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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou US 20210033730 A1 in view of Yoshida US 6229598 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Saitou teaches a distance measuring device comprising:
a light source that emits irradiation light (wave transmitter 2 and light source 21 in Fig. 1, [0027-30]);
a solid-state imaging device that generates, for each of pixels, a plurality of packets that hold signal charges generated at different exposure timings for the irradiation light (wave receiver 3 with image sensor 31 and pixels 311, [0032-36, 41-46]); and
a signal processing circuit that calculates a distance value based on the plurality of packets (distance measuring unit 12, [0048-49]),
wherein for each of the pixels, using the signal processing circuit ([0048-49]):
Saitou does not explicitly teach determines presence or absence of stray light using the plurality of packets corresponding to the pixel; when it is determined that there is no stray light, calculates a distance value of the pixel using a first process; and when it is determined that there is stray light, calculates a distance value of the pixel using a second process different from the first process.
Yoshida teaches detecting whether or not flare is present and different selection of pulse and measuring based on presence or absence of flare (Col. 8 lns. 53 – Col. 10 ln. 12; Figs. 7 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitou such that it determines presence or absence of stray light using the plurality of packets corresponding to the pixel; when it is determined that there is no stray light, calculates a distance value of the pixel using a first process; and when it is determined that there is stray light, calculates a distance value of the pixel using a second process different from the first process similar to Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the number of incorrect distance measurements.
Regarding claim 20, Saitou teaches a distance measurement method that uses a solid-state imaging device (wave receiver 3 with image sensor 31 and pixels 311, [0032-36, 41-46]) and a light source that emits irradiation light (wave transmitter 2 and light source 21 in Fig. 1, [0027-30]), the distance measurement method comprising the following to be executed for each of pixels:
generating a plurality of packets that hold signal charges generated at different exposure timings for the irradiation light (Fig. 3, [0050]);
Saitou does not explicitly teach determining presence or absence of stray light using the plurality of packets corresponding to the pixel; when it is determined that there is no stray light, calculating a distance value of the pixel using a first process; and when it is determined that there is stray light, calculating a distance value of the pixel using a second process different from the first process.
Yoshida teaches detecting whether or not flare is present and different selection of pulse and measuring based on presence or absence of flare (Col. 8 lns. 53 – Col. 10 ln. 12; Figs. 7 and 12).
Additionally, Saitou teaches a signal processing circuit that calculates a distance value based on the plurality of packets (distance measuring unit 12, [0048-49])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitou to include determining presence or absence of stray light using the plurality of packets corresponding to the pixel; when it is determined that there is no stray light, calculating a distance value of the pixel using a first process; and when it is determined that there is stray light, calculating a distance value of the pixel using a second process different from the first process similar to Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the number of incorrect distance measurements.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou US 20210033730 A1 in view of Yoshida US 6229598 B1 and further in view of Williams US 20160054434 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Saitou as modified above teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1,
Saitou does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processing circuit disables the pixel in the second process.
Williams teaches disabling pixel when noisy ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitou such that it the signal processing circuit disables the pixel in the second process similar to Williams with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing use of erroneous data.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou US 20210033730 A1 in view of Yoshida US 6229598 B1 and further in view of Nakamura US 20240119569 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Saitou as modified above teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein for each of the pixels, the signal processing circuit: selects, from among the plurality of packets, at least two packets for use in the calculation of the distance value in the first process and the second process (uses succeeding or preceding signal level, [0063-76]);
Saitou does not explicitly teach and corrects a result of the selection of the at least two packets selected in the second process, based on a result of selecting a surrounding pixel of the pixel.
Nakamura teaches correction based on surrounding pixels (Figs. 9-13, [0067-71])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitou such that it the signal processing circuit disables the pixel in the second process similar to Nakamura with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing use of erroneous data.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou US 20210033730 A1 in view of Yoshida US 6229598 B1 and further in view of Agranov US 10848693 B2.
Regarding claim 14, Saitou as modified above teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1,
Saitou does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processing circuit further: determines presence or absence of a flare; when it is determined that there is a flare, performs the determination of the presence or absence of stray light performed for each of the pixels; and when it is determined that there is no flare, calculates, for each of the pixels, a distance value of the pixel using the first process.
Yoshida teaches determining presence or absence of a flare and using different processes for each (Col. 8 lns. 53 – Col. 10 ln. 12; Figs. 7 and 12)
Agranov teaches performing noise determining if suspected flare is actually noise (Col. 11 lns. 51-Col. 12 ln. 28, Col. 17 ln. 4 – Col. 21 ln. 13, Figs. 7-8D)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitou such that the signal processing circuit further: determines presence or absence of a flare; when it is determined that there is a flare, performs the determination of the presence or absence of stray light performed for each of the pixels; and when it is determined that there is no flare, calculates, for each of the pixels, a distance value of the pixel using the first process similar to Yoshida and Agranov with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping determine the best way to treat data for distance determination.
Regarding claim 17, Saitou as modified above teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1,
Saitou does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processing circuit further: determines presence or absence of a flare for each of the pixels; performs the determination of the presence or absence of stray light performed for each of the pixels, for a pixel for which it is determined that there is a flare; and also calculates, for each of the pixels, a distance value of a pixel for which it is determined that there is no flare, using the first process.
Yoshida teaches determining presence or absence of a flare and using different processes for each (Col. 8 lns. 53 – Col. 10 ln. 12; Figs. 7 and 12)
Agranov teaches performing noise determining if suspected flare is actually noise (Col. 11 lns. 51-Col. 12 ln. 28, Col. 17 ln. 4 – Col. 21 ln. 13, Figs. 7-8D)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitou such that the signal processing circuit further: determines presence or absence of a flare for each of the pixels; performs the determination of the presence or absence of stray light performed for each of the pixels, for a pixel for which it is determined that there is a flare; and also calculates, for each of the pixels, a distance value of a pixel for which it is determined that there is no flare, using the first process similar to Yoshida and Agranov with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping determine the best way to treat data for distance determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11, 15-16, and 18-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious:
The distance measuring device of claim 2, specifically including: for each of the pixels, the signal processing circuit… counts a total number of packets whose amounts of signal exceed the first reference value; and when the total number counted exceeds a threshold, determines that there is stray light
The distance measuring device of claim 3, specifically including: for each of the pixels, the signal processing circuit: selects top N packets in descending order of amount of signal among the plurality of packets corresponding to the pixel, where N is an integer of two or greater; determines whether exposure timings of the top N packets selected are in a predetermined adjacency relationship; and when the exposure timings are not in the predetermined adjacency relationship, determines that there is stray light
The distance measuring device of claim 4, specifically including: the signal processing circuit: … counts a total number of packets whose amounts of signal exceed the first reference value; when the total number counted exceeds a threshold, determines that there is stray light; selects top N packets in descending order of amount of signal among the plurality of packets, where N is an integer of two or greater; determines whether exposure timings of the top N packets selected are in a predetermined adjacency relationship; and when the exposure timings are not in the predetermined adjacency relationship, determines that there is stray light
The distance measuring device of claim 8, specifically including: the signal processing circuit: compares a third reference value with an amount of signal of each of the plurality of packets; changes the amount of signal of a packet whose amount of signal is less than the third reference value among the plurality of packets to 0; multiplies each of packets whose amounts of signal are not 0 among the plurality of packets with a coefficient having a larger value in descending order of distance from the distance measuring device; selects, as a first packet, a largest packet among the packets that have been multiplied; selects, as a second packet, a larger packet out of packets adjacent to the first packet in terms of distance; and calculates a distance value from the first packet and the second packet.
The distance measuring device of claim 10, specifically including: the signal processing circuit: compares a third reference value with an amount of signal of each of the plurality of packets; changes an amount of signal of a packet whose amount of signal is less than the third reference value among the plurality of packets to 0; multiplies each of packets whose amounts of signal are not 0 among the plurality of packets with a coefficient having a larger value in descending order of distance from the distance measuring device; selects, as a first packet, a largest packet among the packets that have been multiplied; determines whether the first packet is placed at a predetermined position in ascending order of distance from the distance measuring device; when it is determined that the first packet is placed at the predetermined position in the ascending order and amounts of signal of both packets that are adjacent to the first packet in terms of distance and have not been multiplied exceed the third reference value, selects, as a second packet, a packet that is farther from the distance measuring device out of the packets adjacent to the first packet in terms of distance; and calculates a distance value from the first packet and the second packet.
The distance measuring device of claim 15, specifically including: in the determination of the presence or absence of a flare, the signal processing circuit determines that there is a flare when a total number of high-signal-amount pixels exceeds a second reference number, a high-signal-amount pixel being a pixel whose total number of packets whose amounts of signal exceed a fourth reference value exceeds a first reference number
The distance measuring device of claim 16, specifically including: in the determination of the presence or absence of a flare, the signal processing circuit determines that there is a flare when a total number of optical black pixels is at least a third reference number and at most a fourth reference number greater than the third reference number, an optical black pixel being a pixel whose amount of signal exceeds a fifth reference value in a predetermined packet
The distance measuring device of claim 18, specifically including: in the determination of the presence or absence of a flare performed for each of the pixels, the signal processing circuit determines that there is a flare for (i) a pixel included in a high-signal-amount pixel group including at least a predetermined number of high-signal-amount pixels adjacent to each other and (ii) a pixel located within a predetermined range from the high- signal-amount pixel group, and the high-signal-amount pixel is a pixel whose total number of packets whose amounts of signal exceed a fourth reference value exceeds a first reference number
The distance measuring device of claim 19, specifically including: in the determination of the presence or absence of a flare performed for each of the pixels, the signal processing circuit determines that there is a flare for a pixel that is in a predetermined positional relationship with at least one optical black pixel whose amount of signal exceeds a fifth reference value in a predetermined packet
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chaudhry US 20160356887 A1 teaches clustering histogram bins with counts greater than a threshold ([0029])
Balter US 20220055660 A1 teaches comparing groups of adjacent bins exceeding a peak selection threshold ([0121-122])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights