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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 07 August 2024 for application number 18/796,870. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, Claims.
Claims 11-16 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 1/28/25; 5/7/25.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fontaine et al. (US 2026/0177710).
Regarding claim 11, Fontaine discloses a method, comprising:
capturing a 2D image by a sensing array of a sensing device, wherein the sensing array includes a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPAD) (pars. 7, 133);
detecting an object in the 2D image (par. 3);
based on the detected object, identifying a target in the 2D image (par. 3);
emitting a light pulse toward the target by a light source of the sensing device (par. 16);
detecting photons reflected back from the target by the sensing array of the sensing device (par. 59);
determining a time-of-flight (ToF) value of the detected photons (par. 59); and
calculating a distance between the sensing array of the sensing device and the target based on the determined ToF value (fig. 2B; par. 78).
Regarding claim 13, see teachings of claim 11. Fontaine further discloses wherein the target is a target row of the array (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, see teachings of claims 11 and 13. Fontaine further discloses further comprising generating a full frame output for the target row, including: generating a plurality of imaging cycles; integrating 2D imaging data in each of the plurality of imaging cycles; and determining ToF value of the detected photons of the target row in each of the plurality of imaging cycles (par. 67).
Regarding claim 15, see teachings of claims 11, 13, and 14. Fontaine further discloses further comprising: constructing a histogram based on the determined ToF values (figs. 3, 8).
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 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontaine et al. (US 20260177710) in view of Zhang et al. (US12345678).
Regarding claim 12, see teachings of claim 11. Fontaine does not explicitly discloses further comprising: capturing a 4D image at a first frame rate; extracting motion from the 4D image; and wherein the 2D image is captured at a second frame rate lower than the first frame rate.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses further comprising: capturing a 4D image at a first frame rate; extracting motion from the 4D image; and wherein the 2D image is captured at a second frame rate lower than the first frame rate (abstract; par. 9).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with motivation to modify Fontaine to include the teachings of Zhang in order to create high quality image (Zhang, par. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the references, alone or in combination, discloses further comprising: generating a first pulse by a first delay circuit connected to a first SPAD of the plurality of SPADs in response to the first SPAD detecting photons; adding the first pulse generated by the first delay circuit and a second pulse generated by a second delay circuit connected to a second SPAD of the plurality of SPADs adjacent to the first SPAD; and comparing the added first and second pulses to a threshold charge.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in attached PTO-892, which are not relied upon for the claim rejections, since these references are pertinent to the disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-5262. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri, 6AM - 2PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGUYEN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights