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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2A-2B and 5 have illegible/unreadable text relating to the graphs (for example, the labels and numbering for the axis/axes, the title, and/or the legend) and they should have durable and clean lines to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). It is suggested to enlarge the figures and/or the text so that the text is legible/readable.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 6-12, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs US20190018136 in view of Oh US20210160477.
Regarding independent claim 1, Jacobs discloses, in Figure 3,
A proximity sensing device (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] optical proximity sensor arrangement of a smart phone portable electronic device with a processing unit; [0024, 0127] processing unit) comprising: a proximity sensor (Jacobs; the assembly of Fig. 3) comprising
a light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1),
a light detector including a first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) adapted to generate a first signal, and
a second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) adapted to generate a second signal, the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) and the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1) being separated from the first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) with a separator (Jacobs; light barrier element B).
Jacobs is silent regarding a selecting circuit adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison.
Oh teaches a selecting circuit adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the proximity sensing device and proximity sensing method as taught by Jacobs to include a selecting circuit as taught by Oh for the purpose of providing the higher quality measurement to more accurately determine the distance (Oh; [0037] “The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) is adapted to generate the first signal when it detects a first light signal transmitted from the light source and reflected by an object, and the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) is adapted to generate the second signal when it detects a second light signal transmitted from the light source and reflected by the object (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0126] detect “the same object at different times” by the detectors D1/D2).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the selecting circuit comprises a comparator adapted to compare the first and second signals with each other (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the selecting circuit is configured to generate a selecting signal communicating the selected signal (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the selecting circuit is adapted to generate a corrected signal taking a value of the selected signal (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 6, further comprising a processing device (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit” that “determine the presence of the first object O1”) configured to generate a proximity-detection signal according to the signal selected by the selecting circuit.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 7, wherein the processing device (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit” that “determine the presence of the first object O1”) is adapted to retrieve the corrected signal, the proximity-detection signal being a function of the corrected signal (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 7, wherein the processing device (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit”) is coupled to the selecting circuit, or includes the selecting circuit (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 7, wherein the processing device (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit”) is coupled to the first (Jacobs; second detector D2) and second (Jacobs; first detector D1) photodiodes.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the light source, the light detector, and the second photodiode are disposed under a capping wall (Jacobs; Fig. 3; cover plate CP) of the proximity sensor, the capping wall comprising a top wall (Jacobs; Fig. 3; cover plate CP) of a housing (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] the housing of the smart phone that comprises the cover plate CP) accommodating the light source, the light detector, and the second photodiode.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 11, wherein the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) and the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1) are disposed side by side along a direction substantially parallel to a plane of the capping wall (Jacobs; Fig. 3 shows D1 and E1 being disposed side-by-side).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) is disposed (Jacobs; Fig. 3) the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1) and the first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2).
Modified Jacobs does not teach wherein the second photodiode is disposed between the light source and the first photodiode.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) described how claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Modified Jacobs’ relative positioning of the second photodiode is analogous to the relative positioning of the starting switch since adjusting the position of the second photodiode would not have modified the operation of the proximity sensor.
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) described how the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Modified Jacobs’ relative positioning of the second photodiode in the proximity sensor is analogous to the relative positioning of the contact in a conductivity measuring device and is thus an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the relative position of the second photodiode as taught by Modified Jacobs so that the second photodiode is disposed between the light source and the first photodiode since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C Rearrangement of Parts))) and the particular placement of a component in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)) (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C Rearrangement of Parts))). The rationale for performing the modification is to optimize the detection range while minimizing optical crosstalk and/or signal-to-noise ratio (Jacobs; [0100] reduce optical crosstalk and improve SNR by optimizing the spacing distances between emitters/detectors).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1), the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1), and the light detector (Jacobs; second detector D2) are disposed in a housing (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] the housing of the smart phone that comprises the cover plate CP) comprising a first cavity and a second cavity separated from the first cavity with the separator (Jacobs; light barrier element B), the light source and the second photodiode being disposed in the first cavity, and the light detector being disposed in the second cavity (Jacobs; Fig. 3).
Regarding independent claim 16, Modified Jacobs teaches, in Figure 3, the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1 and dependent claim(s) 3, 7, and 15, and
A proximity sensing device (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] optical proximity sensor arrangement of a smart phone portable electronic device with a processing unit; [0024, 0127] processing unit) comprising: a proximity sensor (Jacobs; the assembly of Fig. 3) comprising
a light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1),
a light detector including a first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) adapted to generate a first signal, and
a second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) adapted to generate a second signal, the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) and the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1) being separated from the first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) with a separator (Jacobs; light barrier element B);
a housing (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] the housing of the smart phone that comprises the cover plate CP) comprising a first cavity and a second cavity (Jacobs; Fig. 3), wherein the first cavity is separated from the second cavity with a separator (Jacobs; light barrier element B);
wherein the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1), the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1), and the light detector (Jacobs; second detector D2) are disposed in a housing (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] the housing of the smart phone that comprises the cover plate CP) comprising a first cavity and a second cavity separated from the first cavity with the separator (Jacobs; light barrier element B), the light source and the second photodiode being disposed in the first cavity, and the light detector being disposed in the second cavity (Jacobs; Fig. 3);
wherein the selecting circuit comprises a comparator (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”) adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”); and a processing device (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit” that “determine the presence of the first object O1”) coupled to the selecting circuit, wherein the processing device is configured to generate a proximity-detection signal according to the signal selected by the selecting circuit (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit” that “determine the presence of the first object O1”).
Jacobs is silent regarding a selecting circuit adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison.
Oh teaches a selecting circuit adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the proximity sensing device and proximity sensing method as taught by Jacobs to include a selecting circuit coupled to the proximity sensor as taught by Oh for the purpose of providing the higher quality measurement to more accurately determine the distance (Oh; [0037] “The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding independent claim 17, Modified Jacobs teaches, in Figure 3, the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1, and
A method for detecting proximity implementing a proximity sensing device (Jacobs; Fig. 3);
A proximity sensing device (Jacobs; Fig. 3; [0086] optical proximity sensor arrangement of a smart phone portable electronic device with a processing unit; [0024, 0127] processing unit) comprising: a proximity sensor (Jacobs; the assembly of Fig. 3) comprising
a light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1),
a light detector including a first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) adapted to generate a first signal, and
a second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) adapted to generate a second signal, the second photodiode (Jacobs; first detector D1) and the light source (Jacobs; first emitter E1) being separated from the first photodiode (Jacobs; second detector D2) with a separator (Jacobs; light barrier element B).
Jacobs is silent regarding a selecting circuit adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison.
Oh teaches a selecting circuit adapted to compare the first signal to the second signal, and to select a signal from the first and second signals according to the executed comparison (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the proximity sensing device and proximity sensing method as taught by Jacobs to include a selecting circuit as taught by Oh for the purpose of providing the higher quality measurement to more accurately determine the distance (Oh; [0037] “The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The method of claim 17, further comprising, using the selecting circuit: generating a corrected signal taking a value of the selected signal (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”); and communicating the corrected signal to a processing device coupled to the selecting circuit (Jacobs; [0127] “processing unit” that “determine the presence of the first object O1”).
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vennegeerts EP2789971.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The proximity sensing device of claim 1, wherein the selected signal is the second signal if the difference between the second signal and the first signal, or the first signal if the difference between the second signal and the first signal (Oh; Fig. 4; [0037] “the controller 220 can compare a first depth quality of the first depth image 224 with a second depth quality of the second depth image 228. To determine the quality, the controller 220 can segment the depth images 224, 228 and perform a segmentation analysis in which edge sharpness and/or uniformity between segments is evaluated. The controller 220 can determine that one of the depth images 224, 228 is of higher quality, with respect to the segment(s) that contain the object 206, and select such a depth image 224, 228 as the one to be used to accurately determine the distance 230 between the object 206 in the scene 208 and the imaging system 202.”).
Modified Jacobs does not teach wherein the selected signal is the second signal if the difference between the second signal and the first signal is higher than a threshold, or the first signal if the difference between the second signal and the first signal is lower than the threshold, the threshold being equal to around zero.
Vennegeerts teaches the selected signal is the second signal if the difference between the second signal and the first signal is higher than a threshold that is equal to around zero (Vennegeerts; page 4/40: “The correction criterion may be in a first variant that a predetermined threshold is exceeded. The threshold value can be chosen such that a correction always takes place if a deviation is determined in step b); Thus, for example (as described above), the size of the error may be defined by the amount of the difference and selected as the threshold value zero.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the selection as taught by Modified Jacobs to comprise selecting a signal when the difference exceeds a threshold that is equal to around zero as taught by Vennegeerts for the purpose of providing the most accurate/corrected measurement value.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the selection as taught by Modified Jacobs to comprise selecting a signal when the difference exceeds a threshold that is equal to around zero as taught by Vennegeerts since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Jacobs teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kubacki US20170038459 teaches, in Fig. 1, an optics member 116 that comprises passive optical elements/lens 120A/120B for emitter 106, an active demodulation detection pixel 124, a dedicated spurious reflection detection pixel 126, and a reference pixel 128).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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 at 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 8/3/26
Prosecution Insights