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
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The international search report submitted with the other foreign references clearly indicates the following sections are relevant:
JP 2021-128084: Paragraphs [0011-0097] and Figs. 1-13
JP 2021-001756: Paragraphs [0056-0087] and Figs. 2-3, 8-10
JP 2021-152536: Entire text, all drawings
Applicant provided only translated abstracts of the above, so they are not considered.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s special definition that “a detection frequency of the time of flight is a frequency” [0002], meaning that “frequency” does not refer to a property of light but rather a statistic.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. To facilitate further examination, below are several clarity issues causing indefiniteness.
Claim 1 has the following issues which individually render it indefinite:
Limitation 1 recites “… by a frequency and a class of the detection frequency” (Line 5-6). It is unclear which of the following this modifies:
“a peak detection unit detects” (Line 1)
“a time-of-flight histogram representing” (Line 2), or
“the reflected light… from an object” (Line 3-4).
Regardless of whichever above interpretation is correct, it is unclear if “the detection frequency” refers to “a detection frequency” (Line 1-2) or “a frequency.”
“A class” generally does not make sense in this context. This seems to come from translating 検出 頻度 部 to “detection frequency class.” A more accurate translation, as suggested in [0022, “class width (bin: bins)”], may be “detection frequency bin,” referring to a range of depths or lidar range gate.
This applies to Claims 8 and 9, mutatis mutandis. Dependent Claims 2-7 fail to resolve all issues in Claim 1 and are thus summarily rejected. For examination,
“by a frequency and a class of the detection frequency” modifies “a time-of-flight histogram,”
“the detection frequency” refers to “a frequency,” and
“a class” refers to a specific range of depths, i.e. a bin.
Claim 2 recites “… each of pixel regions…” (Lim 1 Line 2). Pixel regions lack antecedent basis. Dependent Claims 3-7 fail to resolve this issue and are summarily rejected. For examination, this is interpreted as “each of multiple pixel regions”.
Claim 3 recites “… the other pixel region…” (Line 3), which lacks antecedent basis. Dependent Claim 4 fails to resolve this issue and is summarily rejected. For examination, this is interpreted as “[[the other]] another pixel region”.
Claim 4 recites the following:
“… the peak in a region…” (Line 2-3). “A region” lacks antecedent basis. For examination, “a region” is considered “a pixel region.”
“… a plurality of the classes…” (Line 4). While “a class of the detection frequency” (Claim 1 Lim 1 Line 6) was introduced, the classes in “a plurality of the classes” lacks antecedent basis. For examination, “the classes” refers to “the classes of the detection frequency”.
Claim 5 recites “the pixel region” (Line 3). While “pixel regions” have antecedent basis (Claim 2, Lim 1 Line 2 and Lim 2 Line 2), no pixel region was specified, so “the pixel region” lacks antecedent basis. For examination, Claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a pixel region.”
Claim 7 recites “the pixel region having the substantially equal ambient light frequency” (Line 4-5). There is no antecedent basis for either a particular pixel region or a substantially equal ambient light frequency. For examination, Claim 7 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a pixel region having [[the]] substantially equal ambient light frequency as the pixel region containing the peak of the detection frequency.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the output unit sets, as the already output peak, the peak in a pixel region…” (Line 2-3). This does not clearly limit the subject matter of parent Claim 3, which recites “wherein the output unit sets, as the already output peak, the peak output in [[the other]] another pixel region…” (Line 2-3). “A pixel region” includes any region, while “another pixel region” does not. As such, Claim 4 fails to include all limitations of Claim 3. For examination, Claim 4 is interpreted as depending on Claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, and 7-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/845,061 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See table below for claim correspondence.
Instant Application
(Claim #)
Co-Pending App. No. 18/845,061 (Claim #)
Reasoning
1
1
Anticipation
2
1
Obvious
3
3
Obvious
4
2
Obvious
5
4
Obvious
6
5
Obvious
7
5
Obvious
8
7
Anticipation
9
8
Anticipation
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukada (佃, JP 2021-001763 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsukada discloses an information processing device [#11 of Fig 1; 0017] comprising:
a peak detection unit that detects a peak of a detection frequency in a time-of-flight histogram [#74 of Fig 1, 2; 0032] representing a distribution of a time of flight of reflected light detected by a two-dimensional pixel array unit [#72 of Fig 2; 0026-0029],
the reflected light being emitted from a light source [0019] and reflected from an object [0017, #12-13 of Fig 1],
by a frequency [0032, count value] and a class of the detection frequency [0032, counting time];
a peak determination unit that determines whether or not the peak includes a peak corresponding to the reflected light [0032, “the signal processing unit 74… [determines] the time until the light… returns.” Inherently indicates a reflected light peak or not]; and
an output unit that outputs, as distance measurement data, the peak selected on a basis of a determination result of the peak determination unit and an already output peak previously output [0033, #75; 0103-0110, selective time refinement].
The rejection of Claim 1 also applies to Claims 8 and 9, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 2, Tsukada discloses
wherein the peak detection unit sequentially detects the peak for each of multiple pixel regions in a time-of-flight histogram group that is the time-of-flight histograms for the pixel regions of the two-dimensional pixel array unit [0030, active pixel regions change and are thus sequentially processed], and
the output unit sequentially outputs the distance measurement data for each of the pixel regions [0033, #75].
Regarding Claim 3, Tsukada discloses wherein the output unit sets, as the already output peak, the peak output in another pixel region in a same frame in the time-of-flight histogram group generated in a time-series frame period [0100, Fig. 9, determining Bin_PK1 in pixel 81A and Bin_PK2 in pixel 81B correspond to the same object inherently uses one as the already output peak for the other].
Regarding Claim 4, Tsukada discloses wherein the output unit sets, as the already output peak, the peak in a pixel region where the peaks of maximum detection frequencies of a plurality of the classes of the detection frequency are linearly continuous [see Bin_PK1; Fig 10; 0103-0110, 0187-0188; object outlines (i.e. 3D object data) are linearly continuous in space].
Regarding Claim 5, Tsukada discloses wherein the output unit sets, as the already output peak, the peak output in a pixel region in a previous frame in the time-of-flight histogram group generated in a time-series frame period [0103-0110, Fig. 10, refining time resolution based on result of previous time frame].
Regarding Claim 6, Tsukada discloses an ambient light detection unit that detects an ambient light frequency that is a detection frequency of ambient light on a basis of the time-of-flight histogram, wherein the output unit further selects the already output peak on a basis of the ambient light frequency [0025, removing influence of disturbance (ambient) light inherently requires detecting said influence].
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (佃, JP 2021-001763 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsukada does not explicitly teach wherein the output unit selects the already output peak in [[the]] a pixel region having [[the]] substantially equal ambient light frequency as the pixel region containing the peak of the detection frequency.
However, Tsukada does teach using a previous frame [0103-0110, Fig. 10], which includes the immediately previous frame. Relative to how quickly the ambient lighting changes, the frames for generating the time-of-flight histograms are generally short and close together in time. This means that at least one pixel region of the immediately previous frame has substantially equal ambient light frequency. It would be obvious to give the light receiving device this functionality to improve the distance measurement accuracy [0079].
Relevant Prior Art
In addition to applicant-provided prior art and the prior art used above, the examiner identified the following relevant prior art:
“Time-of-Flight (ToF) Tips: Tips to Boost 3D Performance and Cut Integration Time & Cost P1” (Retrieved 7/7/2026, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9dCo6SlCFU, Published 4/29/2020) discloses identical functionality to claimed invention. See also:
“Time of Flight Image Sensor for Industry” (Retrieved 7/7/2026, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_zv9SSRJwo, Published 11/23/2020)
“Sony’s IMX556PLR DepthSense Sensor: How It Works” (Retrieved 7/7/2026, URL: https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/sony-depthsense-how-it-works/, Published 7/16/2019)
Kulesh (US 2020/0233066) discloses histogram-based signal detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights