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 in response to a 371 application filed on 09/06/2024 claiming priority to PCT/EP2023/054279 filed on 02/21/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority to EP 22162473.7 filed on 03/16/2022. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 09/06/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
This information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests to change the claim from "time-of-flight demodulation circuitry” to "A time-of-flight demodulation circuitry”. 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, 18 and 20 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 limitation of the claim states “set a selection signal for disabling detection light” or similar language before the “second determination”. A clarification of the claim language regarding disabled signal detection would help the prosecution.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-18 refer to "time-of-flight demodulation circuitry”, Claim 19 refers to "A time-of-flight demodulation circuitry”, and Claim 20 refers to "A time-of-flight device”. Claims 19-20 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-18, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-18, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that modulation and demodulation are reverse processes of light processing method/system.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe (US 20220350024 A1) in view of Kutulakos et al. (US 20210241475 A1), hereinafter Kutulakos. Isobe is cited by the applicant in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Isobe discloses time-of-flight demodulation circuitry configured to ([0002]): carry out a first determination and a second determination, the first determination comprising (Fig. 1, Fig. 7): integrating a light signal with a first mixing signal into a first integrated signal (Fig. 7); and set a selection signal for disabling detection of light (Fig. 7 - RSTD), the selection signal being set based on the first integrated signal for integrating ([0149]-[0153]), in the second determination, the light signal with a second mixing signal into a second integrated signal for a shorter time period than in the first determination ([0151]-[0152]); the second determination comprising: integrating the light signal with the second mixing signal into the second integrated signal based on the selection signal ([0147]-[0152]).
Isobe discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Isobe does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section demodulated.
However, Kutulakos from the same or similar endeavor teaches demodulated ([0182]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isobe to incorporate the teachings of Kutulakos to optimize depth measurements (Kutulakos, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: applying the second mixing signal and the second mixing signal during the second determination (Isobe, [0149]-[0152]).
Regarding claim 3, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the selection signal is configured to selectively disable the demodulated light signal integration with the second mixing signal (Isobe, [0149]-[0152]).
Regarding claim 4, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: output a digital signal for each determination being indicative of a pulse location (Isobe, [0149]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 5, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: carry out an analog indirect time-of-flight pulsed measurement at a maximum measurement frequency, thereby matching a pulse length to half a period of the maximum measurement frequency (Isobe, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0149]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 6, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: carry out the first and the second determination when a signal loss is determined (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 7, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 6, wherein the signal loss is detected by comparing a norm of multiple time-of-flight measurements (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 8, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 6, wherein the signal loss is detected by checking continuity of depth values over multiple measurements (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 9, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: adjust a zoom window at a highest frequency based on a measured location of a light pulse, the adjustment including moving forward the zoom window, if the pulse lies within a second half of the zoom window, and moving backward if the pulse lies within a first half of the zoom window (Isobe, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the selection signal is used for disabling detection of light pulses with the mixing signals in a first part of the respective mixing signal and to allow detection of light pulses with mixing signals in a second part of the respective mixing signal (Isobe, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the second mixing signal has a frequency higher than or equal to the selection signal (Isobe, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the selection signal is set in such a way that a light pulse is detected in a predetermined part of the second mixing signal (Isobe, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the first mixing signal includes a first part and a second part; and wherein the selection signal is set based on whether the light pulse is mainly detected in the first part or in the second part of the first mixing signal (Isobe, Fig. 7, [0143]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 14, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight-demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the second demodulation signal has a double frequency than the first demodulation signal (Isobe, Fig. 7, [0143]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 15, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, further configured to: use a second selection signal for disabling detection of light, the second selection signal being set based on the second integrated demodulated signal; and carry out a third determination including: integrating the light signal demodulated with a third mixing signal into a third integrated demodulated signal based on the second selection signal (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 16, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 15, wherein the first, second, and third mixing signals are based on a Gray code (Kutulakos , [0182]).
Regarding claim 17, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the mixing signals and selection signals are rectangular signals (Isobe, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Isobe in view of Kutulakos discloses the time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the first and the second light pulses are detected by folding the light signal with the respective mixing signal (Isobe, Fig. 7, [0081]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 19-20, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights