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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1,4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Itay (JP 2023506239 A).
Regarding claim 1, Itay discloses a first light source, configured to emit a first light beam having a first wavelength toward a sensing target; a second light source, configured to emit a second light beam having a second wavelength toward the sensing target, “In another embodiment, multiple light sources 102 can project light at different wavelengths, and all light sources 112 can be directed to the same portion (or overlapping portion) of the field of view 120.” (Paragraph 0075). Itay discloses a sensing device, “The reflected light 206 can be reflected by the deflector 114B and directed towards the incident aperture 318 of the sensing unit 106” (Paragraph 0098). Itay discloses that its configured to receive the first light beam and the second light beam reflected from the sensing target, “A sensing unit 106 can receive reflections from around the vehicle 110 and transmit reflection signals indicating light reflected from objects in the field of view 120 to a processing unit 108” (Paragraph 0064). Itay discloses the sensing device has a plurality of first sensing pixels and a plurality of second sensing pixels, “In some embodiments, at least one sensor may include multiple detectors constructed from multiple sensing elements. At least one sensor may include one or more types of optical sensors. It should be noted that at least one sensor may include multiple sensors of the same type with different other characteristics (e.g., sensitivity, magnitude).” (Paragraph 0059). Itay discloses a filter layer, disposed on a side of a light-receiving surface of the sensing device, the filter layer has a plurality of first filter patterns respectively overlapping the first sensing pixels and a plurality of second filter patterns respectively overlapping the second sensing pixels, the first filter patterns allow the first light beam to pass and block the second light beam, and the second filter patterns allow the second light beam to pass and block the first light beam, “The reflected light 206 can be reflected by the deflector 114B and directed towards the incident aperture 318 of the sensing unit 106. In some examples, the incident aperture 318 may include a filter window configured to allow wavelengths within a specific wavelength range to enter the sensing unit 106 while attenuating other wavelengths.” (Paragraph 0098). Itay discloses the first light source and the second light source respectively and sequentially emit the first light beam and the second light beam, “Both light sources can be time-synchronized and project light emission in simultaneous or alternating patterns” (Paragraph 0076). Itay discloses that the first sensing pixels and the second sensing pixels simultaneously and respectively sense the first light beam and the second light beam, “For example, if the projection unit 102 illuminates different parts of the FOV at different times (by using the deflector 114 and/or activating different light sources 112 at different times), light may arrive at all pixels or sensors 116 of the detection unit 106, and only the pixels/sensors expected to detect LIDAR illumination may actively collect data for a detection output.” (Paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 4, Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Itay discloses that the sensing device is also configured to generate image data according to a plurality of sensing results of the first sensing pixels and the second sensing pixels, “the LiDAR system 100 can generate multiple point cloud data entries from reflections detected in multiple scan cycles of the field of view, enabling, for example, the determination of a point cloud model of the environment around the vehicle 110.” (Paragraph 0065) and “an ambient view image can be generated from the point cloud model by processing the generated point cloud data entries of the environment around the vehicle 110.” (Paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 5, Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 4, see claim 4 rejection. Itay discloses a processing circuit, electrically coupled to the sensing device, “It should be noted that outputs from different types of sensors (e.g., SPAD, APD, SiPM, PIN diode, photodetector) are combined into a single output, which can then be processed by the LIDAR system's processor” (Paragraph 0059). Itay discloses that it is configured to generate a depth information of the sensing target according to the image data, “In Figure B, the processor 118 can control the operation of the light source 112 so that light pulses of different intensities are projected toward a single portion 122 of the field of view 120 during scanning of the field of view 120. In one embodiment, the LIDAR system 100 may be operable to generate one or more different types of depth maps.” (Paragraph 0130).
Regarding claim 6, Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 5, see claim 5 rejection. JP2023 discloses that the processing circuit includes a depth decoder, “In Figure B, the processor 118 can control the operation of the light source 112 so that light pulses of different intensities are projected toward a single portion 122 of the field of view 120 during scanning of the field of view 120. In one embodiment, the LIDAR system 100 may be operable to generate one or more different types of depth maps.” (Paragraph 0130). Itay discloses that its configured to calculate a phase angle between the first light beam emitted from the first light source and the first light beam reflected from the sensing target according to the image data, “In another embodiment, a LiDAR system can determine the distance based on frequency phase shifts (or multi-frequency phase shifts). Specifically, a LiDAR system can process information indicating one or more modulation phase shifts of an optical signal (for example, by solving a system of equations to give a final measure). For example, an emitted optical signal can be modulated by one or more constant frequencies. At least one phase shift of modulation between the emitted signal and the detected reflection can indicate the distance the light traveled between emission and detection.” (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same reasoning of claim 1 following mutatis mutandis. See claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 13, Itay discloses generating image data by the sensing device according to a plurality of sensing results of the first sensing pixels and the second sensing pixels, “According to the disclosed embodiments, an ambient view image can be generated from the point cloud model by processing the generated point cloud data entries of the environment around the vehicle 110” (Paragraph 0066).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5 following mutatis mutandis. See claim 5 rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 following mutatis mutandis. See claim 6 rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itay (JP 7853947 B2) in further view of Masuda (US 20080205708 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Itay does not disclose wherein each of the first light beam and the second light beam is modulated with a period, and the second light beam emitted from the second light source is delayed by one quarter of the period relative to the first light beam emitted from the first light source.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 following mutatis mutandis. See claim 2 rejection.
Masuda discloses wherein each of the first light beam and the second light beam is modulated with a period, and the second light beam emitted from the second light source is delayed by one quarter of the period relative to the first light beam emitted from the first light source, “The first delay time Td1 is set to a value corresponding to the phase delay of 90.degree. with respect to the wavelength of the first modulated light 12A. The second delay time Td2 is set to a value corresponding to the phase delay of 180.degree. with respect to the wavelength of the first modulated light 12A. The third delay time Td3 is set to a value corresponding to the phase delay of 270.degree. with respect to the wavelength of the first modulated light 12A. “ (Paragraph 0105 and FIG. 10A).
Itay discloses the time of flight system according to claim 1. Masuda discloses modulating two signals and delaying them by quarters with respect to each other, i.e signal 2 is delayed by a quarter with respect to signal 2, signal 3 delayed by a quarter with respect to signal 2, etc. It would have been obvious to one with knowledge in the art prior to the filing date to combine what is disclosed by Masuda with the time of flight system disclosed by Itay to yield the predictable result of a time of flight system that modulates it’s two light sources while delaying one by a quarter of their respective period.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itay in further view of Ko (US 20120281206 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Itay doesn’t disclose a light source driver, electrically coupled to the sensing device, the first light source and the second light source, the light source driver is configured to drive the first light source and the second light source to emit the first light beam and the second light beam sequentially.
Ko discloses a light source driver, “The light source 143 may include a light source driver 143_1 and a light generator 143_2.” (Paragraph 108). Ko discloses that the light source driver is configured to drive the first light source and the second light source to emit the first light beam and the second light beam sequentially, “The light source driver 143_1 controls the output timing of the light generator 143_2 in response to the light emitting timing signal from the timing controller 142” (Paragraph 0108).
Itay discloses the time of flight sensing system according to claim 1. Ko discloses a light source driver capable of controlling the timing of a light generator. It would have been obvious for one with knowledge in the art prior to the filing date to try combining the driver device disclosed by Ko with Itay’s device to arrive at the claimed invention of a driver capable of controlling the emission timing of two light sources in order to emit them sequentially one after one another.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itay in further view of Namba (CN 110998367 A).
Regarding claim 7, Itay discloses the time of flight sensing system according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Itay does not disclose that the first filter patterns and the second filter patterns are alternately arranged along a first direction.
Namba discloses that the first filter patterns and the second filter patterns are alternately arranged along a first direction, “FIG. 15 depicts the configuration of the provided example in which filters 25-1 and 25-2 are alternately arranged in the longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, in each divided region, a predetermined number of pixels (e.g., 16 pixels) rectangle is 4 * 4. For example, filters 25-1 and 25-2 can by way of the chip is provided so as to directly laminated on the TOF sensor 26.” (Paragraph 0137 and Figure 15).
Itay discloses the time of flight system of claim 1, Namba discloses a depth imaging device that contains the filter layout described by claim 7. One with skill in the art before the effective filing date could have applied the filter layout disclosed by Namba to the system disclosed by Itay and the result of a time of flight system with the filter layout described by claim 7 would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Itay discloses the time of flight sensing system according to claim 7, see claim 7 rejection. Itay does not disclose that the first filter patterns and the second filter patterns are alternately arranged along a second direction, and the first direction intersects the second direction.
Namba discloses that the first filter patterns and the second filter patterns are alternately arranged along a second direction, and the first direction intersects the second direction, “FIG. 15 depicts the configuration of the provided example in which filters 25-1 and 25-2 are alternately arranged in the longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, in each divided region, a predetermined number of pixels (e.g., 16 pixels) rectangle is 4 * 4. For example, filters 25-1 and 25-2 can by way of the chip is provided so as to directly laminated on the TOF sensor 26.” (Paragraph 0137 and Figure 15).
Regarding claim 9, Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. JP2023 discloses a microlens array, “In one embodiment, a plurality of microlenses can be arranged in a lens array, and a plurality of detectors can be arranged in a detector array” (Paragraph 0124). Itay discloses that it is disposed on the side of the light-receiving surface of the sensing device, “In some embodiments, the LIDAR system may include an array of microlenses and/or a diffuser configured to guide the reflected beam into each photosensitive active region of the detector” (Paragraph 0203).
Namba discloses that the filter layer is located between the lens and the sensing device, “FIG. 31 depicts a cross section configuration example of the TOF sensor of the configuration set by module 26. For example, except as shown in FIG. 23, the sheet of filters 25-1 and 25-2 are directly laminated on the light receiving surface of the semiconductor layer of the TOF sensor 26 64 is provided, as shown in Figure 31, the filters 25-1 and 25-2 can be provided in the form of module.” and “As shown, for example, the signal can be output to the outside from the sensor substrate 81 through the bonding wire 82. filters 25-1 and 25-2 by using for storing therein storage housing 83 of the sensor substrate 81 in the form of external style as module set on the light receiving surface side of the sensor substrate 81. In addition, by using the lens holder 84 and 85, the light receiving lens 24 to the storage housing 83.” (Paragraphs 0202, 203, and FIG. 31).
Itay discloses the time of flight sensing system of claim 1, the microlens array, and that the microlens array is located on the sensing side of the system. Namba discloses a filter layer located in between a lens and the sensing device. One with knowledge in the art before the filing date could have combined the elements of the system disclosed by Itay with what is disclosed by Namba achieve the predictable result of a microlens array, disposed on the side of the light-receiving surface of the sensing device, wherein the filter layer is located between the microlens array and the sensing device would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itay and Droz (US 20210165094 A1)
Itay discloses the time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Itay does disclose that the first light source and the second light source are flood illuminators or speckle projectors.
Droz discloses that the first light source and the second light source are flood illuminators or speckle projectors, “The light from the secondary light emitter 104 may have a lower intensity than the light from each of the primary light emitter(s) 102 due to the light being spread out over a wider field of view. In such embodiments, the secondary light emitter 104 may be described as a “flash illuminator” or “flood illuminator.” (Paragraph 0051).
Itay discloses a time-of-flight sensing system according to claim 1 but does not disclose the flood illuminators. Droz does disclose flood illuminators. One with skill in the art before the filing date could of have substituted the flood illuminators disclosed by Droz into the time of flight sensing system disclosed by Itay and the result of a time of flight sensing system that uses flood illuminators would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSH CHARLES GARDINER whose telephone number is (571)270-0634. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/JOSH CHARLES GARDINER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights