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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 February 2025 by the applicant has been considered and is included in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "340b" and "338b" have both been used to designate the same crosstalk / internal reflection arrow as shown in Fig. 3. Similarly, reference characters "342b" and "344b" have both been used to designate the same crosstalk / internal reflection arrow as shown in Fig. 3.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "340b" and "342b" have both been used to designate the same crosstalk / internal reflection arrow as shown in Fig. 7. Similarly, reference characters "338b" and "344b" have both been used to designate the same crosstalk / internal reflection arrow as shown in Fig. 7.
The examiner also notes that in addition to the use of multiple reference characters in relation to what appears to be a singular internal reflectance (crosstalk) arrow, there is an inconsistency in which combination of reference characters are used to relate to the first or second signals. For example, in Fig. 3, “338b” and “340b” are used to refer to the same signal arrow, but in Fig. 7, it appears “338b” and “344b” reference the same signal arrow. The inconsistencies between combinations, and multiple reference characters appearing to designate the same arrow/signal may lead to confusion when referencing the claims in view of the specification and drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 19 both refer to “…after each integration period.”, however no time periods, including integration periods, have been introduced in either the claims or those they depend on. In light of the specification ([0062] – [0065]), these claims are understood to intend an integration/accumulation period for the optical receiver to occur after each emission cycle. A suggested clarification may be “wherein the alternating between generating the first signal having the first polarization state and the second signal having the second polarization state occurs after an integration period.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marquardt et al. (hereinafter Marquardt, US 20100280765 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Marquardt anticipates an optical ranging sensor and method of operation, respectively, comprising:
an optical transmitter configured to generate a first signal having a first polarization state and a second signal having a second polarization state ([0032] - [0037], [0074]; Fig. 1, transmitter subsystem (101) includes source (102) which includes transmit polarization controllers (TPC) (105, 106) allow for beams (107, 108) to have desired polarization states, and where the system may output differing polarization states);
an optical receiver configured to generate:
a first feedback signal resulting from one or more reflections of the first signal;
and a second feedback signal resulting from one or more reflections of the second signal ([0032] - [0035]; Fig. 1 receiver (115) includes multiple detectors (122, 123, 124, 125) which detect reflected signals (118), where the reflected signals (118) from emitted signals are separated within the receiver by wavelength and polarization state);
and a controller (Fig. 1, signal processor (126) and system controller (128)) configured to:
generate a target feedback signal based on a comparison of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal ([0035] - [0036], [0038]; where the signal processor (126) captures detected signals by detectors (122-125), where data from one polarization state in a first detection event is collected separately from data in a second detection event and the system uses various combinations of detected light to capture depolarization and/or wavelength based information);
and determine a proximity of a target based on the target feedback signal ([0075]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Marquardt anticipates the optical ranging sensor of claim 1, and the method of claim 12, respectively, wherein
the target feedback signal corresponds to a portion of the first signal reflected off the target ([0004], [0033], [0043]; Figs. 1, 2 where light reflected off target (such as 112) is directed into receivers and used to determine information).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Marquardt anticipates the optical ranging sensor of claim 1, and the method of claim 12 wherein
the proximity of the target is based on a time-of-flight associated with the target feedback signal ([0075]).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, Marquardt anticipates the optical ranging sensor of claim 1, and the method of claim 12, respectively, wherein
the first polarization state is orthogonal to the second polarization state,
the optical transmitter is configured to alternate between generating the first signal having the first polarization state and the second signal having the second polarization state, wherein the optical transmitter alternates between generating the first signal having the first polarization state and the second signal having the second polarization state after each integration period ([0024], [0033] - [0035]; Fig. 1 where the two emitted beams (103) and (104) are given desired polarization states, such as a horizontal linear polarization alternating with a vertical linear polarization, and where data is collected for one polarization state, followed by a change in settings and collection of data for the orthogonal polarization state).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10-11, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquardt et al. (hereinafter Marquardt, US 20100280765 A1) in view of Mateus et al. (hereinafter Mateus, US 20250052863 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Marquardt teaches the optical ranging sensor of claim 2 and the method of claim 13, but does not teach comparing histograms associated with the first and second feedback signals.
Mateus teaches a depth mapping sensing apparatus, where to generate a signal, the system is configured to
generate a first histogram corresponding to the first feedback signal;
generate a second histogram corresponding to the second feedback signal;
and generate the target feedback signal based on a comparison of the first histogram and the second histogram (pg. 10, 2nd column; wherein for each sequence of pulses the receiver collects a histogram and information on the target and time-of-flight of signals, and the difference between histograms is used to determine information about the target signal).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Marquardt to incorporate the teachings of Mateus to utilize a comparison of histograms for signals to determine a target signal with a reasonable expectation of success. While histogram collection of emission or emission sequences is known in the art of time-of-flight imaging, as taught by Mateus, collecting histogram data for differing pulse sequences allows the system to compare different collection windows, depth ranges and operating parameters between pulse sequences (pg. 11, col. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Marquardt teaches the optical ranging sensor of claim 9, but is silent on use of a vertical cavity surface emitting laser as an emitter.
Mateus teaches a depth mapping sensing apparatus, where to generate a signal, the system utilizes an optical transmitter which is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser ([0036], [0065]; where the light emitting device (10) may be a VCSEL array).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Marquardt to incorporate the teachings of Mateus to utilize a VCSEL as the emitters within a system with a reasonable expectation of success. Use of VCSELs within the system of Marquardt would be considered a simple substitution of two elements with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially in light of Marquardt teaching use of emitter options such as diode-lasers and LEDs to reduce costs ([0073]).
Regarding claim 11, Marquardt as modified above teaches the optical ranging sensor of claim 10, wherein
the laser is configured to generate the first signal having the first polarization state and the second signal having the second polarization state based on a polarization control signal transmitted by the controller ([0033] - [0035]; Fig. 1, where depending on output of source (102) polarization, the controller may further adjust the polarization emitted by transmit polarization controllers (TPC) (105, 106)).
Regarding claim 20, Marquardt teaches an optical ranging sensor, comprising:
an optical transmitter configured to generate a first signal having a first polarization state and a second signal having a second polarization state ([0032] - [0037], [0074]; Fig. 1, transmitter subsystem (101) includes source (102) which includes transmit polarization controllers (TPC) (105, 106) allow for beams (107, 108) to have desired polarization states, and where the system may output differing polarization states);
an optical receiver configured to generate:
a first feedback signal resulting from one or more reflections of the first signal;
and a second feedback signal resulting from one or more reflections of the second signal ([0032] - [0035]; Fig. 1 receiver (115) includes multiple detectors (122, 123, 124, 125) which detect reflected signals (118), where the reflected signals (118) from emitted signals are separated within the receiver by wavelength and polarization state);
and a controller (Fig. 1, signal processor (126) and system controller (128)) configured to:
generate a target feedback signal based on a comparison of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal ([0035] - [0036], [0038]; where the signal processor (126) captures detected signals by detectors (122-125), where data from one polarization state in a first detection event is collected separately from data in a second detection event and the system uses various combinations of detected light to capture depolarization and/or wavelength based information);
and determine a proximity of a target based on the target feedback signal ([0075]).
Marquardt is silent on the use of the optical ranging sensor within a mobile electronic device.
Mateus teaches a mobile electronic device comprising ([0040]; Fig. 25):
a housing ([0140], pg. 8 Col. 1; Fig. 25, mobile device includes device housing (not labeled));
a display screen attached to the housing, the display screen comprising:
a first side configured to emit transmitted light via a plurality of display pixels into an external environment ([0140], pg. 8 Col. 1; Fig. 25, mobile device includes touch screen (130) which acts as display and emits light);
and an optical ranging sensor disposed within the housing, opposite the first side of the display screen ([0140], pg. 8 Col. 1; Fig. 25, mobile device includes optical sensor (152) which is within housing and may be located on the front or back of the mobile device and one or more proximity sensors (154)).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Marquardt to incorporate the teachings of Mateus such that the system of Marquardt, including a transmitter which generates two signals based on differing polarization states and collects reflections, would be utilized in a mobile or handheld device with a reasonable expectation of success. The system of Mateus is directed to emitting (and detecting reflections of) an output beam with a specific polarization, within a handheld device which incorporates an optical sensor for use in collecting images and/or video as well as detecting proximity with a proximity sensor, where proximity sensors in mobile devices may be useful for uses such as detecting when a mobile device should disable a screen (pg. 9, cols. 1-2).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquardt et al. (hereinafter Marquardt, US 20100280765 A1) in view of Sgarz et al. (hereinafter Sgarz, US 20140303928 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Marquardt teaches the optical ranging sensor of claim 1 and the method of claim 12, but does not teach determining a crosstalk signal.
Sgarz teaches a hand tool device, where a controller is configured to determine a crosstalk difference signal by performing a difference between the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal;
and apply a crosstalk function to determine a total crosstalk signal, wherein the crosstalk function relates the crosstalk difference to the total crosstalk signal ([0028] - [0029]; where the computation unit describes a total crosstalk involved in cross-polarization parameters and includes a difference of co-polarization parameters
S
v
h
and
S
v
v
, found in a complex fashion).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Marquardt to incorporate the teachings of Sgarz to determine a crosstalk function by finding a difference between two signals with a reasonable expectation of success. Sgarz notes that information such as scattering parameters and cross-polarization/crosstalk allow distance measurement systems to both detect locatable objects, but also to offer accurate calculations for orientation information ([0004] – [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Marquardt as modified above teaches the optical ranging sensor of claim 4, but does not teach determining a crosstalk function during a specific calibration period.
However, it would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a calibration period to determine sources of noise, such as internal reflections or crosstalk. Marquardt mentions utilizing calibration experiments prior to, and during, the construction of the system to determine other variables ([0072]), and it would be well known that, as is explicitly taught by Schmidt et al. (US 20190116355 A1, [0104]), calibration cycles prior to, during, or after operation of a ToF/LiDAR/optical ranging sensors are commonly used to determine factors such as background light, internal reflectance, or system window obscuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geiger et al. (US 20220128688 A1) teaches an optical sensor module where crosstalk effects caused by internal reflections can be reduced or mitigated by controlling emitted polarization of signals.
Faraon et al. (US 20220214219 A1) teaches a device for a polarization sensitive image sensor, where cross-talk between signals at the polarization camera images can be determined by corresponding Stokes parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights