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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 16, and claims 2-8 and 11-14 dependent on them 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.
In claims 1, 9, and 10, the clause “count the number of pulsed light detected in each of a plurality of distance ranges defined according to a time period from a timing at which the pulsed light is emitted by the light emitting unit to a timing at which the pulsed light is detected by the light receiving unit” makes the number or nature of the light pulses unclear. The time period in this clause seems to indicate a single pulse was emitted in the time period, but several pulses of light are counted for a particular time period corresponding to a distance range. The following clause “output one-bit signals indicating that the pulsed light is detected” again refers to a single pulse. Similarly in claim 16, the clause “counting the number of the pulsed light detected in each of a plurality of distance range defined according to a time period from a timing at which the pulsed light is emitted by the light emitting unit to a timing at which the pulsed light is detected” makes the number or nature of the light pulses unclear, for the same reasons as above regarding claims 1 and 9. In the case where the photoelectric conversion unit includes a SPAD (claim7), the counting unit is configured to count photons; note that a single optical pulse may comprise a plurality of photons, so the terminology of the claim is not necessarily the same as in the optical art. Clarification and correction of the claims are required.
Claims 15 is further 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the movable object" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (EP 0654682 A2, published May 24, 1995).
With regard to claims 1, 9, and 10, Oishi discloses a distance image acquisition device comprising:
A light receiving unit including a photoelectric conversion unit (avalanche photodiode APD 5) configured to detect a pulsed light emitted from a light emitting unit and reflected by an object in a measurement area
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a micro-frame constituted by a one-bit signal based on incident light to a photoelectric conversion element (Figs. 1, 2, & 6; in particular, APD 5 to polarity detecting circuit 500. The output of polarity detection circuit is necessarily one-bit corresponding to the on or off state of the APD 5); and
a signal processing unit configured to generate a sub-frame constituted by a multi-bit signal by synthesizing a plurality of the micro-frames acquired in different periods from each other (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 12-13, in particular; col. 5 discloses "a switching circuit 620 which delivers the output signal of the polarity detecting circuit 500 to each of the counters 610(1)-610(n) at a certain interval. Each counter counts input signals sequentially at least in the time periods when light pulses are generated." Col. 6 discloses " Col. 6 II. 14-35), wherein in one ranging frame period, the synthesis unit generates a first sub- frame and a second sub-frame, used for generating one distance image (Figs 3-4, 12-13, SIPO 640; Col. 16 discloses "The cumulation means 600 consists of a n-bit serial-in-parallel-out (SIPO) shift register 630, a n-bit latch 635, a 1/n frequency demultiplier 631, an address counter 632, adders 633(1)-633(n) of n in number, and registers 634(1)-634(n) of n in number."), and wherein the number of the plurality of micro-frames synthesized when generating the first sub-frame and the number of the plurality of micro-frames synthesized when generating the second sub-frame are different from each other (Figs. 13; 17th col. discloses "A distance measuring operation completes by multiple light pulse emission.
Oishi does not specifically disclose that the one-bit signal indicates the pulsed light is detected, when the count value of the pulse light is equal to or greater than a predetermined value of 2 or more. However, the choice of the count value for pulse detection is a mere design choice depending on the expected intensity of the reflected pulses, which would have been well within the skill in the optical art to determine with routine calculation and/or experimentation. Therefore, this limitation would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
With regard to claim 16, Oishi discloses a distance information acquisition method based on a detection timing of light irradiated to an object, comprising:
Irradiating a pulsed light to a measurement target area and detecting the pulsed light reflected by the object in the measurement target area [0018-0019],
Acquiring a micro-frame constituted by a one-bit signal based on incident light to a photoelectric conversion element (Figs. 1, 2, & 6; in particular, APD 5 to polarity detecting circuit 500. The output of polarity detection circuit is necessarily one-bit corresponding to the on or off state of the APD 5); and
generating a sub-frame constituted by a multi-bit signal by synthesizing a plurality of the micro-frames acquired in different periods from each other (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 12-13, in particular; col. 5 discloses "a switching circuit 620 which delivers the output signal of the polarity detecting circuit 500 to each of the counters 610(1)-610(n) at a certain interval. Each counter counts input signals sequentially at least in the time periods when light pulses are generated." Col. 6 discloses " Col. 6 II. 14-35), wherein in one ranging frame period, the synthesis unit generates a first sub- frame and a second sub-frame, used for generating one distance image (Figs 3-4, 12-13, SIPO 640; Col. 16 discloses "The cumulation means 600 consists of a n-bit serial-in-parallel-out (SIPO) shift register 630, a n-bit latch 635, a 1/n frequency demultiplier 631, an address counter 632, adders 633(1)-633(n) of n in number, and registers 634(1)-634(n) of n in number."), and wherein the number of the plurality of micro-frames synthesized when generating the first sub-frame and the number of the plurality of micro-frames synthesized when generating the second sub-frame are different from each other (Figs. 13; 17th col. discloses "A distance measuring operation completes by multiple light pulse emission.
Oishi does not specifically disclose that the one-bit signal indicates the pulsed light is detected, when the count value of the pulse light is equal to or greater than a predetermined value of 2 or more. However, the choice of the count value for pulse detection is a mere design choice depending on the expected intensity of the reflected pulses, which would have been well within the skill in the optical art to determine with routine calculation and/or experimentation. Therefore, this limitation would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
With regard to claims 2-3, and 12 the signal processing unit includes a memory of plural bits (cumulative memory device) configured to store each of plural bit signals (para. [0031]).
With regard to claim 4, the pulsed light corresponding to each of a plurality of distance ranges is switched in a time division manner by switching a detection period (para. [0031]).
With regard to claim 6, the counting unit includes an N-ary counter (Fig. 6, counter array 610, [0031]).
With regard to claims 7 and 14, an APD in Geiger mode is a SPAD.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Nihei et al. (US 2017/0199271).
With regard to claims 5, 8, 11, and 13 Oishi does not disclose, but Nihei et al. teach in the same field of endeavor, a distance information acquisition device comprises a distance image generation unit to generate a distance image indicating a distance to an object based on ranging data from an array of pixels acquire the ranging data (para. [0120]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, to provide an array of distance information acquisition devices of Oishi and connect to a distance image generation unit as taught by Nihei, for the purpose of providing information to a human driver or control system for a vehicle (Nihei para. [0046]).
With regard to claim 15, Oishi does not disclose, but Nihei et al. teach in the same field of endeavor, that the distance information acquisition device is part of a movable object (vehicle), and a control unit configured to control the movable object based on distance information acquired by the distance information acquisition device (para. [0046], generated distance image is sent to an electronic control unit of a vehicle, to control steering and speed of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, in order to improve human control or provide autonomous control of a vehicle.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on Sept. 27, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ito discloses using a one-bit signal for a distance image device, Yin discloses a time-of-flight sensor using pulse counters , and Fine discloses counting pulses at arrays of single-photon detectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights