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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2024 and 10/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An exposure period control unit in claims 1-17. Support for this limitation is in applicant’s paragraph [0131]
An information generation unit in claims 1-18. Support for this limitation is in applicant’s paragraph [0026]
A peak determination unit in claims 1-17. Support for this limitation is in applicant’s paragraph [0054]
A speed information acquisition unit in claims 7 and 8. Support for this limitation is in applicant’s paragraph [0096]
A control device in claims 16 and 17. Support for this limitation is in applicant’s paragraph [0126].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al (US 2020/0233068 A1) in view of Barry et al (US 2022/0171037 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson teaches a ranging device ([0021]) comprising:
a light receiving unit configured to detect an optical signal ([0054], Fig. 1, SPAD array 105 as a light receiving unit]) including light emitted from a light emitting unit (target object 140 as an object, [0054]) and reflected by an object in a measurement target region (reflected back from a target and sensed by a SPAD, [0051]) and convert the optical signal into a pulse signal (optical signal converted into an electrical signal, [0056]);
an exposure period control unit (control circuit, [0058]) configured to set the light receiving unit to one of a plurality of exposure periods (detector strobe interval, [0058]) set corresponding to a plurality of classes defined according to a time from emission of the light to detection of the light for each light emission of the light emitting unit ([0058]);
an information generation unit configured to generate information indicating a
relationship between the class and a frequency indicating the number of times the pulse
signal is detected (histogram, [0050]), based on a signal output from the light receiving unit during a predetermined frame period including a plurality of light emissions of the light emitting
unit ([0064]); and
a peak determination unit configured to determine a peak of the frequency in the
information (determining the peak histogram bin, [0058], [0082], [0090]),
Henderson does not disclose
wherein when the peak of the frequency is detected in the information acquired
in a first frame period, in a second frame period subsequent to the first frame period,
the exposure period control unit sets as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to a class in which the peak is detected. However, Barry teaches a method for creating histograms for ranging systems such as a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system [0013]) and further teaches when the peak of the frequency is detected in the information acquired in a first frame period (first histogram), in a second frame period (second histogram) subsequent to the first frame period, the exposure period control unit sets as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to a class in which the peak is detected ([0028] and [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Henderson’s device, by modifying Henderson’s exposure control unit in light of Barry’s teaching such that
wherein when the peak of the frequency is detected in the information acquired in a first frame period, in a second frame period subsequent to the first frame, the exposure period
control unit sets as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to a class in which the peak is detected.
The motivation to do so is to increase resolution and lower memory requirements without limiting the frame rate. It helps to focus on the targeting relevant information for quick range detection (Barry, [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Henderson in view of Barry teaches ranging device as discussed in reference to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second frame period continues until a peak corresponding to the peak is detected in any of the classes (Barry, [0027]), and transitions to a next frame period without executing the exposure periods corresponding to the rest classes (Barry, [0027]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to provide the ranging device of Henderson with the method taught by increase resolution and lower memory requirements without limiting the frame rate (Barry, [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach when the peak of the frequency is not detected in the information acquired in the first frame period, the exposure period control unit sequentially sets a plurality of periods corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in the second frame period.
However, in Barry’s method, only peak detection in a frame would trigger a more focused detection near a peak area in subsequent detection. Therefore, Barry’s method would imply one would have to keep searching until a peak is detected. As it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for the exposure period control unit to set sequentially a plurality of control corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in the second frame period as moving to a second frame period after not detecting a peak in a first frame period would be inherent.
Regarding claim 4, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach when the peak of the frequency is not detected in the information acquired in the first frame period, the exposure period control unit sequentially sets a plurality of periods corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in the second frame period.
However, in Barry’s method, only peak detection in a frame would trigger a more focused detection near a peak area in subsequent detection. Therefore, Barry’s method would imply one would have to keep searching until a peak is detected. As it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for the exposure period control unit to set sequentially a plurality of control corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in the second frame period as moving to a second frame period after not detecting a peak in a first frame period would be inherent.
Regarding claim 5, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 1, wherein the peak determination unit calculates distance information to the object based on time information corresponding to the class in which the peak is detected (Henderson [0061], [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 2, wherein the peak determination unit calculates distance information to the object based on time information corresponding to the class in which the peak is detected (Henderson [0061], [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device as discussed in reference to claim 1. Henderson also teaches a predetermined number of frame periods (histogram bins, Henderson [0008], [0018], [0024]) in which the peak of the frequency is detected (Henderson [0022]),
Henderson does not teach the information acquired in a previous frame period are consecutive, the exposure period control unit sequentially sets a plurality of periods corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in a next frame period.
However, Barry teaches the information acquired in a previous frame period are consecutive, the exposure period control unit sequentially sets a plurality of periods corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in a next frame period (Barry [0028] and [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frame periods of taught by Henderson with the Barry’s method of using information from the previous fame period to sequentially set the next frame period.
The motivation to do so is to increase resolution and lower memory requirements without limiting the frame rate. It helps to focus on the targeting relevant information for quick range detection (Barry, [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device as discussed in reference to claim 2, Henderson also teaches a predetermined number of frame periods (histogram bins, Henderson [0008], [0018], [0024]) in which the peak of the frequency is detected (Henderson [0022]),
Henderson does not teach the information acquired in a previous frame period are consecutive, the exposure period control unit sequentially sets a plurality of periods corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in a next frame period.
However, Barry teaches the information acquired in a previous frame period are consecutive, the exposure period control unit sequentially sets a plurality of periods corresponding to the plurality of classes as the exposure period in a next frame period (Barry [0028] and [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frame periods of taught by Henderson with the Barry’s method of using information from the previous fame period to sequentially set the next frame period.
The motivation to do so is to increase resolution and lower memory requirements without limiting the frame rate. It helps to focus on the targeting relevant information for quick range detection (Barry, [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 1, and further teaches the light receiving unit includes a plurality of regions each including a plurality of pixels (SPAD array, Henderson [0015]),
wherein the exposure period control unit sets the exposure period independently for each of the plurality of regions (histogram bins, Henderson [0008], [0018], [0024]), and
wherein the information generation unit generates a plurality of the information corresponding to the plurality of regions (Henderson [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Henderson in view of the ranging device according to claim 2, and further teaches the light receiving unit includes a plurality of regions each including a plurality of pixels (SPAD array, Henderson [0015]),
wherein the exposure period control unit sets the exposure period independently for each of the plurality of regions (histogram bins, Henderson [0008], [0018], [0024]), and
wherein the information generation unit generates a plurality of the information corresponding to the plurality of regions (Henderson [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 1, wherein the frame period includes a plurality of sub-frames, and wherein each of the plurality of sub-frames includes a plurality of times of light emission of the light emitting unit, and the same exposure period is set with respect to the plurality of times of light emission for each of the plurality of sub-frames (Henderson [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device according to claim 2, wherein the frame period includes a plurality of sub-frames, and wherein each of the plurality of sub-frames includes a plurality of times of light emission of the light emitting unit, and the same exposure period is set with respect to the plurality of times of light emission for each of the plurality of sub-frames (Henderson [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Henderson teaches a ranging device ([0021]) comprising:
a light receiving unit configured to detect an optical signal ([0054], Fig. 1, SPAD array 105 as a light receiving) including light emitted from a light emitting unit (Fig. 1, illumination source 125) and reflected by an object in a measurement target region (target object 140 as an object) and convert the optical signal into a pulse signal (optical signal converted into an electrical signal [0056]);
an exposure period control unit (control circuit, [0058]) configured to set the light receiving unit to one of a plurality of exposure periods (detector strobe interval, [0058]) set corresponding to a plurality of classes defined according to a time from emission of the light to detection of the light for each light emission of the light emitting unit ([0058]);
an information generation unit configured to generate information indicating a relationship between the class and a frequency indicating the number of times the pulse signal is detected, (histogram, [0050]) based on a signal output from the light receiving unit during a predetermined frame period including a plurality of light emissions of the light emitting unit ([0064]); and
a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire distance information related to the object from outside (Henderson [0058], [0013]),
Henderson does not teach wherein the exposure period control unit sets the exposure period as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to the distance information acquired by the distance information acquisition unit.
However, Barry teaches the exposure period control unit sets the exposure period as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to the distance information acquired by the distance information acquisition unit (Barry [0028] and [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frame periods of taught by Henderson with the Barry’s method of using information from the previous fame period to sequentially set the next frame period.
The motivation to do so is to increase resolution and lower memory requirements without limiting the frame rate. It helps to focus on the targeting relevant information for quick range detection (Barry, [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the invention as discussed in reference to claim 1 and further teaches the ranging device (LIDAR, [0021]), and a control device (control circuit, [0058]),
but does not teach the control device being configured to control the movable object based on distance information acquired by the ranging device.
However, Barry teaches a method for creating histograms for ranging systems such as a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0013]) and further teaches the control device being configured to control the movable object (vehicle) based on distance information acquired by the ranging device ([0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the ranging device of Henderson to control a movable object as using ranging devices i.e. LIDAR to control a moving device such as an automobile, robot, etc. is well known.
Regarding claim 17, Henderson teaches the invention as discussed in reference to claim 2, and further teaches the ranging device (LIDAR, [0021]), and a control device (control circuit, [0058]),
but does not teach the control device being configured to control the movable object based on distance information acquired by the ranging device.
Barry teaches a method for creating histograms for ranging systems such as a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system Barry, [0013]) and further teaches the control device being configured to control the movable object (vehicle) based on distance information acquired by the ranging device ([0038]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the ranging device of Henderson to control a movable object as using ranging devices i.e. LIDAR to control a moving device such as an automobile, robot, etc. is well known.
Regarding claim 18, Henderson teaches a ranging method that detects an optical signal (Henderson [0051] SPAD array fig. 1 105) including light emitted from a light emitting unit (Henderson [0051] illumination source, fig. 1, 125) and reflected by an object in a measurement target region (Henderson [0051] reflected back from a target and sensed by a SPAD) and calculates a distance to the object based on the detected signal (Henderson [0051], [0061], [0091]), the method comprising:
setting a light receiving unit to one of a plurality of exposure periods (Henderson [0058] durations of activation and deactivation) set corresponding to a plurality of classes defined according to a time from emission of the light to detection of the light for each light emission of the light emitting unit, and converting a signal detected by the light receiving unit to a pulse signal (Henderson [0058]);
generating information indicating a relationship between the class and a frequency indicating the number of times the pulse signal is detected (histogram, Henderson [0050]), based on a signal output from the light receiving unit during a predetermined frame period including a plurality of light emissions of the light emitting unit (Henderson [0064]);
but fails to disclose when the peak of the frequency is detected in the information acquired in a first frame period, in a second frame period subsequent to the first frame period, setting as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to a class in which the peak is detected.
However, Barry teaches a method for creating histograms for ranging systems such as a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Barry [0013]) and further teaches when the peak of the frequency is detected in the information acquired in a first frame period, in a second frame period subsequent to the first frame period, setting as the exposure period in order from a period closer to a period corresponding to a class in which the peak is detected (Barry [0029] and [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify plurality of exposure periods taught by Henderson with the teaching of Barry to include peak frequency information acquired in the first frame period to assist determining the exposure period for a subsequent (second) frame period.
The motivation to do so is to increase resolution and lower memory requirements without limiting the frame rate. It helps to focus on the targeting relevant information for quick range detection (Barry, [0002]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Barry as applied to claims 1 and 2 above respectively, and further in view of Silver et al (US 2021/0270969 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device as discussed in reference to claim 1 including the exposure period control unit calculating a period corresponding to the class in which the peak is detected (control circuit, Henderson [0058]),
but fails to teach a speed information acquisition unit configured to acquire speed information indicating a relative moving speed with respect to the object, wherein the exposure period control unit calculate a period corresponding to the class in which the peak is detected in consideration of the speed information.
However, Silver teaches a depth mapping device including a radiation source, which is configured to emit pulsed beams of optical radiation toward a target scene. An array of sensing element configured to output signals indicative of respective time incidence of photons on the sensing elements (Silver [0007]). Silver further teaches a speed information acquisition unit (control processor, Silver fig. 2 58) configured to acquire speed information indicating a relative moving speed with respect to the object (insofar as the device detects relative motion between the detecting device and the target determining relative speed would be inherent in such a calculation, Silver [0015], [0034], [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control circuit (exposure control unit) taught by Henderson in view of Barry with the control processor (speed information acquisition unit) configured to detect relative motion.
The motivation to do so is to correct the histograms for motion of the target object.
Regarding claim 8, Henderson in view of Barry teaches the ranging device as discussed in reference to claim 2 including the exposure period control unit calculating a period corresponding to the class in which the peak is detected (control circuit, Henderson [0058]),
but fails to teach a speed information acquisition unit configured to acquire speed information indicating a relative moving speed with respect to the object, wherein the exposure period control unit calculate a period corresponding to the class in which the peak is detected in consideration of the speed information.
However, Silver teaches a depth mapping device including a radiation source, which is configured to emit pulsed beams of optical radiation toward a target scene. An array of sensing element configured to output signals indicative of respective time incidence of photons on the sensing elements (Silver [0007]). Silver further teaches a speed information acquisition unit (control processor, Silver fig. 2 58) configured to acquire speed information indicating a relative moving speed with respect to the object (insofar as the device detects relative motion between the detecting device and the target determining relative speed would be inherent in such a calculation, Silver [0015], [0034], [0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control circuit (exposure control unit) taught by Henderson in view of Barry with the control processor (speed information acquisition unit) configured to detect relative motion.
The motivation to do so is to filter histograms to compensate for movement and thus eliminate or reduce the any corresponding motion artifacts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MAXIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3217. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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 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.
/Christopher S. Maxie/
Examiner Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights