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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 9/12/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0213205).
With respect to claim 1, Oh discloses: A ranging apparatus [ taught by figure1 and figure 12 ] comprising: a light-emitting unit configured to irradiate an object with light [ taught by input-output device (22); paragraph [ 0024 ] states, “…Input-output devices 22 may also include light sources such as light-emitting diodes that may be used in combination with image sensor(s) 14 to obtain time-of-flight depth sensing information. Input-output devices 22 may include, for example, a light source that emits visible or infrared light…” ]; a plurality of pixels [ the abstract states, “…Image sensors may include hybrid three-dimensional imaging pixel groups. The pixel groups may be capable of obtaining both phase detection information and time-of-flight information. A pixel group may have first and second photodiodes covered by a single microlens that are used to obtain phase detection information. The microlens may also cover a third photodiode that obtains time-of-flight information…” ]; a microlens that is arranged on the plurality of pixels and that is shared by the plurality of pixels [ taught by the microlens (102) in figure 12 ]; a first ranging unit configured to acquire a distance to the object, based on a time it takes to receive reflected light of the light radiated by the light-emitting unit [ taught by photodiode (42-3); paragraph [ 0060 ] states, “…Three-dimensional imaging pixel group 100 may also include a third photodiode 42-3. This photodiode may be used to obtain time-of-flight information…” ]; and a second ranging unit configured to acquire a distance to the object, based on a difference among respective outputs of the plurality of pixels having received the reflected light [ taught by the photodiodes (42-1 and 42-2) operating in phase detection; paragraph [ 0038 ] states, “…Pixel groups that are used to determine phase difference information such as pixel pair 100 are sometimes referred to herein as phase detection pixels or depth-sensing pixels…” ].
Claim 2 is anticipated because only the third photodiode (42-3) is used for TOF ranging.
Claim 10 is met by the respective TOF output from photodiode (42-3) and the phase detection output of photodiodes (42-1 and 42-2).
With respect to claim 13, Oh discloses: wherein the output unit outputs the second distance as the distance information in a case where a distance to the object is obtained from a difference among respective outputs of the plurality of pixels [ taught by the output of photodiodes (42-1 and 42-2) being phase detected ], and outputs the first distance as the distance information in a case where a distance to the object is not obtained from a difference among respective outputs of the plurality of pixels [ taught by the output of photodiode (42-3) being used for TOF detection ].
Claims 15 and 17 are taught by figure 1.
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 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0213205) in view of Mahara (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0340546).
Claim 14 further recites that the pixels include an avalanche diode.
Paragraph [ 0054 ] of Mahara teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used avalanche diodes (APD) to detect signals in imaging systems.
Therefore, it would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan to have used APDs in the pixels of Oh in that Mahara et al taught they were known to provide the function of detection.
With regard to claim 16, paragraph [ 0230 ] of Mahara teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used imaging systems (7410) including TOF cameras to facilitate the control of a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the technology of Oh in a moving body (vehicle) because Mahara taught this was a known use of imaging systems including TOF cameras.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0213205) in view of Toda (WO 2021199219 A1).
Toda disclose that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a first ranging unit (11a) to measure range by the phase difference method in combination with a second ranging unit (12) using TOF distance measuring wherein page 5 of the translation states, “…If the second distance measuring unit 12 cannot be used, or if it is determined that the distance measured by the second distance measuring unit 12 cannot be adopted as the distance to the subject 20 even if the second distance measuring unit 12 can be used, the acquisition unit 13 Acquires a distance based on the information included in the output of the first distance measuring unit 11a as a reference value for the distance…”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting the device of Oh in accordance with claim 12, when seeking to keep the device capable of measuring range in states wherein there is no TOF data, as taught by Toda.
Claim 3 is met by the combination of Oh and Toda, as applied to claim 12, because a situation wherein there is no TOF data implicitly means the phase detection pixels have a larger output.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0213205) in view of Ronchini Ximenes et al (United States Patent No. 12,356,088).
The subject matter of claims 4-6 differs from Oh by specifying that the TOF detection be done via a histogram intensity distribution based on a peak of photon counts.
Figure 14A of Ronchini Ximenes et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a histogram intensity distribution based on a peak of photon counts in order to determine range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Oh to use the histogram processing taught by Ronchini Ximenes et al because the device of Oh required known means of determining range from TOF data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 11 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights