APPLE INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 20212020002940 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/586,300 05/04/2017 Cristiano L. Niclass P32637US1/1020-1177.1 3200 123590 7590 05/28/2021 KLIGLER & ASSOCIATES PATENT ATTORNEYS LTD. P.O. BOX 57651 TEL AVIV, 61576 ISRAEL EXAMINER ASKARIAN, AMIR J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): INFO@DKPAT.CO.IL alon@dkpat.co.il daniel@dkpat.co.il PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRISTIANO L. NICLASS, ALEXANDER SHPUNT, GENNADIY A. AGRANOV, and THIERRY OGGIER Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–17, and 19. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed invention addresses the problem of LiDAR distance measurements in noisy, cluttered environments using a novel combination of statistical and signal processing techniques. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellant summarizes the combination of statistical and signal processing as (i) a laser emits a sequence of pulses in a temporal pattern with irregular intervals between the pulses in the sequence, (ii) control and processing circuitry computes a histogram of the times of arrival indicated by the output signals from avalanche photobodies, and (iii) control and processing circuitry then finds the times of flight for the points in the scene by filtering the histogram with a finite-impulse-response (FIR) filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the emitted pulses. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 2. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Depth-sensing apparatus, comprising: a laser, which is configured to emit pulses of optical radiation toward a scene; one or more avalanche photodiodes, which are configured to receive the optical radiation that is reflected from points in the scene and to output signals indicative of respective times of arrival of the received radiation; and control and processing circuitry, which is coupled to drive the laser to emit a sequence of the pulses in a predefined temporal pattern that specifies irregular intervals between the pulses in the sequence, to compute a histogram of the times of arrival indicated by the output signals, and to correlate the output signals with the temporal pattern by filtering the histogram with a finite- impulse-response filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the emitted pulses in order to find respective times of flight for the points in the scene, Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 3 wherein the control and processing circuitry is configured to detect, for a given point, multiple echoes in correlating the output signals with the temporal pattern, each echo corresponding to a different time of flight for the given point. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date McConnell US 2006/0106317 A1 May 18, 2006 Meneely US 2010/0045965 A1 Feb. 25, 2010 Schmidt US 2012/0176476 A1 July 12, 2012 Charbon SPAD Based Image Sensors Dec. 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Meneely in view of Charbon, further in view of McConnell. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meneely in view of Charbon, further in view of Schmidt. Final Act. 7. OPINION Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 14 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites Meneely’s LiDAR-based system for most of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, but the Examiner notes that Meneely does not expressly disclose the limitations relating to avalanche photodiodes or filtering a histogram with a finite- impulse-response (“FIR”) filter kernel, as claimed. Final Act. 3–5 (citing Meneely ¶¶ 3, 6, 22, 24, 27, 33–38, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11–13). For the elements missing from Meneely, the Examiner cites Charbon’s disclosures Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 4 of avalanche photodiodes and teachings of FIR filters from McConnell, along with alleged applicant admitted prior art describing known processes of filtering histograms. Final Act. 3–5. Of particular note, for the claim language “to compute a histogram of the times of arrival indicated by the output signals,” the Examiner cites Meneely and “applicant admitted as well-known prior art in p. 11 lns. 17–24 [of Appellant’s Specification].” Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). Similarly, for the language “by filtering the histogram with a finite-impulse-response filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the emitted pulses,” the Examiner cites McConnell and the same portion of Appellant’s Specification. Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted). The cited portion of the Specification describes finding respective times of flight for points in a scene by correlating output signals from an imaging assembly with a predefined temporal pattern, and the Specification states “[t]his correlation may be carried out by any suitable algorithm and computational logic that are known in the art.” Spec. 11:17–19. “For example, processing chip 38 may compute a cross-correlation between the temporal pattern and the output signals by filtering a histogram of photon arrival times from each point in the scene with a finite-impulse-response (FIR) filter kernel that matches the temporal pattern of the transmitted pulses.” Spec. 11:19–24. Appellant argues that none of the cited references teaches or suggests histogram computation or histogram filtering, as required by claims 1 and 11. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues the Examiner’s citation of Appellant’s Specification as admitted prior art amounts to improper hindsight and that nothing in the Specification amounts to an admission that Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 5 the claimed technique belongs to the prior art. Appeal Br. 6–7 (“The entire basis for the Examiner’s argument that this technique is obvious in the context of [time-of-flight]-based depth sensing is the description in the present [S]pecification.”). In response, the Examiner states in the Answer that the broadest reasonable construction of claim term “histogram” in view of Appellant’s Specification is a “collection, representation, or display of data.” Ans. 5 (citing Spec. 14:6–7). Appellant argues, and we agree, that that expression of “histogram” is too broad; although a histogram may be one type of collection, representation, or display of data, as noted by Appellant, a histogram denotes an organized collection of numerical data in a set of intervals commonly referred to as bins or buckets. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner’s rejection, however, does not turn on the interpretation of histogram stated in the Answer. As cited by the Examiner, Meneely describes a LiDAR system that includes control processing circuitry to drive a laser and compute the times of arrival indicated by the output signals. Final Act. 4 (citing Meneely, Figs. 7–9). As noted by Appellant, Meneely computes and displays collected data in a variety of graphical representations. Appeal Br. 5–6 (describing Meneely Figures); see Final Act. 4–5. Appellant’s Specification refers to control and processing circuitry that collects a histogram, but the Specification does not provide particular description or detail of the histogram or circuitry. Spec. 11:17–24, 14:4–9, Fig. 5. To the contrary, the Specification describes use of “any suitable algorithm and computational logic that are known in the art,” and the Specification describes as one example of the use of such known algorithms and computational logic as Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 6 computing a cross-correlation between the temporal pattern and the output signal by filtering a histogram of photon arrival times. Spec. 11:17–21. At least because the Specification thus relies on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to supply the known algorithm and logic, a person of ordinary skill would possess the same knowledge when reading the prior art. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Board’s determination that the lack of technical details in an appellant’s specification evidences technical details a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when reading prior art). As such, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed control and processing circuitry of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, including Appellant’s statements regarding generic circuitry applying any suitable algorithm and computational logic, an example of which includes filtering a histogram of photon arrival times. Accordingly, we do not find reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and for the same reasons, dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 13, and 14, which Appellant does not address separately. Claims 5 and 15 Dependent claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites a scanner configured to scan the pulses of optical radiation over the scene, wherein the controller is configured to drive the laser to emit the pulses in different, predefined temporal patterns toward different points in the scene. As noted by Appellant, claim 15 depends from claim 11 and adds similar limitations. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner cites Meneely as teaching driving a laser to emit different temporal patterns toward different points in a scene. Final Act. 6 Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 7 (citing Meneely ¶¶ 20–25, Figs. 1, 2). Appellant contends Meneely teaches use of the same pseudo-random pulse sequence at each transmission interval, which, according to Appellant, is the opposite of claims 5 and 15. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that Meneely teaches pseudo- random pulses transmitted during each transmission interval, which amounts to emitting pulses in different, predefined temporal patterns, as claimed. Ans. 9. Appellant argues “[t]he fact that a given sequence of numbers is ‘pseudo-random’ simply means that the timing intervals between the pulses are generated in a pattern that appears to be random, rather than regular.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Meneely ¶ 22). Further, Appellant argues Meneely describes that “[t]his same sequence, with the same pseudo-random intervals, can be repeated as many times as desired while the pulse transmitter scans across a scene.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Meneely ¶ 22). Consistent with the Examiner’s explanation, claim 1 requires a control circuitry “to drive the laser to emit a sequence of the pulses in a predefined temporal pattern that specifies irregular intervals between the pulses in the sequence,” with claim 6 further specifying driving the laser to emit the pulses in different, predefined temporal patterns. We agree with the Examiner that Meneely teaches emitting pulses in different, predefined temporal patterns, even if the same sequence is produced at each transmission interval. Meneely ¶ 22. Accordingly, we do not find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 15. Claims 6 and 16 Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further requires an array of avalanche photodiodes and objective optics which are configured to focus a Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 8 locus in the scene that is illuminated by each of the pulses onto a region of the array containing multiple avalanche photodiodes. The Examiner cites the combination of Meneely and Charbon (Final Act. 7 (citing Charbon, Figs. 9, 13)) for teaching an array of photodiodes, and the combined teachings of Meneely, Charbon, and Schmidt for teaching objective optics configured to focus a locus in the scene that is illuminated by each of the pulses (Final Act. 7 (citing Schmidt ¶¶ 49, 55)). Appellant argues Schmidt’s radiation source illuminates an entire scene and a lens focuses the reflected radiation from each point in the scene onto one of the pixels of the radiation detector, which, according to Appellant, is an entirely different principle from the claimed invention and the teachings of Meneely and Charbon. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Schmidt ¶¶ 36, 39, 49, Fig. 1). Appellant argues Charbon’s avalanche photobodies would not work in pixels as disclosed in Schmidt and therefore a person of ordinary skill would not have considered modifying Charbon’s SPAD-based image sensor based on the optical scheme in Schmidt. Appeal Br. 9. Further, Appellant contends there is no suggestion in Schmidt of focusing any locus in the scene onto more than a single pixel. Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, nothing in Schmidt teaches focusing a locus in the scene that is illuminated by a laser pulse onto a particular region containing multiple pixels. Reply Br. 5. We disagree with Appellant. Describing Figure 1, Schmidt describes an optical lens 17 for focusing reflected radiation 15 onto a radiation detector 14. Schmidt ¶¶ 36, 39. Schmidt teaches that its detector has a multitude of detection units (161-1, 161-2, . . . 161-M) combined in a pixel 161, with a ToF sensor containing a multitude of such pixels. Schmidt ¶ 49; Appeal 2020-002940 Application 15/586,300 9 see Schmidt ¶ 36 (“Said pixels each comprise two or more detection units each detecting samples of a sample set of two or more samples.”). Further, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Charbon’s teachings regarding using avalanche photodiodes in relation to detector pixels. Ans. 10. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9–11, 13–17, and 19 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 103 Meneely, Charbon, McConnell 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19 103 Meneely, Charbon, Schmidt 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19 Overall Outcome 1, 3–7, 9– 11, 13–17, 19 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation