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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Concerning claim 17: the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: claim 17 claims a computer program which is not one of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 contains an abbreviation of (TDC), recommended in the first instant to include the full definition of the abbreviation.
Claims are missing punctuation marks after the preamble and the term “comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 recites “it/its”. It’s not clear which part of the device is referred to by the term.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the oscillator signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “The measurement system according to claim 5 which outputs the time of the event signal as determined by the processing system.” Not clear, what part or which process is referred to in the beginning of the limitation with the term “which”. Does this refer to a part of the entire measurement system?
Claim 9 recites a similar limitation and is similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the time of the event signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier, a “first time for an event signal” or “second time for an event signal” is recited. Which event signal is in claim 6?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the time that an incident laser pulse". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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 1, 2, 7, 14-15, 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buckbee et al (US 20220390576).
In regards to claim 1, Buckbee discloses a measurement system, comprising:
a first time determining device (Fig. 1 refs. 102);
a second time determining device (Fig. 1 refs. 102 “time-to-digital converter (TDC)”, [0004] “may be used to calculate the time difference between the time of emission of light and the time of arrival of the reflected light”); and
a clock signal system (Fig. 2 ref. 108),
wherein the first time determining device is arranged to receive a first clock signal from the clock signal system (as seen in schematic diagram of Fig. 2, connection of refs. 102 and 108) and use it as a reference to determine a first time for an event signal that the first time determining device is arranged to receive ([0048] “timing generation circuit 108 also provides signal CLK.sub.sample indicative of the time of emission of light pulses 122 to TDCs 102, e.g., to be used as a reference signal”), and
where further the second time determining device is arranged to receive a second clock signal from the clock signal system and use it as a reference to determine a second time for the event signal that the second time determining device is also arranged to receive (Buckbee discloses [0048] “timing generation circuit 108 also provides signal CLK.sub.sample indicative of the time of emission of light pulses 122 to TDCs 102, e.g., to be used as a reference signal”, as seen in Fig. 1, the reference signal, “CLK_sample” is provided to the refs. 102, [0049] “TDC 102 generates an output indicative of the time between a reference time (e.g., given by signal CLK.sub.sample) and an event time (e.g., the time of activation of a SPAD)”),
wherein the first clock signal and the second clock signal are out of phase with each other ([0048] “in some embodiments, m clock signals, such as m out-of-phase differential clock signals, may be provided to TDCs 102”, [0144]).
In regards to claim 2, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 1 where the first time determining device is a first hybrid TDC and/or the second time determining device is a second hybrid TDC (Buckbee ref. 102 [0004] “A time to digital converter (TDC) may be used to calculate the time difference between the time of emission of light and the time of arrival of the reflected light to obtain a distance to an object”, Fig. 1 ref. 102).
In regards to claim 7, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 1,
where the first time determining device is arranged to receive a further event signal after receiving the event signal and to determine (as seen in Fig. 1 of Buckbee, refs. 102 are connected to receive further signals from ref. 108), using the first clock signal, a third time for the further event signal (Buckbee further events/refs. 108, [0043] discloses “a plurality of TDCs 102” thus a further third event signal), and
the second time determining device is arranged to also receive the further event signal after receiving the event signal and to determine (as seen in Fig. 1 of Buckbee, refs. 102 are connected to receive further signals from ref. 108), using the second clock signal, a fourth time for the further event signal (Buckbee further events/refs. 108, [0043] discloses “a plurality of TDCs 102” thus a further fourth event signal).
In regards to claim 14, Buckbee discloses a measurement method, comprising receiving a first clock signal (Fig. 1 refs. 102 “time-to-digital converter (TDC)”, [0004] “may be used to calculate the time difference between the time of emission of light and the time of arrival of the reflected light”), a second clock signal ([0004]) and an event signal (Fig. 1 event signal from ref. 104 SPAD array) and using the first clock signal as a reference to determine a first time for the event signal and using the second clock signal as a reference to determine a second time for the event signal (Buckbee [0048] detail in claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first clock signal and the second clock signal are out of phase with each other (Buckbee [0048] “in some embodiments, m clock signals, such as m out-of-phase differential clock signals, may be provided to TDCs 102”, [0144]).
In regards to claim 15, Buckbee discloses the measurement method according to claim 14 where determining the first time for the event signal is performed using a first hybrid TDC and/or determining the second time for the event signal is determined using a second hybrid TDC (Buckbee ref. 102 [0004] “A time to digital converter (TDC) may be used to calculate the time difference between the time of emission of light and the time of arrival of the reflected light to obtain a distance to an object”, Fig. 1 ref. 102).
In regards to claim 17, Buckbee discloses a computer program that, when read by a computer, causes performance of the method of claim 15 (Buckbee [0047] “Processor 110 may be implemented as a general purpose digital signal processor (DSP), processor or controller that includes, for example, combinatorial circuits coupled to a memory. For example, in some embodiments, processor 110 is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory”).
In regards to claim 18, Buckbee discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by a computer, cause performance of the method according to claim 15 (Buckbee [0047] “Processor 110 may be implemented as a general purpose digital signal processor (DSP), processor or controller that includes, for example, combinatorial circuits coupled to a memory. For example, in some embodiments, processor 110 is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory”).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckbee in view of Ohishi et al (US 20090122296).
In regards to claim 4, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to
Ohishi teaches a timing system comprising an oscillator ([0129] “In the control system illustrated, an oscillator (TXCO) 41a outputs a pulse signal of 15 MHz, based on which a sine wave generator…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Buckbee with Ohishi by providing the means for the clock signal system to generate both the first and second clock signals from a single oscillator of the clock signal system by using the oscillator signal to derive the first clock signal and using an inverted form of the oscillator signal to derive the second clock signal as use of oscillators in these devices is well known in the art.
Claim 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckbee in view of Koreakado et al (US 20130278917).
In regards to claim 5, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 1 but does not expressly disclose: comprising a processing system arranged to determine a time of the event signal as an average of the first and second times.
Koreakado teaches a processing system arranged to determine a time of the event signal as an average of the first and second times (Fig. 31, [0219] “The update interval adjusting unit 102 determines the average value of a plurality of sampling values taken during a timing adjustment update interval Ttc”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Buckbee with Ohishi by providing the means for the processing system to determine a time of the event signal as an average of the first and second times in order to allow more accurate results when combined with phase offset.
In regards to claim 6, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 5 which outputs the time of the event signal as determined by the processing system (Buckbee ref. 102 disclosed as TDC, time to digital converters, [0004], [0048] “timing generation circuit 108 also provides signal CLK.sub.sample indicative of the time of emission of light pulses 122 to TDCs 102, e.g., to be used as a reference signal”).
In regards to claim 8, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 7, further comprising a processing system arranged to determine a difference in time between the event signal and the further event signal using averaging to account for the difference in the first and second times and the difference in the third and fourth times.
Koreakado teaches a processing system arranged to determine a time of the event signal as an average of the first and second times (Fig. 31, [0219] “The update interval adjusting unit 102 determines the average value of a plurality of sampling values taken during a timing adjustment update interval Ttc”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Buckbee with Ohishi by providing the means for the processing system arranged to determine a difference in time between the event signal and the further event signal using averaging to account for the difference in the first and second times and the difference in the third and fourth times in order to allow more accurate results when combined with phase offset.
In regards to claim 9, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 8 which outputs the difference in time between the event signal and further event signal as determined by the processing system (Buckbee ref. 102, [0004]).
In regards to claim 10, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 9 arranged for use with a light detection and ranging, LIDAR, system (Buckbee disclose a light detection and ranging measurement device, [0013]).
In regards to claim 11, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 10 where the event signal is indicative of the time that an incident laser pulse leaves the LIDAR system (Buckbee [0044] “illumination source 106 emits light pulses 122 towards object 116, e.g., at times controlled by timing generator circuit 108”),
the further event signal is indicative of the time that a corresponding backscattered laser pulse arrives at the LIDAR system (Buckbee [0044] “Reflected light pulses 124 are sensed by SPAD array 104 and routed to TDCs 102 by routing circuits 112”) and
the difference in time between the event signal and further event signal as determined by the processing system is therefore a time of flight measurement (Buckbee [0044] “Histogram generation circuits 118 generate ToF histograms based on the outputs of TDCs 102. Processor 110 then processes the ToF histograms, e.g., in a known manner, e.g., to determine the distance to object 116 and/or generate a 3D-depth map”).
In regards to claim 12, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 11 where the processing system is arranged to multiply the time of flight measurement by the speed of light to determine a result and divide the result by two to determine a distance to an object at which the incident laser pulse has been backscattered to produce a backscattered laser pulse (Buckbee [002] discloses TOF method for determining distance to an object).
In regards to claim 13, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 12 which outputs the distance as determined by the processing system (Buckbee [0044] “Processor 110 then processes the ToF histograms, e.g., in a known manner, e.g., to determine the distance to object 116 and/or generate a 3D-depth map”).
Claim 3, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckbee in view of Nishiura et al (US 20230350193).
In regards to claim 3, Buckbee discloses the measurement system according to claim 1 while disclosing out of phase signals, [0144], Buckbee does not expressly disclose: where the first clock signal and the second clock signal are at least substantially in anti-phase with each other.
Nishuura teachers first and second signals in anti-phase ([0078] “The driving voltage waveform V.sub.1A (t) and the driving voltage waveform V.sub.1B (t) are in an anti-phase with each other (that is, the phase difference is 180°)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Buckbee with NIshiura by providing the means for first clock signal and the second clock signal are at least substantially in anti-phase with each other as this arrangement is well known in the art, and to reduce interference between the signals.
In regards to 16, Buckbee discloses the measurement method according to claim 15 while Buckbee discloses [0144] “low power differential signals (e.g., 200 mV peak-to-peak signal with average voltage of 600 mV) may be used to propagate a plurality of out-of-phase clock signals CLK.sub.sample to TDC 102”), however, Buckbee does not expressly disclose: where the first clock signal and the second clock signal are at least substantially in anti-phase with each other.
Nishuura teachers first and second signals in anti-phase ([0078] “The driving voltage waveform V.sub.1A (t) and the driving voltage waveform V.sub.1B (t) are in an anti-phase with each other (that is, the phase difference is 180°)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Buckbee with Nishiura by providing the means for first clock signal and the second clock signal are at least substantially in anti-phase with each other as this arrangement is well known in the art, and to reduce interference between the signals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display LIDAR devices using time measuring devise for use in measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights