DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 19 November 2025.
Claim 1 was amended; claims 5-8 were cancelled; claim 17 was added; therefore, claims 1-4 and 9-17 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Yoshikazu fails to anticipate “the light emitter is disposed so as to be closer to the object to be measured as the light emitter is farther from the light receiver” (Applicant’s remarks pgs. 7-8) as now recited in claim 1: Applicant’s argument states that “the light emitter is disposed to be farther from the light receiver”. However, the claim does not specify what the light emitter is disposed farther than. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim as meaning that the farthest end of the light receiver (from the emitter) is disposed closer to the object than the closest end of the light receiver (to the emitter). This is essentially then defining which direction the emitter slopes (e.g. towards the receiver (Applicant’s Fig. 7) rather than away from the receiver (Applicant’s Fig. 8)).. This is shown in Yoshikazu Fig. 12 as previously rejected. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Morant fails to render obvious “the measurement apparatus further comprises a light adjustment unit that is provided between the light emission unit of the light emitter and the object to be measured and reduces an optical path length difference or a time difference until the light emitted from the one end and the other end of the light emission unit in the longitudinal direction reaches the object to be measured” (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 9-10) as recited in claim 12 and now 17: Applicant discusses Morant using a combination of input and output sub-prisms to equalize path length differences and states “This configuration does not function with only one of the sub-prisms; an invention using only the ‘outer sub-prims’ or only the ‘input sub-prism’ would not be viable. However, the claim language does not limit to use of a single prism as the light adjustment unit. Additionally, Morant discusses how “the output sub-prism preferably serves as a path-equalising element for light” ([0007]). While Morant is using the output sub-prism to equalize path lengths for light passing through the input sub-prism, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the output sub-prism could be used for other causes of unequal path length (e.g. a sloped emitter) with similar effects using the well-known properties of prisms, with no undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshikazu WO 2020235258 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikazu teaches a measurement apparatus comprising:
a light emitter including a substrate and a light emission unit that emits light in an inclined direction inclined with respect to the substrate and a normal line of the substrate (emitter 100 in Figs. 10 and 12 inclined with substrate 70B in Fig. 10 and emission direction shown in Fig. 12; [0057-59, 61-66]); and
a light receiver that receives, on a light reception surface, reflected light emitted from the light emitter and reflected by an object to be measured (200 in Figs. 11-12, [0060]),
wherein in a case where an angle formed by the light emitted from the light emitter and the substrate of the light emitter is an angle θ1 (0°< θ1< 90°), an angle θ2 formed by the substrate and the light reception surface of the light receiver satisfies 0°< θ2< 180° - 2θ1 (emitter 100 is inclined in Fig. 12 at an angle to the receiver (unlabeled but clear in Fig. 12) and the emitted light is transmitted at an angle to the emitter substrate in Fig. 12, [0061-66]),
wherein the light emitter is disposed so as to be closer to the object to be measured as the light emitter is farther from the light receiver (100 is inclined in Fig. 12 so that as 100 is closer to outside the system (objects in the environment), it is farther from receiver 200, [0054, 61-66]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the angle θ1 and the angle θ2 satisfy
θ
1
+
θ
2
=
90
∘
(the sum of the two angles is θ2 in Fig. 12 which is 90 degrees to the plane of the receiver).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the angle θ1 and the angle θ2 satisfy
θ
1
+
θ
2
=
90
∘
(the sum of the two angles is θ2 in Fig. 12 which is 90 degrees to the plane of the receiver)..
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light receiver receives the reflected light emitted from the light emitter and specularly reflected by the object to be measured (light reflected off objects, [0052-54, 61-66]; examiner notes that the time of flight principle used relies on specular reflections).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 9, wherein in a case where a viewing angle of the light receiver is θr, the angle θ1 and the angle θ2 satisfy
90
∘
-
θ
r
<
θ
1
+
θ
2
<
90
∘
+
θ
r
(Figs. 9, 11-13; [0060-66]; examiner notes that if receiver 200 is detecting reflected light emitted from 100, this equation is inherently satisfied).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in a case where a distance between the light emitter and the object to be measured is L1 and a distance between the light receiver and the object to be measured is L2, a distance X between the light emission unit of the light emitter and the light receiver along the light reception surface satisfies
X
=
L
1
+
L
2
×
t
a
n
(
θ
1
+
θ
2
)
(This is inherently the geometry of an light emitter, object, and detector system such as in Fig. 9-13, [0060-66]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu WO 2020235258 A1 in view of Arima US 20230384490 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitter further includes a diffusion plate that is provided between the light emission unit and the object to be measured and diffuses and transmits the light emitted from the light emission unit toward the object to be measured.
Arima teaches a diffusing plate applied to a LIDAR light source ([0226-227])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu such that the light emitter further includes a diffusion plate that is provided between the light emission unit and the object to be measured and diffuses and transmits the light emitted from the light emission unit toward the object to be measured similar to Arima with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving light distribution properties (Arima: Abstract, [0009]).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu WO 2020235258 A1 in view of Morant US 20170285453 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emission unit of the light emitter extends in a longitudinal direction along the substrate (all components in light emitter 100 extend along a longitudinal direction of substrate 70B in Fig. 10, [0057-59]), is disposed so as to approach the object to be measured from one end to the other end in the longitudinal direction (100 extends towards outside the system (towards emission direction and objects) in Fig. 12, [0061-66]), and emits the light in the inclined direction inclined in the longitudinal direction (100 emits light at angle θ1 in Fig. 12, [0061-66]),
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach the measurement apparatus further comprises a light adjustment unit that is provided between the light emission unit of the light emitter and the object to be measured and reduces an optical path length difference or a time difference until the light emitted from the one end and the other end of the light emission unit in the longitudinal direction reaches the object to be measured.
Morant teaches a prism used for equalization of optical path lengths of light to be emitted to help reduce or remove optical distortions ([0007])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu to include a light adjustment unit that is provided between the light emission unit of the light emitter and the object to be measured and reduces an optical path length difference or a time difference until the light emitted from the one end and the other end of the light emission unit in the longitudinal direction reaches the object to be measured. similar to Morant with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping reduce or remove optical distortions in emitted light (Morant: [0007]).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshikazu teaches a measurement apparatus comprising:
a light emitter including a substrate and a light emission unit that emits light in an inclined direction inclined with respect to the substrate and a normal line of the substrate (emitter 100 in Figs. 10 and 12 inclined with substrate 70B in Fig. 10 and emission direction shown in Fig. 12; [0057-59, 61-66]); and
a light receiver that receives, on a light reception surface, reflected light emitted from the light emitter and reflected by an object to be measured (200 in Figs. 11-12, [0060]),
wherein in a case where an angle formed by the light emitted from the light emitter and the substrate of the light emitter is an angle θ1 (0°< θ1< 90°), an angle θ2 formed by the substrate and the light reception surface of the light receiver satisfies 0°< θ2< 180° - 2θ1 (emitter 100 is inclined in Fig. 12 at an angle to the receiver (unlabeled but clear in Fig. 12) and the emitted light is transmitted at an angle to the emitter substrate in Fig. 12, [0061-66]),
wherein the light emission unit of the light emitter extends in a longitudinal direction along the substrate (all components in light emitter 100 extend along a longitudinal direction of substrate 70B in Fig. 10, [0057-59]), is disposed so as to approach the object to be measured from one end to the other end in the longitudinal direction (100 extends towards outside the system (towards emission direction and objects) in Fig. 12, [0061-66]), and emits the light in the inclined direction inclined in the longitudinal direction (100 emits light at angle θ1 in Fig. 12, [0061-66]),
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach the measurement apparatus further comprises a light adjustment unit that is provided between the light emission unit of the light emitter and the object to be measured and reduces an optical path length difference or a time difference until the light emitted from the one end and the other end of the light emission unit in the longitudinal direction reaches the object to be measured.
Morant teaches a prism used for equalization of optical path lengths of light to be emitted to help reduce or remove optical distortions ([0007])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu to include a light adjustment unit that is provided between the light emission unit of the light emitter and the object to be measured and reduces an optical path length difference or a time difference until the light emitted from the one end and the other end of the light emission unit in the longitudinal direction reaches the object to be measured. similar to Morant with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping reduce or remove optical distortions in emitted light (Morant: [0007]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu WO 2020235258 A1 in view of Kholoburdin US 12379493 B2.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach wherein the light receiver is provided at a position closer to the object to be measured than the light emitter.
Kholoburdin teaches detectors (7-9) closer to environment to be imaged (objects) than emitters (1-3) in Fig. 2A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu such that the light receiver is provided at a position closer to the object to be measured than the light emitter similar to Kholoburdin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to fit inside a narrower space.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu WO 2020235258 A1 in view of Sugiura US 20160370461 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach further comprising: a support member that supports the light emitter such that the substrate of the light emitter and the light reception surface of the light receiver form the angle θ2, wherein the light receiver is supported by the support member together with the light emitter.
Sugiura teaches wiring substrate supporting both emitter and receiver with an emitter 10 at an angle in Fig. 10 ([0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu to include a support member that supports the light emitter such that the substrate of the light emitter and the light reception surface of the light receiver form the angle θ2, wherein the light receiver is supported by the support member together with the light emitter similar to Sugiura with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing stability and electrical connections to both the receiver and emitter.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshikazu teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1,
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach further comprising: a supply unit that supplies electric power to the light emission unit of the light emitter (driving unit 160 for the light emission unit in Figs. 10-12, [0057-59, 61-66]),
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach wherein the light emitter is farther from the object to be measured as the light emitter is closer to the supply unit.
Sugiura teaches processor 30 which controls the light emitter and is positioned between light emitter and light receiver and on wiring substrate 41 (Figs. 1 and 10, [0029, 37-38, 47, 57, 64]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the driving unit could be included with the processor and the inclined emitter of Yoshikazu, supported on the wiring substrate 41 of Sugiura would be closer to the object on the farthest extending point and farther from the object at the part closest to the base which would be closer to the processor or driving unit)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu such that the light emitter is farther from the object to be measured as the light emitter is closer to the supply unit similar to Sugiura with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result simplifying electrical connections.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshikazu as modified above teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 15,
Yoshikazu does not explicitly teach wherein the light receiver is disposed on an opposite side of the supply unit with respect to the light emitter.
Sugiura teaches processor 30 which controls the light emitter and is positioned between light emitter and light receiver and on wiring substrate 41 (Figs. 1 and 10, [0029, 37-38, 47, 57, 64])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshikazu such that the light receiver is disposed on an opposite side of the supply unit with respect to the light emitter similar to Sugiura with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result simplifying electrical connections to both the receiver and emitter.
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 JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645