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 the lead line for reference numeral 111 appears to be misplaced in Fig. 2 (see Fig. 3 with the correct lead line positioning as an example).
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiyama US20120194799.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Kamiyama discloses, in Figures 16-20,
Time-of-flight circuitry (Kamiyama; Fig. 16-21; [0179] embodiment Fig. 16-21; first distance measuring device 300A) for determining a roundtrip delay of photons (Kamiyama; Fig. 16-21; [0204] “measuring the distance D”; [0181] arithmetic processor 206) emitted by a light source (Kamiyama; Fig. 16; light emitting device 202) and incident on a time-of-flight imaging element (Kamiyama; Fig. 16; third light receiving device 100C), the time-of-flight circuitry being configured to:
determine a test number of photons at a test point of time (Kamiyama; [0211] time period P3 corresponding to when both reflected light Lr and ambient light Ls are both incident) and a reference number of photons at a reference point of time (Kamiyama; [0211] time period P1 corresponding to when only ambient light Ls is incident), the test point of time and the reference point of time being included in a measurement time interval of at least two measurement time intervals for which the test point of time is varied (Kamiyama; Fig. 20; [0211] P1/P3 form the first interval while P2/P4 form the second interval, and the two intervals are staggered in time and different from each other; thus, the test points in time are considered to be varied since they do not overlap in time); and
compare, for determining the roundtrip delay of the emitted photons, the test number of photons with the reference number of photons (Kamiyama; [0212] determining the round-trip time period based on the comparison ratio of the differences in composite light amount and standard ambient light amount);
A time-of-flight method (Kamiyama; Fig. 16-21; [0179] embodiment Fig. 16-21; first distance measuring device 300A).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 1, further including a switched capacitor averaging circuit including an averaging capacitor (Kamiyama; Fig. 18; capacitors Ca1-Ca4), a sampling capacitor (Kamiyama; Fig. 18; charge accumulating capacitor 26), and a switch (Kamiyama; Fig. 18; switches SW1-SW5) for switching between the averaging capacitor and the sampling capacitor, for comparing the test number of photons with the reference number of photons (Kamiyama; Fig. 18 circuit diagram; [0212]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 1, wherein the test number of photons is either zero or one (Kamiyama; photoelectric conversion element 10 of pixel 304 is configured to yield zero or one number of photons depending on the number of incident photon(s) or lack of incident photon(s)).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 1, wherein the test point of time is based on a test gate signal which constitutes a test time interval and wherein the reference point of time is based on a reference gate signal which constitutes a reference time interval (Kamiyama; Fig. 20 timing chart).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: vary the test point of time (Kamiyama; Fig. 20; [0211] P1/P3 form the first interval while P2/P4 form the second interval, and the two intervals are staggered in time and different from each other; thus, the test points in time are considered to be varied since they do not overlap in time), if the test number of photons is below a predetermined threshold (MPEP 2111.04(II) Contingent Limitations; contingent/conditional limitations: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”; in this case, the contingent/conditional limitation(s) is/are not required because there is a scenario in which the test number of photons is not below a predetermined threshold (for example, is above or equal to the threshold) which thus does not require the contingent/conditional limitation(s) to be performed).
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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Subasingha US20190293769.
Regarding claim 3, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 2, wherein the switched capacitor averaging circuit is configured to carry out averaging based on a ratio between an averaging capacitor capacitance and a sampling capacitor capacitance (Kamiyama; Fig. 18 circuit diagram; [0212]).
Kamiyama is silent regarding exponential moving averaging.
Subasingha teaches exponential moving averaging (Subasingha; [0089] exponential moving averaging).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the averaging as taught by Kamiyama to be exponential moving averaging as taught by Subasingha for the purpose of providing improved responsiveness/sensitivity to more recent data in comparison to older data as well as providing improved noise processing/smoothing.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Steinberg US20190318177.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: the comparison of the test number of photons with the reference number of photons (Kamiyama; [0212] determining the round-trip time period based on the comparison ratio of the differences in composite light amount and standard ambient light amount).
Kamiyama is silent regarding further configured to: change a confidence value based on the comparison of the test number of photons with the reference number of photons.
Steinberg teaches change a confidence value (Steinberg; [0176] determine “changes in confidence level” for the purpose of providing “more detailed feedback” and for providing “additional information may be used directly to detect objects and determine properties of detected objects. Additionally or alternatively, this additional information may be used to construct and/or analyze point cloud maps”; [0327] “perform object identification and/or classification using at least two measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time-of-flight circuitry and the use of the photon count/number comparison as taught by Kamiyama to comprise change a confidence value as taught by Steinberg for the purpose of providing “more detailed feedback” (Steinberg; [0176] determine “changes in confidence level” for the purpose of providing “more detailed feedback” and for providing “additional information may be used directly to detect objects and determine properties of detected objects. Additionally or alternatively, this additional information may be used to construct and/or analyze point cloud maps”; [0327] “perform object identification and/or classification using at least two measurements”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Modified Kamiyama teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 6, further configured to: increase the confidence value, if the test number of photons is larger than the reference number of photons; or decrease the confidence value, if the reference number of photons is larger than the test number of photons (Steinberg; [0176] determine “changes in confidence level” for the purpose of providing “more detailed feedback” and for providing “additional information may be used directly to detect objects and determine properties of detected objects. Additionally or alternatively, this additional information may be used to construct and/or analyze point cloud maps”; [0327] “perform object identification and/or classification using at least two measurements”; confidence value increases when the signal-to-noise ratio increases, while confidence value decreases when the signal-to-noise ratio decreases during normal operation/calculation/determination of the confidence value) (MPEP 2111.04(II) Contingent Limitations; contingent/conditional limitations: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”; in this case, neither of the two contingent/conditional limitations are required because there is a scenario in which the test number of photons is equal/equivalent to the reference number of photons which thus does not require the contingent/conditional limitations to be performed).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Modified Kamiyama teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 6, further configured to: determine the roundtrip delay (Kamiyama; [0212] determining the round-trip time period based on the comparison ratio of the differences in composite light amount and standard ambient light amount) if the confidence value exceeds a predetermined threshold (MPEP 2111.04(II) Contingent Limitations; contingent/conditional limitations: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”; in this case, the contingent/conditional limitation(s) is/are not required because there is a scenario in which the confidence value does not exceed a predetermined threshold (for example, is less than or equal to the threshold) which thus does not require the contingent/conditional limitation(s) to be performed).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai US20200088843.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kamiyama discloses The time-of-flight circuitry of claim 1, wherein the time-of-flight imaging element (Kamiyama; Fig. 16; third light receiving device 100C).
Kamiyama is silent regarding wherein the time-of-flight imaging element is based on a single photon avalanche diode.
Tsai teaches wherein the time-of-flight imaging element is based on a single photon avalanche diode (Tsai; Fig. 2; [0029] SPAD is responsive/sensitive to a single/one photon).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time-of-flight imaging element as taught by Kamiyama to comprise a SPAD as taught by Tsai for the purpose of being responsive/sensitive to a single/one photon (Tsai; Fig. 2; [0029] SPAD is responsive/sensitive to a single/one photon).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koudar US20210223398 teaches, in Figure 9, an ambient tracing loop counting period.
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 7/17/26
Prosecution Insights