DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 12-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-11 and 19-20 are amended and pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 19 is 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.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 19 is a functional duplicate of a limitation already addressed in Claim 1. The claim fails to narrow the scope of the claim from which it depends, thus should either be amended to add further limitations, or be cancelled.
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) 1, 3-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasawa (US 2009/0108184) in view of Ay (US 2018/0147062).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwasawa teaches system for detecting an object [Fig 1; 0037], comprising a laser distance measuring device [#1 of Fig 1; 0037] configured to generate a laser beam into a detection range [#2, #9, #14 of Fig 1; 0040] and receive the laser beam reflected from the detection range [#10, #11, #15 of Fig 1; 0041]; (a reference object) has a reflection surface which reflects the laser beam back to the laser distance measuring device when there is no object between the … device and the reference object in a reference angular range located in the target space, the reference angular range being provided as an angular range in which the laser beam is scanned toward the reference object; [0039; 0047; 0054-56]; wherein the laser distance measuring device comprises;]; a laser beam generating unit to generate the laser beam; [#2, #9, #14, of Fig 1; 0020; 0040; 0044]; a drive unit configured to drive the reflection unit to change a reflection direction of the reflected laser beam to scan the detection range spatially including the target space [#19, #20 of Fig 1; 0020]; a reflection unit configured to reflect the laser beam generated by the laser beam generating unit toward the detection range [#8, #9, #14, #19 of Fig 1; 0044] a light receiving unit configured to receive the laser beam reflected from the detection range [#10, #11, #15 of Fig 1; 0041]; and a control unit configured to: measure a distance and a direction to any object which is present in the target space based on a time elapsed from when the laser beam is generated by the laser beam generating unit to a timing when the laser beam reflected from the detection range is received by the light receiving unit [#4 of Fig 1; 0042]; …such that the reflected-back laser beam is transmitted to the light receiving unit via the reflection unit whenever there is no object between the laser distance measuring device and the reference object in the reference angular range [Fig 4, 5; 0055-56]; ii) determine whether the reference object is detected or not in the reference angular range based on the measured direction and distance [Fig 4, 5; 0055-56] and iii) determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and the reference object in the reference angular range when it is determined that the reference object is not detected and (b) that the object is not present between … when it is determined that the reference object is detected [Fig 4, 5; 0054-56]. Iwasawa does not explicitly teach – but Ay does teach a reference object that (1) extends longitudinally upward relative to and vertically above a ground surface being placed in the target space [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183] … (2) positioned fixedly at a known position in a target space which is set within the detection range such that the reference object is positionally opposed to the laser distance measuring device [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183], and also teaches (3) has a reflection surface which reflects the laser beam back to the laser distance measuring device when there is no object between the … device and the reference object in a reference angular range located in the target space, the reference angular range being provided as an angular range in which the laser beam is scanned toward the reference object [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183]. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Iwasawa to include a reflective reference object such that the target objects can be the same object or a different object as compared to at least one of the objects in the reference object set.
Regarding Claim 19, this limitation is a duplicate of the limitation already addressed in Claim 1. See Ay [0159; 0172; 0183].
Regarding Claim 3, Iwasawa also discloses wherein the reference object is composed of a plurality of reference objects provided adjacent to each other in the target space, control unit is configured to determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and each of the reference objects when it is determined that the reference objects are not detected at the known predetermined position in the reference angular range [0039; 0047; 0051-56], and identify a person
Regarding Claim 4, Iwasawa also teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine presence or absence of abnormality based on a determination result by the object determination unit, wherein the control unit determines that there is an abnormality when presence of the object is continuously determined for a period of time exceeding a predetermined abnormality determination time [0007; 0043; 0052; 0057; 0065; 0078].
Regarding Claim 5, Iwasawa also teaches wherein at least three of the reference objects are provided adjacent to each other, and the control unit is configured to determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and each of the reference objects. [Fig 4, 5; 0055-56]. Ay also teaches this limitation in [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183].
Regarding Claim 6, Iwasawa also teaches wherein at least one of the plurality (three) of the reference objects, which are disposed adjacent to each other, has a width smaller than a size of torso of a person, the reference objects being arranged with a distance therebetween larger than that of a torso of a person, and the control unit is configured to determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and each of the plurality of the reference objects [Fig 4, 5; 0050-52; 0055-56]. Ay also teaches this limitation in [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183].
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Iwasawa also teaches wherein a plurality of the reference objects are provided adjacent to each other at a predetermined interval therebetween in the target space, and, when it is determined that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and the plurality of the reference objects, the control unit is configured to identify whether the object is a plurality of persons or a person and an object other than the person based on a detection result for an object other than between the laser distance measuring device and the reference objects [Fig 5,6; 0055-57].
Regarding Claim 18, Iwasawa also teaches wherein the laser distance measuring device is provided as an object detection system configured to detect the object based on the presence or absence of the object between the object detection system and the reference object [Fig 4, 5; 0047; 0051-56].
Claim(s) 2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasawa (US 2009/0108184) and Ay (US 2018/0147062), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 2019/0039627).
Regarding Claim 2, Iwasawa does not explicitly teach – but Yamamoto does teach wherein the reference object is composed of a plurality of the reference objects provided in the target space, and the control unit is configured to determine a moving direction of the object based on a determination result … [0024-26], the control unit is configured to determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and each of the reference objects when the reference object determination determines that the reference objects are not detected at the known position in the reference angular range [0024-26], and determine a moving direction of the object based on an order in which presence of the object has been determined [0024-26]. It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Iwasawa to include a moving direction determination unit to distinguish between stationary and moving object to avoid collisions or anticipate an event in the environment.
Regarding Claim 9, Iwasawa also discloses wherein at least three of the reference objects are provided adjacent to each other, and control unit is configured to determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and each of the reference objects [Fig 4, 5; 0055-56]. Ay also teaches this limitation in [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183].
Regarding Claim 10, Iwasawa also teaches wherein at least one of the plurality (three) of the reference objects, which are disposed adjacent to each other, has a width smaller than a size of a torso of a person, the reference objects being arranged with a distance therebetween larger than the size of the torso of the person, and the control unit is configured to determine that the object is present between the laser distance measuring device and each of the plurality of the reference objects [Fig 4, 5; 0050-52; 0055-56]. Ay also teaches this limitation in [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183].
Regarding Claim 11, Iwasawa also teaches wherein the plurality of the reference objects are provided adjacent to each other at a predetermined interval therebetween in the target space, and, when it is determined that an object is present between the laser distance measuring device and the plurality of the reference objects, the control unit is configured to further identify whether the object is a plurality of persons or a person and an object other than the person based on a detection result for an object other than between the laser distance measuring device and the reference objects [Fig 5,6; 0055-57]. Ay also teaches this limitation in [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasawa (US 2009/0108184) and Ay (US 2018/0147062), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Keeffe (US 2018/0059248).
Regarding Claim 20, Iwasawa does not explicitly teach – but O’Keeffe teaches a reflection surface of the reference object is located on a wall surface above the ground… [0081]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Iwasawa to use a wall as a reflective surface to return a predictable, time invariant, homogeneous reflection response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Primary reference Iwasawa teaches a distance measuring unit, angular scanning, detecting presence (or absence) of target objects in an environment – and including software to measure bodily dimensions of a person in the target area of interest (see Paragraph 7 above). Secondary reference Ay adds more details regarding the numerous types of objects that can be used as reference objects (chairs and tables read on the limitation of objects extending vertically/longitudinally upward from the ground surface), what the advantage is, and specifically described measuring the torso/chest area of a person in the area of interest in cited paragraphs [0126; 0159; 0172; 0183] amongst others.
Amendments to independent Claim 1 mostly amount to a reorganization of the elements for clarity, as opposed to substantial changes in details or scope, or the introduction of new elements.
In response to applicant’s arguments on Page 11 regarding the determination of a reference or detected object, if the system has a reference object at a known distance away, if there are no detected other objects in the area, the measured distance will match the predetermined reference distance (an expected distance estimate). Any object present would inherently, or obviously, be placed in between, thus the system would recognize the reduced time-of-flight to the detected objects which were between the sensor and reference objects. One having ordinary skill in the art would use the details of references Iwasawa and Ay to produce this predictable result.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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 on 5712705227. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645