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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 08/19/2025 in which claims 1 and 3-15 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Currently claims 1 and 3-15 are pending for examination in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/19/2025 with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of claims 1-15.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/19/2025 with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections of claims 1-15.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/19/2025 with respect to the rejection of Claim 2 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection (pertaining to amended independent claims) is made in view of Keller (US 20190170855 A1) (Previously cited).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwata (JP 2017125682 A) in view of Dutton (US 20120162632 A1), further in view of Keller (US 20190170855 A1).
Claim 1: Kiwata teaches a measurement device comprising:
generate a signal to provide an instruction on an emission timing to emit a pulse of laser light repeatedly for each processing cycle of a plurality of processing cycles, (Fig 1, pulse generation unit 130 and pg. 6 of attached PDF);
wherein the plurality of processing cycles is associated with the measurement device (Fig. 6),
emit the pulse of the laser light at the emission timing based on the generated signal (Fig 1, light projection control unit 130 and pg. 6 of attached PDF);
receive reflected light based on the emitted pulse of the laser light, wherein the reflected light is received after reflection of the emitted pulse of the laser light by a distance measurement target (Fig. 1, light receiving unit 150 and pg. 4).
wherein the reflected light is received after reflection of the emitted pulse of the laser light by a distance measurement target (pg 5, calculating distance to target),
provide an emission delay value different for each processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles, wherein the emission delay value
instruct for the emission of the pulse of the laser light
Kiwata does not teach a counter configured to continuously count a count code at a time of switching the processing cycle,
the count code indicating timing at which a pulse of reflected light that is the laser light reflected by a distance measurement target and returned is received.
Dutton teaches a rangefinder ([0024]) which uses a RAM count memory ([0030]) which determines the range using the highest count ([0033]). This highest count is fed into a histogram (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to use the counts, as taught by Dutton, with the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, because this allows for faster processing (See Dutton [0008]).
Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, does not teach, subtract the emission delay value from the count code; and calculate a measurement value corresponding to a first flight time based on the subtraction of the emission delay value from the count code, wherein in the first flight time, the pulse of the laser light reciprocates between the measurement device and the distance measurement target. Instead, Kiwata relies on knowing the delay of each light pulse (pg. 4).
Keller teaches a distance measurement device which emits pulses with a random delay ([0042]), then, upon detection of the pulse, subtracts the delay from the calculated timestamp ([0041]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to use the delay subtraction, as taught by Keller, with the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, because it would be obvious to try, as there are a limited number of ways to remove a delay time from a measured time of flight. In fact, the two main ways are measuring from pulse emission (as taught by Kiwata) or subtracting after measurement (as taught by Keller).
Claim 4: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein,
in case where a distance to the distance measurement target from the measurement device, is set as a target for distance measurement, (Kiwata pg. 5),
a distance measurement range time r the distance measurement range time represents a width of a second flight time in which the pulse of the laser light reciprocates between the measurement device and a distance measurement range, the distance measurement range represents a fixed distance width including the distance (Kiwata pg. 5 - distance measurement target time maximum measurable distance)
and the distance measurement range time is caused to coincide with a time required to count the count code (Kiwata pg. 4 - time calculated based on time elapsed from light emission).
Claim 5: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 4,
wherein the pulse of the laser light has at least two pulse emissions within one processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles (Kiwata pg. 5 - at least once in a period),
the circuitry is further configured to subtract, for each count code of a plurality of the count codes, each emission delay value of a plurality of emission delay values from the count code to obtain the measurement valuer the plurality of emission delay values are timings at which a plurality of distance measurement range times including the count code is started, the plurality of emission delay values includes the emission delay value, and the plurality of distance measurement range times includes the distance measurement range time (Keller [0041]-[0046]).
Claim 7: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the
Claim 9: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 4, wherein the counter is further configured to: shift the distance measurement range time s and obtain a fixed measurement value at a starting point of the distance measurement range time, and the start
Claim 11: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 3, wherein changes circuitry is further configured to: change the emission delay value; and so change a pattern for each processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles based on the change in the emission delay value (Kiwata pg. 7).
Claim 14: As Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1, see rejection above.
Claim 15: A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations
generating a signal for giving to give an instruction on an emission timing to emit a pulse of laser light repeatedly for each
wherein the plurality of processing cycles is associated with the measurement device (Fig. 6),
emitting the pulse of the laser light at the emission timing, based on the generated signal (Fig 1, light projection control unit 130 and pg. 6 of attached PDF); ,
and giving an instruction on the emission delay value (pg. 6 of attached PDF).
receiving reflected light based on the emitted pulse of the laser light, wherein the reflected light is received after reflection of the emitted pulse of the laser light by a distance measurement target (Fig. 1, light receiving unit 150 and pg. 4).
[…]
providing an emission delay value different for each processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles, wherein the emission delay value
instructing for the emission of the pulse of the laser light
Kiwata does not teach continuously counting a count code at a time of switching the processing cycle,
the count code indicating timing at which a pulse of reflected light that is the laser light reflected by a distance measurement target and returned is received.
Dutton teaches a rangefinder ([0024]) which uses a RAM count memory ([0030]) which determines the range using the highest count ([0033]). This highest count is fed into a histogram (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to use the counts, as taught by Dutton, with the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, because this allows for faster processing (See Dutton [0008]).
Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, does not teach, subtract the emission delay value from the count code; and calculate a measurement value corresponding to a first flight time based on the subtraction of the emission delay value from the count code, wherein in the first flight time, the pulse of the laser light reciprocates between the measurement device and the distance measurement target. Instead, Kiwata relies on knowing the delay of each light pulse (pg. 4).
Keller teaches an optical measuring device (title) in which a delay time in generated by circuitry in both the transmitted and received signals ([0014]). To mitigate this, a subtracting circuit is used to subtract delay time voltage from the measurement ([0039]).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the delay subtraction, as taught by Keller, with the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, because this allows a method which does not rely on known variables (as Kiwata’s does), and instead is calculated based on measured variables, thus improving accuracy for different situations.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwata in view of Dutton, further in view of Keller, further in view of Marcus (US 20180299556 A1).
Claim 3: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, but not further comprising:
wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate a histogram of the measurement value
Marcus teaches an imaging system in which a histogram of counts is created ([0054]). This histogram is repeatedly calculated until a peak meats a sharpness threshold ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to use the cyclic histogramming method, as taught by Marcus, with the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, because, as Marcus teaches, this improves signal-to-noise ratio (Marcus [0002]).
Claim 10: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches measurement device according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to change the emission delay value foreach processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles (Kiwata pg. 6 - random number generator).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwata in view of Dutton, further in view of Keller, further in view of Takahashi (US 20100271525 A1).
Claim 6: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, but not further comprising a configuration in which the count code is set as a lower bit and an upper bit, wherein the counter is further configured to separately count the upper bit and the lower bit.
Takahashi teaches an imaging device which uses separate low-bit and high-bit counters ([0216] – adding high and low bits would make it obvious that they are counted separately).
It would have been obvious to add the high and low bit counters, as taught by Takahashi, to the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, as modified by Dutton, because, as Takahashi teaches, this allows higher resolution without increasing a clock frequency (Takahashi [0006]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwata in view of Dutton, further in view of Keller, further in view of Kienzler (US 20170184709 A1).
Claim 8: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the counter is further configured to: change a maximum value of the count code in a first processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles; and change a length of a second processing cycle of the plurality of processing cycles based on the changed maximum value of the count code.
Kienzler teaches an optoelectronic sensor (abstract) which uses varying time cycle ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to add the varying time cycles, as taught by Kienzler, to the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, as modified by Dutton, because this falls under the rational of “making adjustable” (MPEP 2144.04.V.d).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwata in view of Dutton, further in view of Keller, further in view of Srikantha (Signal Processing).
Claim 12: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton and Keller, teaches the measurement device according to claim 11,
wherein, in case where a distance to the distance measurement target from the measurement device, is set as a target for distance measurement (Kiwata pg. 5),
a width of a second flight timer in which the pulse of the laser light reciprocates between the measurement device and a distance measurement range representing a fixed distance width including the distances is set as a distance measurement range time (Kiwata pg. 5 - distance measurement target time maximum measurable distance).
Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, does not teach the circuitry is further configured to: detect the reflected light of the pulse of the laser light outside the distance measurement range time; predict[ing] a histogram shape of a ghost measurement value, wherein the histogram shape of the ghost measurement value is caused by of the reflected light of the pulse of the laser light land extract the histogram shape of the ghost measurement value- based on a pattern in which the emission delay value changes.
Srikantha teaches a method of detecting and removing ghost artifacts from a histogram (subsection 3.8 – defining ghost maps and subsection 4 – ghost removal).
It would have been obvious to use the ghost detection and removal method, as taught by Srikantha, with the measurement device as taught by Kiwata, as modified by Dutton, because it mitigates errors caused by exposure (See Srikantha – 1st paragraph under introduction).
Claim 13: Kiwata, as modified in view of Dutton, Keller, and further in view of Srikantha, teaches the measurement device according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform calculation processing for the histogram shape of the ghost measurement value. (Srikantha section 3.8 – showing predetermined calculations).
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/VICTORIA MURPHY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100