DETAILED ACTION
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, 6, 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pala US 20212/00440093 hereinafter referred to as Pala.
In regards to claim 1, Pala teaches:
“A device comprising: a plurality of time of flight sensor (ToF) pixels; a plurality of visible image sensor (VIS) pixels”
Pala paragraph [0068] and Figure 7 teaches a sensor chip 270 is shown illustrating an example interlaced TOF and image sensor 272 (or interlaced pixel sensor array). The interlaced TOF and image sensor 272 includes rows of image pixel sensors 274 (collectively the image sensor) and rows of TOF pixel sensors 276 (collectively the TOF sensor).
“a ToF communication channel configured to provide ToF image data indicative of one or more ToF pixels; and a VIS communication channel configured to provide VIS image data indicative of one or more VIS pixels”
Pala Figure 6 and paragraph [0069] teaches The processing module 255 includes a TOF control module 66'', an image control module 68'' and a system control module 70'' with an object detection control module 86''. The TOF and image control modules 66'', 68'' generate distance and image signals DIST and IMAGE based on TOF and image data from the TOF and image pixel sensors of the interlaced TOF and image sensor 252.
“wherein the plurality of ToF pixels and the plurality of VIS pixels are arranged along a plane, wherein the plurality of ToF pixels is disposed in an arrangement among the plurality of VIS pixels”
Pala Figure 7, inter alia.
In regards to claim 2, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the ToF pixels are configured to detect light wavelengths of at least one of: 850 nm or 940 nm”
Pala paragraph [0026] teaches the term TOF sensor may refer to all TOF pixel sensors on a substrate. Example TOF sensors are radar sensors, near infrared spectroscopy sensors, ultrasonic sensor, light sensors, phase detector, etc. The Examiner interprets that near infrared includes these wavelengths. Pqala paragraph [0027] teaches a TOF system may calculate time of flight of an 850 nanometer (nm) burst of light.
In regards to claim 4, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the VIS pixels are configured to detect wavelengths between 380 nm and 700 nm”
Figure 7 illustrates RGB sensor chips. RGB wavelengths are included between the range of 380 nm and 700 nm.
In regards to claim 6, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the arrangement of the ToF pixels and VIS pixels is configured to provide a composite information frame, wherein the composite information frame is formed from a first partial information frame captured with the ToF pixels and VIS pixels in a first position and a second partial information frame captured with the ToF pixels and VIS pixels in a second position”
Pala paragraph [0070] teaches the system control module 70'' may generate a combined TOF and image signal, which is shown on the display 84 via the graphics control module 88.
In regards to claim 8, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the arrangement comprises a lattice.”
Pala Figure 7 can be interpreted as a lattice.
In regards to claim 9, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches:
“wherein the lattice comprises at least one of: a rhombic lattice, a square lattice, a hexagonal lattice, a rectangular lattice, an oblique lattice, or an equilateral triangular lattice”
Pala Figure 7 can be interpreted as a square lattice.
In regards to claim 11, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“further comprising at least one optical element”
Pala paragraph [0055] teaches the sensing module 62 includes a sensing system 110 with the first sensor package 80, a second sensor package 112 and a lens 114.
In regards to claim 12, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
“wherein the at least one optical element comprises one or more lenses”
Pala paragraph [0055] teaches the sensing module 62 includes a sensing system 110 with the first sensor package 80, a second sensor package 112 and a lens 114.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pala in view of Geva et al. US 2022/0021832 hereinafter referred to as Geva.
In regards to claim 3, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
”wherein the ToF pixels measure no more than 10 um in length or width”
The size of the pixel would be considered a design choice and does not produce any unpredictable results. Geva paragraph [0130] teaches pixel sizes of 7um and 3um for ToF pixels. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention effectively filed to have modified Pala in view of Geva to have included the features of ”wherein the ToF pixels measure no more than 10 um in length or width” because It would be beneficial to have a ToF image sensor that provides both time-of-flight image data as well as 2PD stereo image information (Geva paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pala in view of Oh US 2021/0377472 hereinafter referred to as Oh.
In regards to claim 5, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the VIS pixels are disposed at no more than 2.1 m in pixel pitch”
The pitch of the pixel would be considered a design choice and does not produce any unpredictable results. Oh paragraph [0031] teaches a ToF pixel with vertical photogates may have a pitch within a range of 1-3 μm in some examples It would have been obvious for a preson with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Pala in view of Oh to have included the features of “wherein the VIS pixels are disposed at no more than 2.1 m in pixel pitch” because planar photogates may occupy a relatively large area in a sensor array, potentially limiting the resolution of a ToF camera (Oh paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pala in view of Roy US 2019/0137609 hereinafter referred to as Roy.
In regards to claim 5, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the arrangement comprises a two- dimensional grid alternating between a 5x5 square array of VIS pixels and a single ToF pixel”
Roy Figures 7-8, inter alia, teach various configurations of alternating VIS pixels and ToF pixels in a 2-D grid. Roy does not explicitly teach a 5x5 alternating grid however this feature does not appear to provide any unpredictable results. As illustrated by Roy, various combinations can be used in which an array of visible pixels is interspersed with a single ToF pixel is known in the art. The specific 5x5 array does not appear to provide any additional utility and would be understood by those of ordinary skill as a routine implementation of one of many possible combinations of visible and ToF pixels which does not provide any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pala in view of Mita et al. US 2021/0051256 hereinafter referred to as Mita.
In regards to claim 10, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the VIS pixels provide a composite resolution of 8.29 megapixels”
8.29 megapixels is the same a 4K resolution with is a commonly used camera resolution. Mita teaches in paragraph [0074] the sensor 210 uses pixels having a same pixel structure, e.g., four pixels of 2×2, in the pixel array 212 as a unit pixel 702, and functions as a 4K image sensor with a Bayer arrangement. The use of a 4K camera would be considered a routine implementation and does not provide any unpredictable results as it merely results in the desired resolution of an image sensor that is readily available. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pala in view of Wang et al. US 2014/0138519 hereinafter referred to as Wang.
In regards to claim 13, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 11 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the at least one optical element comprises a color filter array (CFA)”
Wang Figure 2A and paragraph [0032] teaches The RGB pixel array 106 may comprise a first photodiode array 110, an RGB color filter array 112 over the first photodiode array 110. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Pala in view of Wang to have included the features of “wherein the at least one optical element comprises a color filter array (CFA)” because a suitable optical filter array and an image-sensing apparatus using same are needed (Wang [0005]).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pala in view of Wang in view of Yamada US 2024/0171878 hereinafter referred to as Yamada.
In regards to claim 14, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the CFA is a Bayer filter”
Yamada paragraph [0103] teaches Note that, as the color filter array, for example, an RCCC filter in which red (R) pixels and clear (C) pixels are combined, an RCCB filter in which blue (B) pixels are combined with R pixels and C pixels, or an RGB Bayer array filter in which R pixels, G (green) pixels, and B pixels are combined may be used. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Pala/Wang in view of Yamada to have included the features of “wherein the CFA is a Bayer filter” because there is a high need for miniaturization, and as miniaturization further progresses, pixel sensitivity decreases, and thus the pixel characteristics may further deteriorate (Yamada [0004]).
In regards to claim 15, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the CFA is a RCCC filter”
Yamada paragraph [0103] teaches Note that, as the color filter array, for example, an RCCC filter in which red (R) pixels and clear (C) pixels are combined, an RCCB filter in which blue (B) pixels are combined with R pixels and C pixels, or an RGB Bayer array filter in which R pixels, G (green) pixels, and B pixels are combined may be used. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Pala/Wang in view of Yamada to have included the features of “wherein the CFA is a RCCC filter” because there is a high need for miniaturization, and as miniaturization further progresses, pixel sensitivity decreases, and thus the pixel characteristics may further deteriorate (Yamada [0004]).
In regards to claim 16, Pala teaches all the limitations of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the CFA is a RCCB filter or RCCG filter”
Yamada paragraph [0103] teaches Note that, as the color filter array, for example, an RCCC filter in which red (R) pixels and clear (C) pixels are combined, an RCCB filter in which blue (B) pixels are combined with R pixels and C pixels, or an RGB Bayer array filter in which R pixels, G (green) pixels, and B pixels are combined may be used. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Pala/Wang in view of Yamada to have included the features of “wherein the CFA is a RCCB filter or RCCG filter” because there is a high need for miniaturization, and as miniaturization further progresses, pixel sensitivity decreases, and thus the pixel characteristics may further deteriorate (Yamada [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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 E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422