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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term SiPM is not spelled out in the specification. For purposes of examination, SiPM will be interpreted as a Silicon Photon Multiplier. If the applicant has a different meaning, the specification should be amended without introduction of new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laifenfield (US 20190018119 A1) in further view of Niclass (US 8355117 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Laifenfield discloses a plurality of pixels, wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes a time-to-digital converter (TDC) using a histogram method, “during the third section's scan time 708, the TDC circuits create histograms for each of the group (e.g., an H×3 subarray) of pixels being analyzed during the scan time.” (Paragraph 0083). Laifenfield discloses up-down counters. Laifenfield does not disclose that the time-to-digital converter (TDC) performs a histogram operation by using M/2 up-down counters (UDCs), and the time-to-digital converter (TDC) divides a section to be measured into M time bins, and each of the M time bins is allocated to correspond to either an up count or a down count of the M/2 up-down counters (UDCs).
Niclass discloses that the time-to-digital converter (TDC) performs a histogram operation by using M/2 counters, and the time-to-digital converter (TDC) divides a section to be measured into M time bins, and each of the M time bins is allocated to correspond to a certain value of the M/2 counters, “ The storage device 170 consists in this example of two digital counters 400 and 410. The counters are only sensitive to the leading edge of the digital pulse appearing on their input. In this configuration, only two different fractions of period {Ci} are sampled and stored simultaneously. In order to compute all four {Ci} where i can be 0, 1, 2 and 3, “ (Page 14, Line 61).
Laifenfield discloses the plurality of pixels, a TDC using a histogram method and up-down counters. Niclass disclose M/2 counters as there are four fractions of a period to be measured or time bins, and two counters that give each fraction of a period or time bin a specific value with each counter only being able to store two fraction of a period each that are given a specific number value of 0-3. One of skill in the art could have combines the elements of each reference before the filing date as the combination of the elements would have them performing the same results as they were in their respective reference.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Laifenfield and Niclass disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1, Niclass discloses that the M time bins includes a time bin corresponding to the up count and a time bin corresponding to the down count with substantially the same length for each of the M/2 up-down counters (UDCs), and that the up count and the down count due to noise pulses are executed substantially the same number of times in each of the M/2 up-down counters (UDCs) when noise pulses due to background light are uniformly distributed in the M time bins see Figure 12 and (Page 14, Line 61) . As discussed in the claim 1 rejection, any incoming light would be broken down and quantized into four fractions of a period with each fraction being the same length and having a value of 0-3. Then two of the four fractions of the period are stored in one counter while the other two are stored in the second counter.
Laifenfield discloses the influence of the background light being canceled out, “The peak 322 may be above the background noise level 324 of detected light pulses not arising as reflections of emitted light pulses. The discrete time subinterval corresponding to the peak 322 can then be taken as the TOF and used to obtain the range to the object.” (Paragraph 0059) and Figure 3.
Regarding claim 3, Laifenfield discloses the time-to-digital converter (TDC) includes a first mode (coarse mode) in which a plurality of steps are performed, and each time the plurality of steps are performed, the section to be measured is reduced to 1/M compared to a previous step, “in which each PRI is subdivided into N subintervals of time, the duration of each subinterval of time would be the duration of the PRI divided by N.” (Paragraph 0055) and “Other adjustments that may be used include altering the expected on-center times for other pixels or altering the start times or durations of the Early or Late time periods. Still other adjustments may be made.” (Paragraph 0095). One could simply adjust the duration of the next window to be PRI/N.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3, see claim 3 rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Laifenfield and Niclass disclose the lidar sensor of claim 4, see claim 4 rejection. Laifenfield discloses a code corresponding to the time bin having the highest pulse intensity for each step of the plurality of steps of the first mode is decided as a partial code of a first mode time of flight (ToF_coarse), “In the example shown, during the third PRI, when the reflected light pulse 316 is detected, the TDC measures the TOF.sub.1 314A and increments the corresponding count 314B in the respective bin in the histogram. During the fifth PRI, when the reflected light pulse 320 is detected, the TDC measures the TOF.sub.2 318A and increments the corresponding count 318B in the respective bin in the histogram.” (Paragraph 0058) and Figure 3.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Laifenfield and Niclass disclose the lidar sensor of claim 3, see claim 3 rejection. Laifenfield discloses that the time-to-digital converter (TDC) further includes a second mode (fine mode), and M time bins having a length smaller than a length of the time bin generated in the last step of the first mode (coarse mode) are generated in the second mode (fine mode), “A statistically large difference between the first number E and the second number L can then be used as an indicator to adjust operation(s) of the light emitting depth sensor as a whole. Adjustments include adjusting the direction or orientation of emission of the light pulses or changing a focusing mechanism so that the reflected pulses sweep across an activated pixel symmetrically about the expected on-center time. Other adjustments that may be used include altering the expected on-center times for other pixels or altering the start times or durations of the Early or Late time periods. Still other adjustments may be made.” (Paragraph 0095). Rerunning the operations with adjusted parameters is a new mode, and the time duration of the different periods can be adjusted allowing one to adjust the time bins to be smaller than those of the previous mode of operation. Laifenfield discloses that a predetermined phase is allocated to each of the M time bins of the second mode (fine mode), “Adjustments include adjusting the direction or orientation of emission of the light pulses or changing a focusing mechanism so that the reflected pulses sweep across an activated pixel symmetrically about the expected on-center time.” (Paragraph 0095). Adjusting the sensor to match the on-center time gives the phase of each time bin a predetermined value, as the sensor is being adjusted based on the on-center time of the reflected light.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Laifenfield and Niclass disclose the lidar sensor of claim of claim 1. Niclass discloses that the the up-down counter (UDC) is a asynchronous/synchronous mixed type counter, “7. The arrangement of claim 6, wherein each storage device comprises at least one counter, and wherein each counter is connected to readout circuit allowing the contents of each counter to be read simultaneously and/or consecutively synchronously to an global clock signal or asynchronously via a read request signal.” (Claim 7).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Laifenfield (US 20190018119 A1) and Niclass (US 8355117 B2) in further view of Dutton (US 20170115381 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Laifenfield and Niclass disclose the lidar sensor of claim 10, see claim 10 rejection. The combination does not disclose each of the up-down counters (UDC) includes a plurality of flip-flops, and at least some of the plurality of flip-flops receive a signal different from a signal which the remaining flip-flops receive at a clock input terminal.
Dutton discloses each of the up-down counters (UDC) includes a plurality of flip-flops, “This high value is then sampled by the output flip-flops, and the subsequent output causes output ripple counters to make a transition.” (Paragraph 0026). Dutton discloses that at least some of the plurality of flip-flops receive a signal different from a signal which the remaining flip-flops receive at a clock input terminal, “The re-sampling stage 41 is configured to re-sample the outputs of the sampling stage 40 based upon the plurality of clock signals, and provide a respective output from each flip-flop of the re-sampling stage for each of the different clock signals.” (Paragraph 0028).
The combination of Laifenfield and Niclass disclose the lidar sensor of claim 10. Dutton discloses multiple flip-flops that receive different signals from a clock terminal. One of skill in the art could combined the elements disclosed by both references as the combination of them would merely be performing the same function as they were individually.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8-9, and 12-13 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
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/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights