to include both position information and direction information as taught by Newcombe, because doing so would have predictably enabled downstream circuitry to determine where a significant depth-change event occurred and in what sense the change was detected, thereby improving localized event-based scene analysis while avoiding unnecessary full-frame processing. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Newcombe and Li et al. (US 10855896 B1, “Li”). Regarding claim 3, Plank, in view of Newcombe, fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a plurality of phase-calculation circuitries, wherein each phase-calculation circuitry of the plurality of phase-calculation circuitries is connected to a respective detector of the array of detectors, and wherein each phase-calculation circuitry of the plurality of phase-calculation circuitries is configured to calculate a respective phase-difference value indicative of a respective difference between the emitted EM radiation and a respective phase of reflected EM radiation received at a respective detector. However, Li teaches a plurality of phase-calculation circuitries , because the imaging device includes a plurality of augmented pixels , each with associated local storage locations and corresponding phase computation performed on the image data for that pixel. Li further teaches that each such phase-calculation path is connected to a respective detector , because the phase for each augmented pixel is determined from image data captured and stored for that same augmented pixel. Li also teaches that each phase-calculation path is configured to calculate a respective phase-difference value indicative of a respective difference between emitted and reflected light received at the respective pixel/detector, since the controller determines the phase of light captured at each augmented pixel from the stored intensities corresponding to that pixel, and then determines depth based on that phase (Claim 1, Col 8: lines 22-67, Col 21: lines 28-38).the equations (1)-(5)/(7)-(8)). It would have been obvious to provide a respective phase-calculation path for each detector of the detector array, as taught by Li, because spatially resolved depth-change sensing requires detector-specific phase information rather than a single aggregate phase value. Doing so would have predictably allowed the apparatus to determine phase/distance changes independently at different locations in the field of view, thereby enabling localized event detection, map generation, and event streaming. Claims 4-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Newcombe, Li and Robert Lange (US 20150338509 A1, “Lange”). Regarding claim 4, , Plank, in view of Newcombe and Li, fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising: a plurality of differencing circuitries, wherein each differencing circuitry of the plurality of differencing circuitries is connected to a respective phase-calculation circuitry of the plurality of phase-calculation circuitries, and wherein each differencing circuitry of the plurality of differencing circuitries is configured to trigger an event responsive to a difference between a current phase-difference value and a prior phase-difference value exceeding a threshold. Plank teaches determining depth motion from temporally distinct phase/depth-derived information by determining a first auxiliary depth image from a first set of phase images, determining a second auxiliary depth image from a second, different set of phase images, and determining information about depth motion based on comparing the depth values represented in the first and second auxiliary depth images ([0005], [0037]-[0045], [0110]-[0119]). However, Plank does not expressly teach converting that temporal comparison into a detector-level threshold event trigger. Lange teaches, in a time-of-flight sensor, determining motion based on a differential value and comparing that differential value with a threshold value , wherein exceedance of the threshold is identified as object motion ([0006], [0008], [0049]-[0053]), and thus teaches using a threshold differential comparison to generate a motion/event indication in a ToF context. Li teaches detector-specific phase calculation because the imaging device includes a plurality of augmented pixels and the controller determines a phase of light captured at each augmented pixel based on image data stored in the respective local storage locations of that same augmented pixel , thereby teaching a plurality of respective phase-calculation paths associated with respective detectors/pixels (See rejection of claim 3. See also, claims 1-4 of Li). Newcombe teaches a plurality of detector-specific event paths because each photodiode independently compares a current value relative to a previous value and outputs a data value when the change exceeds a threshold ([0044]-[0045]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Plank in view of Lange so that the temporal difference between earlier and later phase/depth-related values is treated as a differential value and compared to a threshold to generate a motion/event indication, and to implement that modified temporal phase/depth comparison on a detector-specific basis as taught by Li, with detector-level event output as taught by Newcombe, thereby providing for each respective phase- calculation path a corresponding differencing circuitry that triggers an event when the difference between a current phase-difference-related value and a prior phase-difference-related value exceeds a threshold, because doing so would have predictably enabled localized, detector-specific reporting of significant depth changes while reducing bandwidth and processing overhead by outputting only meaningful threshold-crossing changes and improving robustness against insignificant variation and noise. Regarding claim 5, Plank, in view of Newcombe, Li and Lange, teaches the apparatus of claim 4, further comprising at least one processor configured to output a map indicative of events triggered by respective differencing circuitries of the plurality of differencing circuitries. Plank teaches the recited at least one processor configured to output a map because Plank discloses determining information about depth motion relative to a time-of-flight camera based on comparison of depth values from temporally distinct phase-image-derived results, and further teaches that such depth-motion information may be represented as a two-dimensional image comprising a plurality of pixels , each representing depth motion for a corresponding pixel of the depth image ([0046], [0111], [0140]). However, Plank does not explicitly teach that the output map is specifically indicative of detector-specific threshold-triggered events. Newcombe teaches that controller 230 populates an event matrix based on asynchronously received detector/photodiode data values and photodiode positions, and generates an image from the event matrix and change matrix ([0049]-[0050], [0061]-[0064]), thereby teaching a processor/controller outputting a spatial map indicative of detector-specific event occurrences. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the processor/output of Plank, after incorporating the detector-specific threshold differencing/event arrangement of claim 4, to output a spatial map indicative of those respective detector-specific events as taught by Newcombe, because doing so would have predictably enabled localized identification and efficient processing of significant depth-change events across the field of view. Regarding claim 6, Plank, in view of Newcombe, Li and Lange, teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the map is indicative of points in the environment for which a depth measurement changed between determining the prior phase-difference value and the current phase-difference value. Plank teaches that the output map/image is indicative of points in the environment for which depth changed over time , because Plank determines a first auxiliary depth image from a first set of phase images, determines a second auxiliary depth image from a second, different set of phase images, and determines depth motion information based on a comparison of the depth values represented by pixels in those first and second auxiliary depth images ( [0005], [0037]-[0045], [0110]-[0119]). Plank further teaches that such depth-motion information may be represented as a two-dimensional image comprising a plurality of pixels , each representing depth motion for a corresponding pixel of the depth image ([0046], [0111], [0140]). Thus, Plank teaches a map indicative of corresponding points in the environment for which a depth measurement changed between an earlier and a later phase/depth determination, which reads on the claimed map being indicative of points in the environment for which a depth measurement changed between determining the prior phase-difference value and the current phase-difference value. Regarding claim 8, Plank, in view of Newcombe, Li and Lange, teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of differencing circuitries are configured to output a data stream representative of the events. Newcombe in event mode, each photodiode independently and asynchronously outputs threshold-triggered event data, and teaches that in such mode there is no conventional image frame but instead an asynchronous stream of photodiode address events (at least [0003], [0040]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the plurality of detector-specific differencing/event paths of the combined system to output a data stream representative of the events as taught by Newcombe , because doing so would have predictably reduced bandwidth and latency by transmitting only meaningful localized depth-change events rather than full-frame data. Regarding claim 9, Plank, in view of Newcombe, Li and Lange, teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the data stream comprises position information and direction information. Newcombe teaches the controller 230 populates an event matrix based on asynchronously received detector event data and the positions of photodiodes associated with those data values, thereby teaching position information ([0049]-[0050],[0051]-[0053]), and further teaches that the event/change values may be signed (e.g., +τ or -τ ), thereby teaching direction information indicative of the polarity or sense of the detected change ([0053], [0062]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the event data stream of the combined system to include both position information and direction information as taught by Newcombe , because doing so would have predictably enabled downstream circuitry to determine where a significant depth-change event occurred and in what sense the change was detected, thereby improving localized event-based scene analysis while avoiding unnecessary full-frame processing. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Newcombe, Li, Lange and Ritter et al. (US 20140327900 A1, “Ritter”). Regarding claim 7, Plank, in view of Newcombe, Li and Lange, teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the plurality of differencing circuitries operate asynchronously ( Newcombe teaches that the plurality of downstream change-detection/event paths operate asynchronously because each photodiode independently compares a current value relative to a previous value and asynchronously outputs a data value when the threshold is exceeded ([0044]-[0045]), which corresponds under a broad but reasonable interpretation to a plurality of differencing circuitries operating asynchronously. ). Plank, in view of Newcombe, Li and Lange, fails to explicitly teach wherein: the plurality of phase-calculation circuitries operate asynchronously. However. Ritter teaches asynchronous processing of the differentiation / phase-detection path through comparator-triggered sampling and downstream processing ([0039]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to make the plurality of phase-calculation and differencing circuitries of claim 4 operate asynchronously so the system produces depth-change events when they occur rather than only at fixed full-frame times, thereby reducing latency and power. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Newcombe and Ding et al. (US 20210318443 A1, “Ding”). Regarding claim 12, Plank, in view of Newcombe, fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the EM-radiation emitter is further configured to modulate the emitted EM radiation based on a reference modulating signal; and the phase-difference value is indicative of a difference between a phase of the reference modulating signal and a phase of an envelope of the reflected EM radiation. Plank teaches a time-of-flight camera using a modulated transmit signal for illuminating a scene and generating reflected-signal-based measurement signals, where phase information is determined from correlation of the transmit/reference signal and the reflected/measurement signal ([0025]-[0035], [0051]-[0053], [0116]-[0118]). Plank teaches the emitter being configured to modulate emitted radiation based on a reference/modulating signal and teaches deriving a phase-related value from comparison of the emitted reference and the reflected return. Plank does not explicitly teach that the phase comparison is specifically between the phase of the reference modulating signal and the phase of an envelope of the reflected EM radiation. However, Ding teaches a coded modulation signal having both a modulation-clock frequency and an envelope component, and teaches phase-delay determination based on those modulation components ([0029]-[0037], [0060]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to apply the modulation-reference/envelope-based phase comparison of Ding to the ToF motion/depth framework of Plank because doing so would have predictably enabled robust phase extraction using known modulation-envelope techniques in an iToF/ToF system. Regarding claim 13, Plank, in view of Newcombe and Ding, teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the reference modulating signal is a square wave (Ding, [0030], t he modulation clock may generate a periodic signal, more preferably a square wave). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a square-wave reference modulating signal , as taught by Ding, in the modulated ToF system of Plank because square-wave modulation is a known practical waveform for ToF operation that is straightforward to generate from a modulation clock, facilitates reliable correlation/demodulation timing, and provides a predictable implementation of the reference modulation scheme already used in the ToF phase-measurement framework. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Newcombe and Ritter. Regarding claim 14, Plank, in view of Newcombe, fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the phase-calculation circuitry comprises an analog differential amplifier and an analog arctangent-calculation circuitry. Plank teaches an apparatus for determining depth motion relative to a time-of-flight camera using phase images derived from reflected light, where phase values are obtained from demodulated reflected signals and used to determine phase/distance information (See, e.g., [0025]-[0036], [0057]-[0066], [0082]-[0090]). However, Plank does not expressly disclose that the phase-calculation circuitry comprises an analog differential amplifier and an analog arctangent-calculation circuitry . Ritter teaches analog phase-processing circuitry in which received signals are processed in analog form, including analog differentiation / difference circuitry and phase determination circuitry that determines phase from in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signal components, e.g., by phase detection / arctangent-type processing of the I and Q derivatives ([0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0025], [0035]-[0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the phase-calculation path of Plank using the analog phase-processing approach taught by Ritter, because analog difference extraction and analog phase determination were known techniques for deriving phase information from reflected modulated signals while reducing latency and avoiding unnecessary digitization overhead. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to realize the analog difference stage of Ritter using a conventional analog differential-amplifier-type front end or equivalent analog subtractor circuitry feeding the analog phase / arctangent circuitry, since such components were well-known predictable implementations for extracting phase-related differences from analog sensor signals. The combination would merely have involved applying a known analog phase-calculation implementation to the ToF phase determination of Plank to obtain phase-difference values efficiently and with predictable results. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Newcombe and Lange. Regarding claim 15, Plank, in view of Newcombe, fails to explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the differencing circuitry comprises an analog differencing circuitry. Lange teaches a ToF camera whose sensor has an array of ToF pixels with at least two integration nodes, and in a motion-detection / power-saving mode, object motion is determined based on a differential value at the integration nodes ([0006], [0044]-[0049]). Lange further teaches comparing the differential value with a threshold value , and when the threshold is exceeded, identifying object motion ([0008], [0053]). It would have been obvious to implement the differencing circuitry of claim 1 as analog differencing circuitry at the sensor/integration-node front end, to reduce power, bandwidth, and computational overhead by performing the comparison directly in the analog domain. Claims 16-18, 20, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Lange. Regarding claim 16, Plank teaches a method for determining changes in distance ([0005], [0007], [0110]), the method comprising: emitting first electromagnetic (EM) radiation toward an environment (Plank teaches a ToF camera that uses a modulated transmit signal for illuminating the scene and generating phase images based on reflected light from the scene. See [0025]-[0036]. In particular, the scene is illuminated with modulated light, and the sequence of phase images is taken from that illumination process. See also [0051]-[0053], where the ToF camera uses a transmit signal to illuminate the scene during the sequence of phase-image captures. So, the first illumination used to obtain the first set / first phase image corresponds to the claimed emitting first EM radiation toward an environment .); receiving first reflected EM radiation from the environment (Plank teaches that the ToF camera receives reflected light from the scene , and that the measurement signals are based on that reflected light. See [0025]-[0031]. It further explains that the phase images are obtained from correlations of the transmit signal and the measurement signals based on reflected light from the scene . See [0031]-[0033], [0051].Thus, when the first phase image / first set of phase images is obtained, Plank teaches the corresponding step of receiving first reflected EM radiation from the environment .); calculating a first phase-difference value indicative of a difference between a phase the first emitted EM radiation and a phase of the first reflected EM radiation (teaches that ToF depth measurement uses a sequence of phase images , where the measured phase values are dependent on the phase shift between transmitted and reflected light. See [0027]-[0035]. It further teaches determining a first auxiliary depth image from a first set of phase images out of that sequence. See [0037]-[0039], [0041]-[0043]. More specifically, Plank teaches calculating phase shift / phase information from selected phase images, including examples using the first two phase images and computing phase shift from those values. See [0057]-[0060]. That phase shift is exactly a phase-difference value indicative of a difference between the phase of emitted EM radiation and the phase of reflected EM radiation . Accordingly, Plank teaches the claimed calculating a first phase-difference value .); emitting second EM radiation toward an environment (Plank teaches that the individual phase images are captured sequentially at consecutive time instants during the ToF measurement process. See [0043], [0050]-[0053], [0073]. Because the phase-image sequence includes later phase images after the first set, the ToF camera necessarily performs a later illumination corresponding to the acquisition of the second set / second phase image(s). Thus, the later illumination used for the second set / second phase image corresponds to the claimed emitting second EM radiation toward an environment .); receiving second reflected EM radiation from the environment (Plank likewise teaches receiving later reflected light from the scene for the later-captured phase image(s), i.e., the phase images of the second set of phase images are different from the phase images of the first set of phase images and are captured later in time. See [0038]-[0043], [0048]-[0053].Thus, the reflected light associated with the later phase-image capture corresponds to the claimed receiving second reflected EM radiation from the environment .); calculating a second phase-difference value indicative of a difference between a phase the second emitted EM radiation and a phase of the second reflected EM radiation (Plank teaches determining a second auxiliary depth image from a second set of phase images out of the same sequence, where the second set is different from the first set. See [0038]-[0043], [0048]-[0053]. Since those later phase images likewise come from phase-based ToF measurement, they also correspond to a later-calculated phase shift / phase value derived from the phase relation of emitted and reflected radiation. See [0027]-[0035], [0069]-[0075], [0126]-[0127].Thus, Plank teaches the claimed calculating a second phase-difference value .). Plank fails to explicitly teach triggering an event responsive to a difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeding a threshold. However, Lange teaches in a ToF camera with integration nodes, that in a motion-detection/power-saving mode, an object motion is determined based on a differential value at the integration nodes. See [0006]-[0007]. Lange further teaches that the differential value is compared with a threshold value , and if the threshold value is exceeded, this is identified as an object motion . See [0008]-[0010], [0050]-[0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase-based depth-motion comparison method of Plank with the threshold-based motion/event triggering taught by Lange, because both references are in the ToF motion/depth sensing field , and Lange teaches a straightforward way to convert mere differential comparison into a practical event-triggered distance/motion detector . Doing so would have predictably allowed the system of Plank to: ignore insignificant fluctuations and noise, respond only to meaningful distance changes, reduce unnecessary downstream processing, and provide a cleaner motion/depth-change output. Regarding claim 17, Plank in view of Lange, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein: receiving the first reflected EM radiation comprises receiving the first reflected EM radiation at a detector of an array of detectors, the detector corresponding to a portion of the first reflected EM radiation (Lange, discloses a time-of-flight sensor comprising an array of time-of-flight pixels ([0006], [0027]), such that an individual pixel reads on the claimed detector of an array of detectors. Lange further teaches that, during a first portion of the acquisition time, reflected radiation received at that same pixel is accumulated in a first integration node Ga.); receiving the second reflected EM radiation comprises receiving the second reflected EM radiation at the detector of the array of detectors (Lange, teaches during a second portion of the acquisition time, reflected radiation received at that same pixel is accumulated in a second integration node Gb ([0048]-[0049])); and the event corresponds to the detector of the array of detectors (Lange also teaches that, for a single time-of-flight pixel, object motion causes the stored values to differ so that the differential value becomes non-zero ([0050]-[0051]). Lange further teaches that it is sufficient to consider the charge differences of the integration nodes of the time-of-flight pixels ([0054]) and the method can be applied to the entire image sensor, partial regions, or subsampling, confirming pixel-level event handling ([0055]), thereby teaching that the event corresponds to that detector/pixel in the array.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the phase-based distance-change detection of Plank with the array / per-pixel TOF sensor structure of Lange so that distance-change events could be determined at the level of individual detector pixels , rather than only as a single aggregate measurement, because that would predictably improve spatial localization of motion/depth changes across the scene and allow the system to identify which portion of the reflected radiation produced the detected change. Regarding claim 18, Plank in view of Lange, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein: the detector of the array of detectors comprises a first detector of the array of detectors (Lange teaches teaches the TOF sensor 22 comprises an array of time-of-flight pixels ([0006], [0027]). Thus, one pixel of that array is a first detector.); the event comprises a first event (The event already produced for that detector in claim 17 is the claimed first event.); and the method further comprises: receiving third reflected EM radiation from the environment at a second detector of the array of detectors (Lange teaches an array of TOF pixels ([0006], [0027]). Therefore, in addition to a first pixel/detector, the same array necessarily includes another pixel/detector, i.e., the claimed second detector.). Plank teaches reflected radiation from the scene/environment being captured and represented at pixel locations, with depth values represented by pixels of the auxiliary depth images ([0042]-[0047], [0124]-[0125]). Thus, reflected EM radiation from the environment is received not only at a first detector/pixel, but also at a second detector/pixel of the known array; calculating a third phase-difference value indicative of a difference between a phase the first emitted EM radiation and a phase of the third reflected EM radiation (Plank teaches that the reflected light experiences a phase shift relative to the emitted/modulated transmit signal, and that the phase shift is determined from the phase values/correlation outputs ([0027]-[0035]). Specifically, Plank teaches determining the phase shift φd between the emitted modulated signal and the reflected light and then using that phase shift to determine depth ([0034]-[0035]). Lange teaches that this type of TOF operation is carried out in a sensor that is an array of time-of-flight pixels ([0006], [0027]), and also teaches the known arctangent phase determination from differential charge values ([0030]-[0032]). Therefore, when the first emitted radiation is reflected to the second detector/pixel of the known array, the same known phase-difference calculation is performed there, giving the claimed third phase-difference value.); receiving fourth reflected EM radiation from the environment at the second detector of the array of detectors (Plank teaches repeated/serial image capture and later comparison of phase/depth-derived values from different measurements or different times ([0043], [0073]-[0075], [0080]-[0082]). Applied at the same second detector/pixel of the Lange array, that second detector receives reflected radiation again during the later/current measurement. Thus, the later reflected EM radiation at that second detector is the claimed fourth reflected EM radiation.); calculating a fourth phase-difference value indicative of a difference between a phase the second emitted EM radiation and a phase of the fourth reflected EM radiation (This is the same phase-difference determination as above, but for the later/current measurement. Plank teaches calculating phase-related values for successive measurements based on the emitted signal and reflected light ([0027]-[0035], [0073]-[0075], [0090]-[0091]). Applied to the second detector/pixel of the known Lange array, the later/current phase-difference value at that second detector is the claimed fourth phase-difference value.); and triggering a second event responsive to a difference between the fourth phase-difference value and the third phase-difference value exceeding a threshold (Plank teaches comparing earlier and later phase/depth-derived values to determine depth motion/change ([0043], [0071]-[0075], [0090]-[0091]). Lange teaches comparing a differential value with a threshold and, if the threshold is exceeded, identifying object motion ([0008], [0053]). Therefore, once the earlier/later phase-difference values are obtained for the second detector, the known threshold comparison/event logic yields the claimed second event.); and the second event corresponds to the second detector of the array of detectors (Lange teaches that motion detection is based on differential values at the integration nodes of the TOF pixels and that the method may be applied to the entire image sensor or selected regions ([0050]-[0055]).Thus, when the repeated phase/difference comparison is performed at a second pixel/detector, the resulting event is associated with that second detector. In other words, just as the first detector has its own event, the second detector has its own corresponding event.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the repeated phase-difference change detection of Plank at multiple pixels/detectors of the known TOF pixel array of Lange, rather than only at a single detector, in order to obtain spatially resolved detection of distance changes at multiple positions in the environment. Performing the same known phase/difference/event process at a second detector of the same known array would have been no more than the predictable application of a known method to another member of a known plurality, yielding the expected result of a second detector-specific event. Regarding claim 20, Plank in view of Lange, teaches the method of claim 18, wherein: whether the difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeds the threshold is determined by a first analog differencing circuitry; and whether the difference between the fourth phase-difference value and the third phase-difference value exceeds the threshold is determined by a second analog differencing circuitry. Plank in view of Lange, teaches the limitations of claim 18, including first and second detectors of an array and corresponding earlier/later phase-difference values for each detector. Lange further teaches that, in a motion-detection mode, object motion is determined based on a differential value at the integration nodes ([0006]), that the differential value is compared with a threshold value ([0008]), and that after readout a charge difference Δq or corresponding electrical quantity ΔU, ΔI is determined ([0049]). Lange additionally teaches that such differential values may be present as voltage values , and that if a predetermined threshold voltage is exceeded, motion is detected ([0053]). Because Lange’s TOF sensor comprises an array of time-of-flight pixels ([0006], [0027]) and the method may be applied to the entire image sensor ([0055]), the combined teachings suggest that whether the difference between the second and first phase-difference values exceeds the threshold is determined by a first analog differencing circuitry associated with a first detector path, and whether the difference between the fourth and third phase-difference values exceeds the threshold is determined by a second analog differencing circuitry associated with a second detector path. It would have been obvious to replicate the known analog differential-value / threshold-comparison circuitry of Lange for multiple detector paths in the known TOF pixel array while applying the repeated phase-difference change detection of Plank, in order to obtain spatially resolved, detector-specific change-event determination. Regarding claim 30, Plank in view of Lange, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein whether the difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeds the threshold is determined by an analog differencing circuitry. Plank teaches the method of claim 16, including determining a first phase-difference value , determining a second phase-difference value , and triggering an event responsive to the difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeding a threshold. Lange teaches that the charges accumulated at integration nodes Ga and Gb are read out and a charge difference Δq or corresponding electrical quantity ΔU, ΔI is determined ([0049]), that such differential values may be present as voltage values ([0053]), and that the differential value is compared with a threshold value ([0008]), including a predetermined threshold voltage ([0053]). Lange further teaches that the voltages at the integration nodes may be tapped via the readout unit 400 ([0036]). Therefore, Lange teaches/suggests using analog differencing circuitry to determine whether a difference exceeds a threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the threshold-exceedance determination of Plank using the analog differential-value circuitry of Lange in order to provide a direct analog-domain determination of whether the difference between successive phase-difference values exceeds the threshold. Claims 19, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Lange and Ritter. Regarding claim 19, Plank in view of Lange, fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 18, wherein: the first phase-difference value is determined by a first analog differential amplifier and a first analog arctangent-calculation circuit; the second phase-difference value is determined by the first analog differential amplifier and the first analog arctangent-calculation circuit; the third phase-difference value is determined by a second analog differential amplifier and a second analog arctangent-calculation circuit; and the fourth phase-difference value is determined by the second analog differential amplifier and the second analog arctangent-calculation circuit. teaches the first, second, third, and fourth phase-difference values for first and second detectors of an array, as discussed above with respect to claims 17-18. However, Plank in view of Lange does not explicitly describe the claimed analog differential amplifier and analog arctangent-calculation circuit arrangement for determining those phase-difference values. Ritter remedies this deficiency. In particular, Ritter teaches an analog version system for I/Q derivative processing , wherein the derivative of the I and Q signals is generated by analog dv/dt circuitry and the phase is determined by analog A tan2(I,Q) circuitry ([0035]-[0037]). Thus, Ritter teaches/suggests an analog difference/derivative stage together with an analog arctangent-calculation stage for determining phase from reflected optical signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the phase-difference determination of Plank for a first detector path using a first analog differential-amplifier-type front end and a first analog arctangent-calculation circuit, and likewise to implement the phase-difference determination for a second detector path of the known array of Lange using a second analog differential-amplifier-type front end and a second analog arctangent-calculation circuit, because duplicating a known analog phase-processing channel for another detector in a detector array is a predictable and routine circuit design choice that yields detector-specific phase-change determination at multiple spatial locations. Regarding claim 27, Plank in view of Lange, fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 16, wherein the first phase-difference value is calculated asynchronously and the second phase-difference value is calculated asynchronously. Plank teaches the method of claim 16, including calculating a first phase-difference value based on first emitted and reflected electromagnetic radiation and calculating a second phase-difference value based on second emitted and reflected electromagnetic radiation. However, Plank does not disclose that the first and second phase-difference values are calculated asynchronously . Ritter remedies this deficiency. In particular, Ritter teaches an enhanced phase-processing system employing a variable sampling rate ([0039]), wherein a new sample is taken only when a change exceeds a threshold ([0041]), and the resulting trigger signal controls subsequent filtering and signal processing to provide “an asynchronous system” ([0043]). Ritter further teaches determining phase from I/Q-derived signals ([0035]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the first and second phase-difference values of Plank asynchronously using the trigger-based variable-sampling phase-processing approach of Ritter in order to reduce unnecessary fixed-rate sampling and improve responsiveness to meaningful distance-related signal changes. Regarding claim 28, Plank in view of Lange, fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 16, wherein: the first phase-difference value is determined by an analog differential amplifier and an analog arctangent-calculation circuit; and the second phase-difference value is determined by the analog differential amplifier and the analog arctangent-calculation circuit. Plank teaches the method of claim 16, including determining a first phase-difference value based on first emitted and reflected electromagnetic radiation and determining a second phase-difference value based on second emitted and reflected electromagnetic radiation. However, Plank does not explicitly disclose that the first and second phase-difference values are determined by an analog differential amplifier and an analog arctangent-calculation circuit . Ritter remedies this deficiency. In particular, Ritter teaches an analog version system for I/Q derivative processing , wherein analog dv/dt circuitry generates a derivative/difference signal and analog A tan2(I, Q) circuitry determines phase from the processed signals ([0035]-[0037]). Thus, Ritter teaches/suggests an analog difference/derivative stage together with an analog arctangent-calculation stage for determining phase from reflected optical signals. While Ritter does not use the exact phrase “analog differential amplifier,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the analog difference/derivative function of Ritter with a conventional analog differential-amplifier-type front end feeding the analog arctangent phase block, because that is a predictable analog circuit implementation for high-speed phase extraction. It further would have been obvious to use that same analog phase-processing path to determine both the first and second phase-difference values in the repeated measurement method of Plank, since successive ToF measurements are routinely processed through the same analog front-end circuitry. Regarding claim 29, Plank in view of Lange, fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 16, further comprising asynchronously determining whether the difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeds the threshold. Plank teaches the method of claim 16, including determining a first phase-difference value , determining a second phase-difference value , and triggering an event responsive to the difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeding a threshold. Thus, Plank teaches determining whether the difference between the second phase-difference value and the first phase-difference value exceeds the threshold. However, Plank does not disclose that this determination is made asynchronously . Ritter remedies this deficiency. In particular, Ritter teaches an enhanced processing system employing a variable sampling rate ([0039]), wherein a comparator compares changes to a threshold and a new sample is taken only if the change exceeds that threshold ([0041]), and further teaches that the trigger signal controls subsequent processing to provide “an asynchronous system” ([0043]). Therefore, Ritter teaches/suggests asynchronously determining whether a threshold has been exceeded. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the threshold exceedance determination of Plank asynchronously using the trigger-based variable-sampling approach of Ritter in order to reduce unnecessary fixed-rate evaluations and improve responsiveness to meaningful phase/distance-related changes. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank in view of Lange and Newcombe. Regarding claim 21, Plank in view of Lange, fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 18, further comprising outputting a map indicative of the first event and the second event. However, Newcombe teaches outputting a map/image based on position-associated event information, in that the controller populates an event matrix based on asynchronously received data values and positions of photodiodes over a first time period and generates an image using the event matrix and a change matrix (see, e.g., [0007], [0014]-[0016], [0049]-[0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to output the first and second detector-specific events of the Plank in view of Lange combination as a map/image in the manner taught by Newcombe order to provide a spatially resolved representation of distance-change events in the environment. Regarding claim 22, Plank in view of Lange and Newcombe, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the map is indicative of points in the environment for which a depth measurement changed and a direction in which the depth measurement changed. Plank teaches that, by comparing depth values represented by pixels in first and second auxiliary depth images, depth motion relative to the ToF camera is determined ([0043]), and that such information may indicate a relative change in depth or distance or a velocity of the depth motion, e.g., ±20 cm or ±2 m/s ([0045]). Plank further teache