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.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a “recording medium recording a program” that, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), encompasses “signals per se” and/or “data per se” (MPEP 2106.03(I) THE FOUR CATEGORIES).
Regarding independent claim 20, the claim term “recording medium recording a program” in line 1 is interpreted, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), as encompassing or referring to “a machine-readable signal medium or a machine-readable storage medium” since applicant’s specification only provides examples of the “recording medium” but does not provide a definition of the “recording medium”. Since the claim term encompasses a machine-readable signal medium, then the claim term also encompasses a propagated data signal or a carrier wave (transitory signal). Thus, the claim term “recording medium” is considered to encompass both “transitory machine-readable medium” and/or “non-transitory machine-readable medium”. Per MPEP 2106.03(I), “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: …Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave”. Furthermore, per MPEP 2106.03(II), “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason. … For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves).”.
It is noted that the claim terms “processor”, “distance measuring device”, “light projecting section”, “light receiving section”, and “plurality of pixels” are not positively recited structural limitations.
It is suggested that the claim includes the limitation “non-transitory” or “non-transient” (applicant’s specification [0148] recites “non-transiently” which provides support for this proposed claim amendment) to recite a “non-transitory recording medium” to address this statutory category issue.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 11-12, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta US20200386893.
Regarding independent claim 1, Gupta discloses, in Figures 4-8,
A distance measuring device (Gupta; Fig. 4-8; lidar system 400) comprising:
a light projecting section that emits pulsed irradiation light (Gupta; light source 402);
a light receiving section in which a plurality of pixels each detecting incidence of a photon is arranged (Gupta; [0084, 0086] image sensor 404 with SPAD detector array);
an integration section that creates a first histogram for each of the pixels by using a detection signal output from each of the pixels (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the first histogram corresponding to synchronous SPAD Fig. 5A3); and
a restoration section that converts the first histogram into a second histogram on a basis of a state of the light receiving section (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the second histogram corresponding to asynchronous SPAD with uniform shifting based on the pixel sensitivity as the state of the light receiving section Fig. 5B3).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the restoration section generates accuracy information when the first histogram is converted into the second histogram (Gupta; [0083] “Coates-corrected estimates of the Poisson rate at each time bin based on the histograms… possible to “undo” the distortion” in which the quantized distortion/error corresponds to accuracy information; [0136] “Coates estimator” used in process 800).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 2, wherein the accuracy information includes at least one of a quantization error or a standard deviation (Gupta; [0083] “Coates-corrected estimates of the Poisson rate at each time bin based on the histograms… possible to “undo” the distortion” in which the quantized distortion/error corresponds to accuracy information; [0136] “Coates estimator” used in process 800).
Regarding claim 5, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the restoration section estimates at least one of a ratio of pixels in a dead period in the light receiving section or sensitivity to photon incidence of each of the pixels as a state of the light receiving section (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the second histogram corresponding to asynchronous SPAD with uniform shifting based on the pixel sensitivity as the state of the light receiving section Fig. 5B3).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 5, wherein the restoration section estimates at least one of the ratio of pixels in a dead period or the sensitivity to photon incidence of each of the pixels on a basis of a drive history of the light receiving section (Gupta; [0095] “different SPAD cycles can ensure that each time bin is close to the start of the SPAD detection cycle in at least a few SPAD cycles”).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 6, wherein the drive history of the light receiving section includes at least one of a driving voltage applied to each of the pixels or a timing at which the driving voltage is applied to each of the pixels (Gupta; [0095] “different SPAD cycles can ensure that each time bin is close to the start of the SPAD detection cycle in at least a few SPAD cycles”).
Regarding claim 11, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 1, further comprising: a compression section that compresses the second histogram (Gupta; [0120-0121] taking the mathematical “argmax” function which is the maximum value from the argument/function of the feature amount that corresponds to photon shifting which distributes the pileup effect over the histogram bins uniformly).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 11, wherein the compression section compresses the second histogram to a feature amount of the second histogram by extracting the feature amount of the second histogram (Gupta; [0120-0121] the feature amount that corresponds to photon shifting which distributes the pileup effect over the histogram bins uniformly) or compresses the second histogram by bit-reducing a value of each bin of the second histogram.
Regarding claim 15, Gupta discloses The distance measuring device according to claim 1, further comprising: an exclusion section that removes a noise component from the second histogram (Gupta; [0083] “Coates-corrected estimates of the Poisson rate at each time bin based on the histograms… possible to “undo” the distortion” in which the distortion/error corresponds to the noise; [0136] “Coates estimator” used in process 800).
Regarding independent claim 19, Gupta discloses, in Figures 4-8, the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1, and
A distance measuring method (Gupta; Fig. 4-8; lidar system 400);
A distance measuring device (Gupta; Fig. 4-8; lidar system 400) comprising:
a light projecting section that emits pulsed irradiation light (Gupta; light source 402);
a light receiving section in which a plurality of pixels each detecting incidence of a photon is arranged (Gupta; [0084, 0086] image sensor 404 with SPAD detector array);
an integration section that creates a first histogram for each of the pixels by using a detection signal output from each of the pixels (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the first histogram corresponding to synchronous SPAD Fig. 5A3); and
a restoration section that converts the first histogram into a second histogram on a basis of a state of the light receiving section (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the second histogram corresponding to asynchronous SPAD with uniform shifting based on the pixel sensitivity as the state of the light receiving section Fig. 5B3).
Regarding independent claim 20, Gupta discloses, in Figures 4-8, the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1, and
A recording medium (Gupta; memory 412; [0173] non-transitory CRM) recording a program for causing a processor (Gupta; processor 408) mounted on a distance measuring device (Gupta; Fig. 4-8; lidar system 400);
A distance measuring device (Gupta; Fig. 4-8; lidar system 400) comprising:
a light projecting section that emits pulsed irradiation light (Gupta; light source 402);
a light receiving section in which a plurality of pixels each detecting incidence of a photon is arranged (Gupta; [0084, 0086] image sensor 404 with SPAD detector array);
an integration section that creates a first histogram for each of the pixels by using a detection signal output from each of the pixels (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the first histogram corresponding to synchronous SPAD Fig. 5A3); and
a restoration section that converts the first histogram into a second histogram on a basis of a state of the light receiving section (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the second histogram corresponding to asynchronous SPAD with uniform shifting based on the pixel sensitivity as the state of the light receiving section Fig. 5B3).
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Satat US20190361099.
Regarding claim 8, Gupta teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the restoration section corrects a value of each bin in the second histogram (Gupta; processor 408 that generates the second histogram corresponding to asynchronous SPAD with uniform shifting based on the pixel sensitivity as the state of the light receiving section Fig. 5B3).
Gupta does not teach on a basis of at least one of a drive history or a known characteristic of the light projecting section.
Satat teaches on a basis of at least one of a drive history or a known characteristic of the light projecting section (Satat; [0086-0090] perform intensity calibration measurements based on an illumination intensity profile to account for and/or eliminate the effects of the illumination intensity profile; [0087] obtain “a refined version of the reflectance intensity profile, which has been refined by mitigating or eliminating the effect of the illumination intensity profile”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the correction as taught by Gupta to be based on a known characteristic of the light projecting section such as an illumination intensity profile as taught by Satat for the purpose of obtaining “a refined version of the reflectance intensity profile, which has been refined by mitigating or eliminating the effect of the illumination intensity profile” (Satat; [0087] obtain “a refined version of the reflectance intensity profile, which has been refined by mitigating or eliminating the effect of the illumination intensity profile”).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Gupta teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The distance measuring device according to claim 8, wherein the restoration section corrects the value of each bin in the second histogram by using a least squares method so that a waveform of the second histogram becomes close to a laser waveform of the irradiation light (Satat; [0133] simple denoising is “achieved with traditional least squares or more robust algorithms”).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Gupta teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The distance measuring device according to claim 8, wherein the drive history of the light projecting section includes at least one of laser power of the irradiation light or an emission timing of the irradiation light (Gupta; Fig. 6; [0098] “laser cycle”), and the known characteristic of the light projecting section includes at least one of a peak intensity of the irradiation light (Satat; [0086-0090] perform intensity calibration measurements based on an illumination intensity profile to account for and/or eliminate the effects of the illumination intensity profile; the illumination intensity profile corresponds to the peak intensity), a laser waveform of the irradiation light, or a wavelength spectrum of the irradiation light.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta ‘893 in view of Gupta US20200284907.
Regarding claim 18, Gupta ‘893 teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the restoration section includes to output the second histogram using at least the first histogram as an input (Gupta ‘893; processor 408 that generates the second histogram corresponding to asynchronous SPAD with uniform shifting based on the pixel sensitivity as the state of the light receiving section Fig. 5B3).
Gupta ‘893 does not teach a learned model.
Gupta ‘907 teaches a learned model (Gupta ‘907; [0152] using a deep neural network DNN trained on histogram inputs for the purpose of providing “spatio-temporal correlations in natural scenes”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the restoration section as taught by Gupta ‘893 to include a learned model as taught by Gupta ‘907 for the purpose of providing “spatio-temporal correlations in natural scenes” (Gupta ‘907; [0152] using a deep neural network DNN trained on histogram inputs for the purpose of providing “spatio-temporal correlations in natural scenes”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13-14, and 16-17 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shu US20180259645 teaches, in Fig. 17, selecting a pileup profile filter.
Makimoto US20210165084 teaches, in Fig. 11 and 13, histogram correction.
Tachwali US20220283305 teaches, in Fig. 10, a trials histogram that is inferred from a count histogram ([0078]).
Wilton US20220373658 teaches, in Fig. 12B, correcting for distortion which partially recovers the waveform.
Tsukuda US20230204770 teaches, in Fig. 5 and 10, a first histogram generating section 24 and a second histogram generating section 31.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 8/24/26
Prosecution Insights