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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Van Der Tempel et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0153605).
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, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Der Tempel (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0153605).
With respect to claim 1, Van Der Tempel et al disclose: A method [ taught by the operation of the device of figure 2 ] comprising: illuminating, by a light source located at a specific spatial location, one or more physical objects in a physical environment [ taught by light source (5); paragraph [0135] ]; detecting, by a first sensor element of a first light detector at a first spatial location, a first event of a first light reflection from an exterior surface position of a specific physical object in the one or more physical object illuminated by the light source [ taught by the operation of sensor (2’) ]; detecting, by a second sensor element of a second light detector at a second spatial location, a second event of a second light reflection from the exterior surface position of the specific physical object illuminated by the light source [ taught by operation of sensor (2”) ]; generating, based at least in part on the first and second events and the first and second spatial locations, time-of-flight measurements and triangulation measurements [ paragraph [0137] states, “…For example, FIG. 3 shows the laser-based illumination continuously sweeps the world in fast strokes. A Lissajous pattern is generated based on a fast 2D MEMS mirror. Two or more sensors snapshot the position of the laser dot at a very fast rate (up to 100 MHz). Each sensor sends out the laser dot position, after which a simple triangulation algorithm allows to compute precise 3D shape, position, contour, and motion at said very fast rate. One advantage of this invention is the use of time-of-flight sensor in addition to triangulation, which solves a few problems as disclosed throughout the description…” ]; determining, based at least in part on the time-of-flight measurements and triangulation measurements, a set of specific spatial coordinate values for the exterior surface position of the specific physical object [ paragraph [0072] states, “…In a first aspect, the present invention relates to an optical sensing system for 3D imaging…” ].
Claims 8 and 15 are anticipated by the subject matter of Van Der Tempel, as applied to claim 1.
The abstract states, “…Each timing means is adapted to measure at least one first depth value, wherein said first depth value is mathematically related to the time between emitting a light pulse by the light source (5) and receiving said pulse by the optical sensing unit (3)…”; thus anticipating claims 2, 9 and 16.
Paragraph [0022] states, “…It is an advantage of embodiments of the present invention that false detections are filtered, and noise such as ambient light is reduced or eliminated, and reliable detections are obtained, since the first and second depth value should be similar or substantially similar or equal…”.
Therefore, claims 6, 13 and 20 are anticipated in that paragraph [0022] renders the detection of ambient light implicit.
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 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Tempel (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0153605) in view of Smits (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0041266).
Claims 7, 14 and 21 further recited that the first and second detectors are Geiger mode sensors.
Paragraph [0040] of Smits teaches that APD detectors used in image sensors were known before the effective filing date of the present application to have operated in the Geiger mode.
Therefore, it would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan to have successfully used Gieger mode sensors in the device of Van Der Tempel because Smits et al established they were known to perform the function of detection in image sensors.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Tempel (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0153605) in view of Yang et al (WO 2021238212 A1).
With regard to claims 3, 10 and 17; page 6 of the translation of Yang et al states, "… It should be understood that the TOF image sensor includes at least one pixel. Compared with a traditional image sensor that is only used for taking pictures, each pixel here includes more than two taps for storing and reading or reading under the control of the corresponding electrode. Output the charge signal generated by incident photons), for example: including 3 taps, within a single frame period (or single exposure time) in a certain order to switch the taps to collect the corresponding charge. In addition, the control and processor also provides the demodulated signal (collection signal) of each tap in each pixel of the TOF image sensor, and the tap collects the electrical signal (charge) generated by the reflected light beam reflected by the target object under the control of the demodulated signal… ".
Therefore, the subject matter of claims 3, 10 and 17 would have been a reasonably expected modification by person of ordinary skill in art because using a time frame to readout charge would have required a form of time gating in a TOF system such as discloses as part of the image sensor (2’ and 2”) disclosed by Van Der Tempel et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 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.
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 3645
Prosecution Insights