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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/16/2024 and 12/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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: “light receiving unit”, “time information acquisition unit” and “weight determination unit” in claims 1, 14 and 16 and “input unit” in claim 16.
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.
Of note, the examiner believes there is enough general discussion of hardware and software in the disclosure to avoid any potential written description issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
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.
Claim limitations “time information acquisition unit” and “weight determination unit” in claims 1, 14 and 16 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While there is adequate algorithmic support for all of the above means, there simply is not any instance of clearly linked hardware to create the structure when combined with the algorithm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasunori (JP 2021001764 A) referred to as YASUNORI hereinafter (Examiner note, the cited portions below are taken from the FIT database translation, provided as appended to this Action).
Regarding Claim 14, YASUNORI shows a ranging device (Paragraphs [1], [11]-[15]) comprising:
a light receiving unit configured to generate a light reception pulse signal in response to incidence of light (Paragraphs [2], [4]-[6], [101]-[102], [151]-[174] wherein the light receiving device includes pixels with SPAD/APD-type light receiving elements and readout circuits that output detection signals when photons are incident, which corresponds closely to a light reception pulse signal.);
a time information acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each periodic light emission of a light emitting unit, a first time count value indicating an elapsed time from a light emission of the light emitting unit to an input of the light reception pulse signal, and a second time count value indicating a pulse width of the light reception pulse signal (Paragraphs [1]-[2], [21]-[23], [73]-[74], [111]-[112], [131]-[133], [151]-[174] wherein the timing signal generation circuit controls periodic light emission, and the TDC counts time from light emission to photon detection. The reference also separately discusses pulse detection timing and count values, but it does not expressly disclose the claimed paired first/second time count value structure in the same form.);
a weight determination unit configured to generate, for each periodic light emission of the light emitting unit, a weight value corresponding to the second time count value (Paragraphs [7], [151]-[174], [201]-[202] wherein the reference discloses determining a weight based on the number of reactions and using that weight in histogram generation, which is directionally similar.);
an information generation unit configured to generate information indicating a relationship between each of the first time count values and a light reception frequency by accumulating, for each periodic light emission of the light emitting unit, the weight value output from the weight determination unit as a value representing the light reception frequency for the corresponding first time count value (Paragraphs [7], [131]-[133], [173]-[174] wherein the histogram generation unit accumulates weighted TDC codes to form a histogram representing frequency versus time count.);
and a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire distance information corresponding to a first time count value having largest accumulated value of the weight value among the first time count values (Paragraphs [6], [133] wherein the distance calculation unit identifies the histogram peak and calculates distance from the corresponding TDC code.).
Regarding claim 15, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 14 above, a movable object (Paragraphs [0152]-[0155]) comprising:
the ranging device according to claim 14 (The limitations of claim 14 are taught above and therefore are rejected under a similar if not the same rationale as above.);
and a control unit configured to control the movable object based on the distance information acquired by the ranging device (Paragraphs [0152]-[0155]).
Regarding Claim 16, YASUNORI shows an information processing device (Paragraphs [3], [7], [9], [10]) including:
an input unit to which a first time count value indicating an elapsed time from a light emission of a light emitting unit to a reception of a light reception pulse signal, and a second time count value indicating a pulse width of the light reception pulse signal are periodically input (Paragraphs [2], [6], [7], [9] discuss vehicle control systems and use of distance information for ADAS, but not the specific movable-object control unit based on the claim 14 ranging device.);
a weight determination unit configured to generate, for each reception of the first time count value and the second time count value, a weight value corresponding to the second time count value (Paragraphs [7], [201]-[202] determine weights based on reaction counts and unique device data, but not expressly from paired first/second time count values.);
an information generation unit configured to generate information indicating a relationship between each of the first time count values and a light reception frequency by accumulating, for each reception of the first time count value and the second time count value, the weight value output from the weight determination unit as a value representing the light reception frequency for the corresponding first time count value (Paragraphs [7], [131]-[133], [173]-[174] wherein the histogram generation unit generates a histogram from weighted TDC codes, which directly matches weighted information generation.); and
a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire distance information corresponding to a first time count value having largest accumulated value of the weight value among the first time count values (Paragraphs [6], [133] wherein the distance calculation unit identifies the histogram peak and calculates distance from the corresponding TDC code.).
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) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUNORI in view of Kubota et al., (US 2020/0088853 A1) referred to as KUBOTA hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, YASUNORI shows a device comprising:
a light receiving unit configured to generate a light reception pulse signal in response to incidence of light (Paragraphs [2], [4]-[6], [101]-[102], [151]-[174] wherein the light receiving device includes pixels with SPAD/APD-type light receiving elements and readout circuits that output detection signals when photons are incident, which corresponds closely to a light reception pulse signal.);
a time information acquisition unit configured to acquire, for each periodic light emission of a light emitting unit, a first time count value indicating an elapsed time from a light emission of the light emitting unit to an input of the light reception pulse signal, and a second time count value indicating a pulse width of the light reception pulse signal (Paragraphs [1]-[2], [21]-[23], [73]-[74], [111]-[112], [131]-[133], [151]-[174] wherein the timing signal generation circuit controls periodic light emission, and the TDC counts time from light emission to photon detection. The reference also separately discusses pulse detection timing and count values, but it does not expressly disclose the claimed paired first/second time count value structure in the same form.);
and a weight determination unit configured to generate a weight value corresponding to the second time count value as a signal used to generate information indicating a relationship between each of the first time count values and a light reception frequency (Paragraphs [7], [151]-[174], [201]-[202] wherein the reference discloses determining a weight based on the number of reactions and using that weight in histogram generation, which is directionally similar.).
However, YASUNORI fails to but KUBOTA does specifically disclose wherein the invention is carried out on a photoelectric conversion device (Paragraph [0027]).
Both YASUNORI and KUBOTA are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they exist in the photoelectric conversion space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YASUNORI in the spirit of KUBOTA to combine the above prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
YASUNORI, in view of KUBOTA, includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. Merely applying the functions of YASUNORI to a device is a well-known technique in the art, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable in so far as that such inventions must be placed on devices in order to be practically implemented and not merely exist in a laboratory or vacuum.
Regarding claim 2, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the information is generated by accumulating, for each periodic light emission of the light emitting unit, the weight value as a value representing the light reception frequency corresponding to the first time count value (Paragraphs [7], [131]-[133], [173]-[174] The reference expressly teaches that the weight processing unit changes how many times a TDC code is supplied to the histogram generator based on the weight, thereby accumulating weighted frequency information corresponding to TDC count values.).
Regarding claim 3, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the time information acquisition unit includes a first time digital conversion unit configured to acquire the first time count value, and a second time digital conversion unit configured to acquire the second time count value (Paragraphs [3], [111]-[112], [151]-[174] disclose TDC circuitry for time counting and also describes a second processing path that measures reaction count / weight based information. While not labeled as first and second TDCs in the claim language, the reference supports separate timing/count conversion functionality.).
Regarding claim 4, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the time information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the first time count value and the second time count value with respect to the light reception pulse signal input first after the light emission of the light emitting unit (Paragraphs [1]-[2], [6]-[7], [9], [151]-[174] wherein the distance measurement process is synchronized to emitted light and reflected light reception, and repeated measurements are made across emission cycles. While reference does not expressly limit acquisition to the first received pulse after each emission, the timing relationship is functionally equivalent.).
Regarding claim 6, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 5 above, wherein the time information acquisition unit further includes a counter configured to perform a time counting during the period from when the light reception pulse signal is first input to when the predetermined period elapses (Paragraphs [3], [6], [112], [131]-[133] expressly disclose TDC-based time counting for measuring the flight time from light emission to light reception over repeated measurements.).
Regarding claim 7, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the weight determination unit is configured to set the weight value to a larger value as the second time count value is larger (Paragraphs [7], [173], [201] teach that weights are determined based on reaction counts and can be made larger for pixels with stronger useful response.).
Regarding claim 8, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but KUBOTA does specifically show wherein the weight determination unit is configured to set the weight value to a larger value as the second time count value is large when the second time count value is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, and set the weight value to a value smaller than a maximum value of the weight value set in a case that the second time count value is equal to or less than the predetermined threshold value when the second time count value is greater than the predetermined threshold value (Paragraphs [0107]-[0117], [0108]-[0114] the third embodiment teaches piecewise behavior: in one range weight changes with pulse width; at larger widths the system uses a different expression or constant. That is functionally synonymous to threshold-based behavior, though not expressly stated in the claimed words.).
Both YASUNORI and KUBOTA are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they exist in the photoelectric conversion space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YASUNORI in the spirit of KUBOTA because its techniques can track the true peak timing even when the waveform changes shape. The weighting can be set in advance, or adjusted based on signal intensity, ambient light, or pulse width ([0010]-[0012], [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 10, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but KUBOTA does specifically show wherein the light receiving unit includes a SPAD (Paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0067], [0069]-[0073] expressly discuss SPAD.), and wherein the weight determination unit is configured to set the weight value such that the weight value when a recharge voltage of the SPAD is a first voltage is larger than the weight value when a recharge voltage of the SPAD is a second voltage lower than the first voltage.
Both YASUNORI and KUBOTA are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they exist in the photoelectric conversion space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YASUNORI in the spirit of KUBOTA because its techniques can track the true peak timing even when the waveform changes shape. The weighting can be set in advance, or adjusted based on signal intensity, ambient light, or pulse width ([0010]-[0012], [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 11, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but KUBOTA does specifically show wherein the weight determination unit includes a lookup table indicating a correspondence relationship between the second time count value and the weight value (Paragraphs [0090], [0098]-[0099] explicitly state the weight coefficient acquirer stores relations as a lookup table, including between measured signal parameters and W1, and in some cases an approximate line or linear equation.).
Both YASUNORI and KUBOTA are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they exist in the photoelectric conversion space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YASUNORI in the spirit of KUBOTA because its techniques can track the true peak timing even when the waveform changes shape. The weighting can be set in advance, or adjusted based on signal intensity, ambient light, or pulse width ([0010]-[0012], [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 12, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but KUBOTA does specifically show wherein the light receiving unit includes a plurality of pixels each including a photoelectric conversion element (Paragraph [0051], the sensor 18 is described as a silicon photomultiplier composed of multiple SPAD cells/pixels.), and wherein the time information acquisition unit and the weight determination unit perform processing on a signal for each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraphs [0051], [0067], [0070]-[0073] discuss SPAD cell outputs and signal processing, while not explicitly stating per-pixel time acquisition and weighting as claimed, the multi-pixel SPAD structure supports partial correspondence.).
Both YASUNORI and KUBOTA are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they exist in the photoelectric conversion space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YASUNORI in the spirit of KUBOTA because its techniques can track the true peak timing even when the waveform changes shape. The weighting can be set in advance, or adjusted based on signal intensity, ambient light, or pulse width ([0010]-[0012], [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 13, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, for each periodic light emission of the light emitting unit, the weight value as a value representing the light reception frequency for the corresponding first time count value (Paragraphs [7], [131]-[133], [173]-[174] wherein the histogram generation unit generates a histogram by repeatedly inputting weighted TDC codes, which directly corresponds to generating information about the relationship between count values and frequency by weighted accumulation.), and a distance information acquisition unit configured to acquire distance information corresponding to a first time count value having largest accumulated value out of the weight values among the plurality of first time count values (Paragraphs [6], [131]-[133] wherein the distance calculation unit detects the histogram peak, i.e., the count value having the highest frequency, and calculates distance from that peaked count value.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUNORI in view of KUBOTA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota et al., (USPN 10739456 B2) referred to as KUBOTA ‘456 hereinafter.
Regarding claim 5, YASUNORI shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the time information acquisition unit is configured to accumulate count values corresponding to pulse widths of the light reception pulse signals input during a period from when the light reception pulse signal is first input after the light emission of the light emitting unit to when a predetermined period elapses and set as the second time count value (Col. 15 [entire] wherein the time to digital conversion circuitry 346 obtains time differences from emission to detection, and the address calculation addition circuitry 348 increments buffers corresponding to the measured time difference (for example, B[T3]).).
All of YASUNORI, KUBOTA and KUBOTA ‘456 are analogous to that of the claimed invention in that they exist in the photoelectric conversion and distance analysis space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YASUNORI in view of KUBOTA in the spirit of KUBOTA ‘456 because by constraining the usable signal window, the device reduces ambient-light contamination while preserving useful reflected-light information (Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (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 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights