DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-9 are to a process, claims 10-16 are to a machine, and claims 17-20 are to another machine. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts:
1. A method of calibrating a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensor to compensate for crosstalk, the method comprising:
emitting N photonic pulses from an emitter of the dToF sensor, N being the number of photonic pulses; receiving N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N−1 remaining crosstalk signals at a receiver of the dToF sensor;
averaging the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal;
subtracting the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal;
subtracting the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals; and
calibrating the dToF sensor using the corrected crosstalk signals.
10. A direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensing device comprising:
a dToF sensor comprising an emitter configured to emit N photonic pulses, and a receiver configured to receive N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N−1 remaining crosstalk signals, N being the number of photonic pulses;
a processor coupled to the dToF sensor; and
a memory storing program instructions coupled to the processor, the program instructions, when executed by the processor, enabling the processor to
average the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal,
subtract the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal,
subtract the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals, and
calibrate the dToF sensor using the corrected crosstalk signals.
17. A direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensing device, comprising:
a dToF sensor comprising a focal plane and a field of view disposed over the focal plane;
a cover glass disposed over the focal plane;
an emitter disposed at the focal plane and configured to emit N photonic pulses towards the cover glass to generate N crosstalk signals from portions of each of the N photonic pulses that are reflected by the cover glass, the N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N−1 remaining crosstalk signals, N being the number of photonic pulses;
a receiver disposed at the focal plane and configured to receive the N crosstalk signals; and
a processor coupled to the dToF sensor, the processor being configured
to average the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal,
subtract the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal,
subtract the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals, and
calibrate the dToF sensor using the corrected crosstalk signals.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The limitations of “a method of calibrating a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensor to compensate for crosstalk" describes in words a mathematical process to correct the numerical measurement values of a dToF sensor. The limitations of "averaging the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal," "subtracting the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal," "subtracting the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals," and "calibrating the dToF sensor using the corrected crosstalk signals" describe in words a series of mathematical operations (such as averaging and subtracting) carried out on signal waveform data to generate new data as a solution of obtaining corrected crosstalk signal data.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the limitations of "emitting N photonic pulses from an emitter of the dToF sensor, N being the number of photonic pulses," "receiving N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N-1 remaining crosstalk signals at a receiver of the dToF," "a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensing device comprising: a dToF sensor comprising an emitter configured to emit N photonic pulses, and a receiver configured to receive N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N-1 remaining crosstalk signals, N being the number of photonic pulses," amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and (2) the limitations of "a processor coupled to the dToF sensor" and "a memory storing program instructions coupled to the processor, the program instructions, when executed by the processor, enabling the processor" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 17 contains additional limitations (not underlined) that describe a particular structural arrangement of the dToF sensing device such as "a dToF sensor comprising a focal plane and a field of view disposed over the focal plane; a cover glass disposed over the focal plane; an emitter disposed at the focal plane and configured to emit N photonic pulses towards the cover glass to generate N crosstalk signals from portions of each of the N photonic pulses that are reflected by the cover glass, the N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N−1 remaining crosstalk signals, N being the number of photonic pulses; a receiver disposed at the focal plane and configured to receive the N crosstalk signals." The physical placement and operation of the components of the sensor amount to more than mere insignificant extrasolution data gathering but describe the application of the judicial exception by use of a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), which amounts to an integration into a practical application. Therefore, the subject matter eligibility analysis concludes for claim 17 (and dependent claims 18-20), but continues for claims 1-16.
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The limitations of "emitting N photonic pulses from an emitter of the dToF sensor, N being the number of photonic pulses," "receiving N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N-1 remaining crosstalk signals at a receiver of the dToF," "a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensing device comprising: a dToF sensor comprising an emitter configured to emit N photonic pulses, and a receiver configured to receive N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N-1 remaining crosstalk signals, N being the number of photonic pulses," do not add something significantly more because such limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data using any particular physical measurement arrangement. The limitations of "a processor coupled to the dToF sensor" and "a memory storing program instructions coupled to the processor, the program instructions, when executed by the processor, enabling the processor," do not add something significantly more because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94).
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 13-15 contain additional limitations that describe general parameters and conditions for collecting the measurements, and amount to details of the insignificant extrasolution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and thus do not amount to an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Dependent claims 7-8 and 16 describe fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical calculations to describe further data processing calculations. Dependent claims 11-12 describe additional general details of a computer processor, memory, and program instructions, which amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calibrated values of the corrected crosstalk signals to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 2-3 and 13-14 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.
a) The term “about 5 μs” in claim 2 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How close to 5 μs is needed for a time period value to be considered "about" 5 μs?
b) The term “about 100” in claim 3 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How close to 100 is needed for a value to be considered "about" 100?
c) The term “about 5 μs” in claim 13 line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How close to 5 μs is needed for a time period value to be considered "about" 5 μs?
d) The term “about 100” in claim 14 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How close to 100 is needed for a value to be considered "about" 100?
Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-3 and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action. Claims 17-20 are allowable.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Glover et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0271765) at least teaches a method of calibrating a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensor to compensate for crosstalk (Glover abstract teaches a method for calibrating a time-of-flight system (dToF sensor) to compensate a measured histogram for crosstalk), the method comprising:
emitting N photonic pulses from an emitter of the dToF sensor, N being the number of photonic pulses (Glover abstract and paragraph [0035] teach emitting a plurality of sending pulses of light from an optical emitter of the time-of-flight sensor of the time-of-flight system, and paragraph [0083] teaches an embodiment of sending a number of pulses such as 5);
receiving N crosstalk signals comprising a first crosstalk signal and N−1 remaining crosstalk signals at a receiver of the dToF sensor (Glover abstract and paragraph [0035] teach receiving the detected pulses of light at a detector (receiver) of the time-of-flight sensor, and paragraph [0090] teaches where a received pulse gives rise to a range (covering N and a remaining N-1) of difference values denoted as a measured crosstalk response). 7. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Glover et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0271765) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method of calibrating a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensor to compensate for crosstalk, the method comprising: averaging the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal; subtracting the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal; subtracting the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Similarly, claim 10 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Glover et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0271765) fails to anticipate or render obvious a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensing device comprising: the program instructions, when executed by the processor, enabling the processor to average the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal, subtract the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal, subtract the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 17 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Glover et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0271765) fails to anticipate or render obvious a direct time-of-flight (dToF) sensing device comprising: the processor being configured to average the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to generate an averaged crosstalk signal, subtract the first crosstalk signal from the averaged crosstalk signal to generate an estimated wraparound signal, subtract the estimated wraparound signal from each of the N−1 remaining crosstalk signals to obtain corrected crosstalk signals, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
8. Dependent claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1. Dependent claims 11-16 depend from claim 10 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 10. Dependent claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 17.
Pertinent Art
9. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Avlas et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0064452) discloses Systems and Methods for Mitigating Optical Crosstalk in a Light Ranging and Detection System. B. Kim et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0208258) discloses Lidar Device and Method of Operating the Same.
C. Nelson et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0196812) discloses Time of Flight Sensor.
D. Sato et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0088875) discloses Optical Sensor and Electronic Device.
E. Ikuta et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0191958) discloses Light Sensor, Electronic Device, Computation Apparatus, and Method for Measuring Distance Between Light Sensor and Sensing Object.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 3/6/2026