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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As for claim 13, the claim recites “wherein a charge quantity difference of the pixel in the pixel array comprises at least one of a charge quantity difference between a charge at the 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase, or a charge quantity difference between a charge at the 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase”. However, this claim appears to recite two limitations that are supposed to be presented in the alternative “a charge quantity difference . . . or a charge quantity difference”; however, both alternatively claimed charge quantity differences are between a charge at 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase. Is the claim meant to recite picking from two of the same options for the charge quantity difference? Or are different phases supposed to be available in the second part of the alternative limitation? Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14, line 5 of the claim recites “converting the reflected light into a pixel array . . .”. In a plain meaning, a pixel array is an array of pixels on a detector or image sensor. As a result, it is unclear how reflected light can be converted into a physical array of pixels. Light can be captured and detected by pixels, but it cannot be converted into an actual pixel array.
Regarding claim 14, line 6 of the claim recites “converting the pixels into electrical signals”. In a plain meaning, a pixel is a physical aspect of a detector or image sensor that captures and detects light. As a result, it is unclear how pixels themselves can be converted into electrical signals. The light detected by the pixel can be converted into electrical signals by the standard operation of a pixel, but the pixel itself cannot be converted into an electrical signal.
Claims 15-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 14, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
As for claim 20, the claim recites “wherein a charge quantity difference of the pixel in the pixel array comprises at least one of a charge quantity difference between a charge at the 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase, or a charge quantity difference between a charge at the 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase”. However, this claim appears to recite two limitations that are supposed to be presented in the alternative “a charge quantity difference . . . or a charge quantity difference”; however, both alternatively claimed charge quantity differences are between a charge at 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase. Is the claim meant to recite picking from two of the same options for the charge quantity difference? Or are different phases supposed to be available in the second part of the alternative limitation? Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jin et al (2019/0208150).
Regarding claim 1, Jin (Figs. 1 and 30) discloses an imaging sensing apparatus comprising a pixel array 100 comprising pixels DP11-DP19 and DP1A-DP1G (see paragraph 0042) arranged in a grid form (see Fig. 1), wherein the pixels are configured to convert light TX from light source 1040 reflected from an object 1080 into electrical signals (see paragraph 0043, for example); and a processor 1050 configured to generate a difference of charge quantities (see the output voltages VOUT11 to VOUT14 in paragraph 0069), of which at least one of an exposure time and a phase is different (different phases are taught in paragraph 0067), from electrical signals detected from the pixel array for each of the pixels in each frame (see paragraph 0067); and extract distance information for the object (see paragraph 0069, which discloses that the processing circuit performs a calculation based on the output voltages and obtains the distance of the object).
As for claim 2, Jin discloses that, in a same frame, each of the adjacent pixels in the pixel array comprises different charge quantity differences (see paragraph 0043, for example, stating “Depth pixels included in each pixel group operate in response to a plurality of photo control signals (e.g., a plurality of photo control signals PG1, PG2, PG3 and PG4 in FIG. 2) having different phases”; see also paragraphs 0066-0067 and Fig. 1 showing different phases for each depth pixel).
As for claim 3, Jin discloses that, in the same frame, the n-th column line and the (n+1)-th column line in the pixel array comprise different charge quantity differences (see Fig. 1, showing different phases between the column starting with DP11 and the column starting with DP12).
As for claim 4, Jin discloses that, in the same frame, the n-th row line and the (n+1)-th row line comprise different charge quantity differences (see Fig. 1, showing different phases between the row starting with DP11 and the row starting with DP13).
As for claim 5, Jin discloses that same pixels in the n-th frame and the (n+1)-th frame comprise different charge quantity differences (see Fig. 1; DP11 has a different phase from DP12, and in this situation, they would be considered different frames with different charge quantity differences due to the different phases).
As for claim 6, Jin discloses that the exposure time comprises an integration time during which charge accumulates (see paragraphs 0065-0067, for example).
As for claim 8, Jin discloses that the processor is further configured to obtain a charge quantity difference corresponding to the integration time of each of the adjacent pixels for each of the pixels, and extract a charge quantity difference corresponding to the integration time for each of the pixels based on the obtained integration time of each of the adjacent pixels (see paragraphs 0065-0067).
As for claim 10, Jin discloses that the integration time is adjusted through capacitors having different sizes (see Fig. 3, element 130, and paragraph 0072, which discloses charges being accumulated into the floating diffusion regions; capacitors would be required to accumulate the charges).
As for claim 11, Jin discloses extracting the distance information of the object by using charge quantity differences of the same pixels in at least two frames (see Fig. 15, which shows pixel DP21 sensing both 0- and 90-degree phase, meaning two charge quantity differences of the sample pixel over two frames; see also paragraph 0076 showing a discussion of generation of distance from different phases as a nonlimiting example, and paragraph 0104 discussing operation where phases of photo control signals are variable for two consecutive integration intervals).
As for claim 12, Jin discloses extracting the distance information of the object by using charge quantity differences of the same pixels in the n-th frame and the (n+1)-th frame (see Fig. 15, which shows pixel DP21 sensing both 0- and 90-degree phase, meaning two charge quantity differences of the sample pixel over two frames; see also paragraph 0076 showing a discussion of generation of distance from different phases as a nonlimiting example).
As for claim 13, Jin discloses that a charge quantity difference of the pixel in the pixel array comprises a charge quantity difference between a charge at the 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase (see Fig. 1, 0-degree phase for DP11 and 180-degree phase for DP12).
Regarding claim 14, Jin (Figs. 1 and 30), in the best understanding of the examiner, discloses a processor-implemented method of imaging sensing, the method comprising emitting light TX from light source 1040 (see Fig. 30 and paragraph 0145); detecting the light RX reflected from an object 1080 (see Fig. 30 paragraph 0145); converting the reflected light into a pixel array (1010 Fig. 30, 100 Fig. 1) comprising pixels DP11-DP19 and DP1A-DP1G (see paragraph 0042) in a grid form (see Fig. 1); converting the pixels into electrical signals (this is done using ADC circuit 1030; see paragraph 0145); detecting the electrical signals from the pixel array for each of the pixels in each frame (this is performed using DSP 1050; see paragraph 0145; see also paragraph 0067); calculating a difference in charge quantities from the electrical signals (see the output voltages VOUT11 to VOUT14 in paragraph 0069), the charge quantities including at least one of an exposure time, a phase, or a combination thereof (different phases are taught in paragraph 0067), and extracting distance information of the object based on the difference in the charge quantities (see paragraph 0069, which discloses that the processing circuit performs a calculation based on the output voltages and obtains the distance of the object).
As for claim 15, Jin discloses that, in a same frame, each of the adjacent pixels in the pixel array comprises different charge quantity differences (see paragraph 0043, for example, stating “Depth pixels included in each pixel group operate in response to a plurality of photo control signals (e.g., a plurality of photo control signals PG1, PG2, PG3 and PG4 in FIG. 2) having different phases”; see also paragraphs 0066-0067 and Fig. 1 showing different phases for each depth pixel).
As for claim 16, Jin discloses that, in the same frame, the n-th column line and the (n+1)-th column line in the pixel array comprise different charge quantity differences (see Fig. 1, showing different phases between the column starting with DP11 and the column starting with DP12).
As for claim 17, Jin discloses that, in the same frame, the n-th row line and the (n+1)-th row line comprise different charge quantity differences (see Fig. 1, showing different phases between the row starting with DP11 and the row starting with DP13).
As for claim 18, Jin discloses that same pixels in the n-th frame and the (n+1)-th frame comprise different charge quantity differences (see Fig. 1; DP11 has a different phase from DP12, and in this situation, they would be considered different frames with different charge quantity differences due to the different phases).
As for claim 19, Jin discloses extracting the distance information of the object by using charge quantity differences of the same pixels in at least two frames (see Fig. 15, which shows pixel DP21 sensing both 0- and 90-degree phase, meaning two charge quantity differences of the sample pixel over two frames; see also paragraph 0076 showing a discussion of generation of distance from different phases as a nonlimiting example, and paragraph 0104 discussing operation where phases of photo control signals are variable for two consecutive integration intervals).
As for claim 20, Jin discloses that a charge quantity difference of the pixel in the pixel array comprises a charge quantity difference between a charge at the 0-degree phase and a charge at the 180-degree phase (see Fig. 1, 0-degree phase for DP11 and 180-degree phase for DP12).
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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al (2019/0208150).
As to claims 7 and 9, Jin discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 6, but fails to disclose that the integration time comprises at least one of a maximum time of the integration time, 1/2 of the maximum time, 1/4 of the maximum time, and 1/8 of the maximum time (claim 7) or at least one of a maximum time of integration time, 1/4 of the maximum time, 1/16 of the maximum time, and 1/64 of the maximum time (claim 9).
However, Jin discloses integration intervals as light collection intervals (see paragraph 0065). As Jin discloses the general conditions of the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the integration time to be any of the claimed times in claims 7 and 9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Setting the integration time to, for example, a maximum integration time allows for more light collection to take place for more accurate distance measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Fast and Energy-efficient Time-of-Flight Distance Sensing Method for 3D Object Tracking” by Plank et al. discloses time of flight sensing using on-pixel charge storage buckets (see Fig. 2); US 2021/0037201 to Tantawy discloses imaging sensing architecture where adjustments to the size of an integration capacitor can be tuned to accommodate a specific photodiode current range and desired integration time (see paragraph 0065); US 2023/0035088 to Suess et al. discloses readout architectures for dark current reduction for indirect time-of-flight sensors (see abstract); US 2023/0266445 to Yasu discloses a distance measuring device including an imaging element having pixels for phase difference detection (see paragraph 0169); and US 2023/0296741 to Ville discloses a distance measurement sensor with a focus on total exposure time duration (see paragraph 0162 and 0173 for instance).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights