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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-013734, filed on 01/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (lDS) submitted on 01/20/2022 and 01/06/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 25, “a distance measurement” should read --the distance measurement--.
Regarding claim 1, line 26, “optical noise” should read --an optical noise--.
Regarding claim 8, line 27, “optical noise” should read --an optical noise--.
Claims 2-7 and 8-14 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 18-24 recite “stores an average amplitude and an initial phase of a noise signal… as electrical noise in the storage unit.” Lines 26-28 recite “the electrical noise and optical noise stored in advance as an average amplitude and an initial phase in the storage unit.” Firstly, it is unclear whether the recitation of “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 27 refers to the “average amplitude” and “initial phase” recited in line 18, or instead introduces a separate “average amplitude” and “initial phase.” Secondly, the scope of “the electrical noise and optical noise stored in advance as an average amplitude and an initial phase in the storage unit” (lines 26-28) is unclear as to whether: (i) both electrical noise and optical noise are each stored as their own average amplitude and initial phase, (ii) only the electrical noise is stored as an average amplitude and initial phase drawing antecedence from line 18, or (iii) a single pair of “average amplitude” and “initial phase” collectively represents the combination of both electrical noise and optical noise.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 12-14 recite “calculate a distance to the measuring object from an initial phase of the distance-measuring signal.” Lines 29-31 recite “calculates a distance to the measuring object based on an initial phase of the true distance-measuring signal.” It is unclear whether the claim requires: (i) two different distances to be calculated (i.e., once from the “distance-measuring signal” and a second from the “true distance-measuring signal”), or (ii) the same distance to be calculated twice (i.e., once from the “distance-measuring signal” and again from the “true distance-measuring signal”).
Regarding claim 2, line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recites the limitation “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. It is unclear whether the noise signal of claim 2 line 4 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 1, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 2, line 12 recites “a noise signal.” Line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recites the limitation “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. It is unclear whether the noise signal of claim 2 line 12 is the same noise signal of line 4, is directed to the noise signal of claim 1, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 2, lines 10-11 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 2 lines 10-11 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 1, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 2, lines 17-19 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Lines 10-11 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recites the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 2 lines 17-19 is the same multiplication factor and optimum value of lines 10-11, is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 1, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 2, lines 5-11 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1a) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster transmits light most, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of claim 2 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, steps (1a), (2) and (3) do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1a)–(3).
Further regarding claim 2, lines 13-19 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of claim 2 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of claim 2 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (claim 1, lines 7-9) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Regarding claim 3, lines 3-5 recite “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the object lens is to emit distance-measuring light toward the night sky without obstacles.” Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance-measuring light” of claim 3 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Therefore, it is unclear how there exists light reflected from an object if the emitted light is directed towards the night sky absent any obstacles to reflect the light.
Regarding claim 4, lines 3-5 recite “an average amplitude and an initial phase.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 18 and again in line 27. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of claim 4 is directed towards the recitations in claim 1 or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding claim 4, line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. Claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “a noise signal” of claim 4 line 4 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 1, of claim 2, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 4, line 14 recites “a noise signal.” Line 4 recites the same limitation. Parent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. Claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “a noise signal” of claim 4 line 14 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 4 line 4, of claim 1, of claim 2, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 4, lines 12-13 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 4 lines 12-13 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 1, of claim 2, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 4, lines 19-21 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Lines 12-13 recite another “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 4 lines 19-21 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 4 lines 12-13, of claim 1, of claim 2, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 4, lines 7-13 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1a) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster transmits light most, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of claim 4 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, steps (1a), (2) and (3) do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1a)–(3).
Further regarding claim 4, lines 15-21 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of claim 4 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of claim 4 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (claim 1, lines 7-9) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Regarding claim 5, line 5 recite “the average amplitude and the initial phase.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 18 and again in line 27. Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in lines 3-5. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of claim 5 is directed towards the recitations in claim 1, of claim 4, or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding claim 5, lines 5-6 recite “the noise signal.” Line 7 again recites “the noise signal.” Line 15 again recites “the noise signal.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. Claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 14. It is unclear whether the recitations of “the noise signal” of claim 5 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 1, of claim 2, of claim 4, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 5, lines 13-14 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 12-13 and again in lines 22-23. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 5 lines 13-14 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 1, of claim 2, of claim 4, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 5, lines 20-22 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Lines 13-14 recite another “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 12-13 and again in lines 22-23. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 5 lines 20-22 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 5 lines 13-14, of claim 1, of claim 2, of claim 4, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 5, line 22 recite “predetermined threshold.” Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, also recite the limitation “predetermined threshold” in line 21. It is unclear whether the predetermined threshold of claim 5 is directed towards the predetermined threshold of claim 4, or introduces another predetermined threshold.
Regarding claim 6, lines 3-4 recite “an average amplitude and an initial phase.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 18 and again in line 27. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of claim 6 is directed towards the recitations in claim 1 or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding claim 6, line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. Claim 2, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “a noise signal” of claim 6 line 4 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 1, of claim 2, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 6, line 5 recites “the noise signal.” Line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. Claim 2, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “the noise signal” of claim 6 line 5 is directed to “a noise signal” in claim 6 line 4, to that of claim 1, to that of claim 2, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 6, lines 6-12 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of claim 6 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of claim 6 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (claim 1, lines 7-9) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Further regarding claim 6, lines 10-12 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 2, from which claim 6 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 6 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 1, of claim 2, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Regarding claim 7, lines 5 recite “the average amplitude and the initial phase.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 18 and again in line 27. Claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in 3-4. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of claim 7 is directed towards the recitations in claim 1, of claim 6, or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding claim 7, lines 5-6 twice recites “the noise signal.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 18-19. Claim 2, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. Claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4. It is unclear whether the recitations of “the noise signal” of claim 7 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 1, of claim 2, of claim 6, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding claim 7, lines 6-13 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of claim 7 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of claim 1 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of claim 7 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (claim 1, lines 7-9) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Further regarding claim 7, lines 11-13 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 2, from which claim 7 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. Claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-12. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 7 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of claim 1, of claim 2, of claim 6, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding claim 7, line 13 recite “predetermined threshold.” Claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, also recite the limitation “predetermined threshold” in line 12. It is unclear whether the predetermined threshold of claim 7 is directed towards the predetermined threshold of claim 6, or introduces another predetermined threshold.
Regarding claim 8, lines 19-25 recite “stores an average amplitude and an initial phase of a noise signal… as electrical noise in the storage unit.” Lines 27-29 recite “the electrical noise and optical noise stored in advance as an average amplitude and an initial phase in the storage unit.” Firstly, it is unclear whether the recitation of “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 28 refers to the “average amplitude” and “initial phase” recited in line 19, or instead introduces a separate “average amplitude” and “initial phase.” Secondly, the scope of “the electrical noise and optical noise stored in advance as an average amplitude and an initial phase in the storage unit” (lines 27-29) is unclear as to whether: (i) both electrical noise and optical noise are each stored as their own average amplitude and initial phase, (ii) only the electrical noise is stored as an average amplitude and initial phase drawing antecedence from line 18, or (iii) a single pair of “average amplitude” and “initial phase” collectively represents the combination of both electrical noise and optical noise.
Further regarding claim 8, lines 13-15 recite “calculate a distance to the measuring object from an initial phase of the distance-measuring signal.” Lines 30-32 recite “calculates a distance to the measuring object based on an initial phase of the true distance-measuring signal.” It is unclear whether the claim requires: (i) two different distances to be calculated (i.e., once from the “distance-measuring signal” and a second from the “true distance-measuring signal”), or (ii) the same distance to be calculated twice (i.e., once from the “distance-measuring signal” and again from the “true distance-measuring signal”).
Regarding claim 9, line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Claim 8, from which claim 9 depends, also recites the limitation “a noise signal” in line 20. It is unclear whether the noise signal of claim 9 line 4 is directed towards the noise signal of claim 8, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 9, line 12 recites “a noise signal.” Line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Claim 8, from which Claim 9 depends, also recites the limitation “a noise signal” in line 20. It is unclear whether the noise signal of Claim 9 line 12 is the same noise signal of line 4, is directed to the noise signal of Claim 8, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 9, lines 10-11 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 9 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 9 lines 10-11 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 8, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 9, lines 17-19 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Lines 10-11 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 9 depends, also recites the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 9 lines 17-19 is the same multiplication factor and optimum value of lines 10-11, is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 8, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 9, lines 5-11 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1a) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster transmits light most, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 9 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of Claim 9 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, steps (1a), (2) and (3) do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1a)–(3).
Further regarding Claim 9, lines 13-19 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 9 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of Claim 9 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, It is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of Claim 9 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (Claim 8, lines 8-10) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Regarding Claim 10, lines 3-5 recite “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the object lens is to emit distance-measuring light toward the night sky without obstacles.” Claim 8, from which Claim 10 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance-measuring light” of Claim 10 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Therefore, it is unclear how there exists light reflected from an object if the emitted light is directed towards the night sky absent any obstacles to reflect the light.
Regarding Claim 11, lines 3-4 recite “an average amplitude and an initial phase.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 19 and again in line 28. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of Claim 11 is directed towards the recitations in Claim 8 or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding Claim 11, line 6 recites “a noise signal.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 20. Claim 9, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “a noise signal” of Claim 11 line 6 is directed towards the noise signal of Claim 8, of Claim 9, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 11, line 14 recites “a noise signal.” Line 6 recites the same limitation. Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 20. Claim 9, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “a noise signal” of Claim 11 line 6, of Claim 8, of Claim 9, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 11, lines 12-13 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. Claim 9, from which Claim 11 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 11 lines 12-13 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 8, of Claim 9, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 11, lines 19-21 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Lines 12-13 recite another “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 22-23. Claim 9, from which Claim 11 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 11 lines 19-21 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 11 lines 12-13, of Claim 8, of Claim 9, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 11, lines 7-13 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1a) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster transmits light most, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of Claim 11 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, steps (1a), (2) and (3) do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1a)–(3).
Further regarding Claim 11, lines 15-21 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 11 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of Claim 11 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of Claim 11 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (Claim 8, lines 8-10) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Regarding Claim 12, line 5 recite “the average amplitude and the initial phase.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 12 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 19 and again in line 28. Claim 11, from which Claim 12 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of Claim 12 is directed towards the recitations in Claim 8, of Claim 11, or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding Claim 12, lines 5-6 recite “the noise signal.” Line 7 again recites “the noise signal.” Line 15 again recites “the noise signal.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 12 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 20. Claim 9, from which Claim 12 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. Claim 11, from which Claim 12 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 14. It is unclear whether the recitations of “the noise signal” of Claim 12 is directed towards the noise signal of Claim 8, of Claim 9, of Claim 11, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 12, lines 13-14 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. Claim 9, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. Claim 11, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 12-13 and again in lines 19-21. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 12 lines 13-14 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 8, of Claim 9, of Claim 11, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 12, lines 20-22 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Lines 13-14 recite another “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. Claim 9, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. Claim 11, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 12-13 and again in lines 19-21. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 12 lines 20-22 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 12 lines 13-14, of Claim 8, of Claim 9, of Claim 11, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 12, line 22 recite “predetermined thresholds.” Claim 11, from which Claim 12 depends, also recite the limitation “predetermined thresholds” in line 21. It is unclear whether the predetermined threshold of Claim 12 is directed towards the predetermined threshold of Claim 11, or introduces another predetermined threshold.
Regarding Claim 13, lines 3-4 recite “an average amplitude and an initial phase.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 19 and again in line 28. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of Claim 13 is directed towards the recitations in Claim 8 or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding Claim 13, line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 20. Claim 9, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “a noise signal” of Claim 13 line 4 is directed towards the noise signal of Claim 8, of Claim 9, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 13, line 5 recites “the noise signal.” Line 4 recites “a noise signal.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “a noise signal” in lines 20. Claim 9, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. It is unclear whether the recitations of “the noise signal” of Claim 13 line 5 is directed to “a noise signal” in Claim 13 line 4, to that of Claim 8, to that of Claim 9, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 13, lines 6-12 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 13 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of Claim 13 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of Claim 13 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (Claim 8, lines 8-10) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Further regarding Claim 13, lines 10-12 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 13 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. Claim 9, from which Claim 13 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 13 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 8, of Claim 9, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Regarding Claim 14, lines 5 recite “the average amplitude and the initial phase.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in line 19 and again in line 28. Claim 13, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “an average amplitude and an initial phase” in 3-4. It is unclear whether “an average amplitude and an initial phase” of Claim 14 is directed towards the recitations in Claim 8, of Claim 13, or to introduce another average amplitude and initial phase.
Further regarding Claim 14, lines 5-6 twice recites “the noise signal.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 20. Claim 9, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4 and again in line 12. Claim 13, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “a noise signal” in line 4. It is unclear whether the recitations of “the noise signal” of Claim 14 is directed towards the noise signal of Claim 8, of Claim 9, of Claim 13, or introduces another noise signal.
Further regarding Claim 14, lines 7-13 recite the condition “that the reflected distance measuring light does not enter the object lens by (1) putting the received light amount adjuster into a state where the received light amount adjuster completely blocks light, (2) causing the light source to emit light, and (3) setting a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Claim 8, from which Claim 14 depends, recites “distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object.” It is understood that “the reflected distance measuring light” of Claim 14 refers to the return light that has been reflected by the measuring object of Claim 8 (i.e., “the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object”). Accordingly, it is unclear how steps (1)–(3) of Claim 14 would prevent light reflected from the object from entering the objective lens. Step (1) concerns the received light amount adjuster, which controls light incident on the light receiving element (Claim 8, lines 8-10) and is located optically downstream of the objective lens (Drawings, Fig. 1, received light amount adjuster 21 optically downstream objective lens 60); thus, placing it in a blocking state would not prevent light from entering the objective lens. Steps (2) and (3) likewise do not recite any mechanism that blocks or redirects reflected light before reaching the objective lens. Therefore, it is unclear how the condition that “the reflected distance-measuring light does not enter the objective lens” is satisfied “by” steps (1)–(3).
Further regarding Claim 14, lines 11-13 recite “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value.” Parent Claim 8, from which Claim 14 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 23-24. Claim 9, from which Claim 14 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-11 and again in lines 17-19. Claim 13, from which Claim 14 depends, also recite the limitation “a multiplication factor of the light receiving element to an optimum value” in lines 10-12. It is unclear whether the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 14 is directed towards the multiplication factor and optimum value of Claim 8, of Claim 9, of Claim 13, or introduces another multiplication factor and optimum value.
Further regarding Claim 14, line 13 recite “predetermined thresholds.” Claim 13, from which Claim 14 depends, also recite the limitation “predetermined thresholds” in line 12. It is unclear whether the predetermined threshold of Claim 14 is directed towards the predetermined threshold of Claim 13, or introduces another predetermined threshold.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are further rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikawa (JP2009258006A) in view of Gnecchi (US20180164413A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kikawa teaches an electro-optical distance meter (Fig. 1) comprising:
a light source (Fig. 1, 20) configured to emit distance-measuring light to a measuring object (Fig. 1, L);
a light receiving unit (¶ 4, “a light receiving optical system”) including a light receiving element (Fig. 1, 28) configured to receive the distance-measuring light reflected by the measuring object and convert the received distance-measuring light into a distance-measuring signal (¶ 4, “distance measurement light L is converted into an electric signal as a distance measurement signal M”), and
a received light amount adjuster configured to adjust a light amount entering the light receiving element (Fig. 1, 27; ¶ 17, “a diaphragm that attenuates the distance measurement light incident on the light receiving element”); […];
an