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 16 December 2025.
Claims 1-12 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-12 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the currently claimed configurations of when to switch between standby and active states ) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 16 December 2025. Therefore, the issue of whether Kubota addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Kubota, Srivastavi, and Murakami in the present Office Action.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “in a standby state of the distance measuring device,”… “the application processor in the standby state” … “the application processor starts up based on the notification from the light receiving device to switch to an active state of the distance measuring device” … and “in the active state, the light receiving device…”. It is unclear whether the distance measuring device, light receiving device, and application processor are all in the same standby and active states or separate standby and active states. Therefore, claim 1, and claims 2-10 by dependence, and claim 12 are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as the distance measuring device as a whole (including the light receiving device and application processor) are in the specified states (active or standby).
Claim 7 recites “an image” in ln. 3. It is unclear if the “image” in claim 7 is the distance map image from claim 1 or a separate image. Therefore, claim 7, and claims 8-10 by dependence, are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as an image acquired during the standby state (similar to Srivastavi below).
Claim 8 recites “the acquired image” in ln. 3. It is unclear if the “acquired image” in claim 8 is the acquired distance map image from claim 1 or a separate image. Therefore, claim 8, and claims 9-10 by dependence, are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as an image acquired during the standby state (similar to Srivastavi below).
Claim 9 recites “the acquired image” in ln. 3. It is unclear if the “acquired image” in claim 8 is the acquired distance map image from claim 1 or a separate image. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as an image acquired during the standby state (similar to Srivastavi below).
Claims 11 recites “in a standby state of the distance measuring device,”… “to the application processor in the standby state” … “the application processor starts up based on the notification from the light receiving device to switch to an active state of the distance measuring device” … and “in the active state, the light receiving device…”. It is unclear whether the distance measuring device, light receiving device, and application processor are all in the same standby and active states or separate standby and active states. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as the distance measuring device as a whole (including the light receiving device and application processor) are in the specified states (active or standby).
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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota JP 2019168397 A1 in view of Srivastavi US 20190087690 A1 and Murakami US 20220183010 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches a distance measuring device comprising:
a light source section configured to irradiate a subject with light (light emitting element 800, Fig. 8, [0013]);
a light receiving device configured to receive reflected light from the subject (light receiving element 801, Fig. 8, [0013]); and
an application processor configured to control the light source section and the light receiving device (image processing device 100, [0013-15]; controls the optical sensor 15, [0015]), wherein
in a standby state of the distance measuring device, the light receiving device has an object detection function of measurement of a distance to the subject to detect that the subject approaches within a determined distance of the distance measuring device (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 45-46, 63]),
the light receiving device provides notification of a detection result to the application processor in a standby state (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 44-46, 63], including microcomputer 401 outputting a device return signal (notification) to return the image processing device to the normal state), and
the application processor starts up based on the notification from the light receiving device to switch to an active state of the distance measuring device (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 45-46, 63]; image processing apparatus can be considered as part of the distance measuring device), and
Kubota does not explicitly teach in the active state, the light receiving device is further configured to acquire a distance map image associated with the subject.
Srivastava teaches switching from standby state to active state and use of IR camera and transmitter (Figs. 1-3, [0030, 36-37]).
Murakami teaches creating and use of distance image data ([0344]; lidar [2949])
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 Kubota such that in the active state, the light receiving device is further configured to acquire a distance map image associated with the subject similar to Srivastavi and Murakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of creating more detailed depth images which can help more accurately identify a nearby person.
Regarding claim 11, Kubota teaches a method, comprising:
controlling a distance measuring device including:
a light source section that irradiates a subject with light (light emitting element 800, Fig. 8, [0013]), a light receiving device that receives reflected light from the subject (light receiving element 801, Fig. 8, [0013]), and an application processor that controls the light source section and the light receiving device (image processing device 100, [0013-15]; controls the optical sensor 15, [0015]);
measuring a distance to the subject to detect that the subject approaches within a determined distance of the distance measuring device, wherein the light receiving device is configured to measure the distance in a standby state of the distance measuring device (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 45-46, 63]); and
providing notification of a result of the detection to the application processor in the standby state to start up the application processor (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 44-46, 63], including microcomputer 401 outputting a device return signal (notification) to return the image processing device to the normal state), wherein
the application processor starts up based on the notification from the light receiving device to switch to an active state of the distance measuring device (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 45-46, 63]; image processing apparatus can be considered as part of the distance measuring device),
Kubota does not explicitly teach in the active state, the light receiving device is further configured to acquire a distance map image associated with the subject.
Srivastava teaches switching from standby state to active state and use of IR camera and transmitter (Figs. 1-3, [0030, 36-37]).
Murakami teaches creating and use of distance image data ([0344]; lidar [2949])
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 Kubota such that in the active state, the light receiving device is further configured to acquire a distance map image associated with the subject similar to Srivastavi and Murakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of creating more detailed depth images which can help more accurately identify a nearby person.
Regarding claim 12, Kubota teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a distance measuring device comprising:
a light source section configured to irradiate a subject with light (light emitting element 800, Fig. 8, [0013]);
a light receiving device configured to receive reflected light from the subject (light receiving element 801, Fig. 8, [0013]); and
an application processor configured to control the light source section and the light receiving device (image processing device 100, [0013-15]; controls the optical sensor 15, [0015]), wherein
in a standby state of the distance measuring device, the light receiving device has an object detection function of measurement of a distance to the subject to detect that the subject approaches within a determined distance of the distance measuring device (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 45-46, 63]),
the light receiving device provides notification of a detection result to the application processor in a standby state (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 44-46, 63], including microcomputer 401 outputting a device return signal (notification) to return the image processing device to the normal state), and
the application processor starts up based on the notification from the light receiving device to switch to an active state of the distance measuring device (Image processing apparatus operates in a power saving state but returns to a normal state when optical sensor 15 detects a person approaching when distance of person is shorter than a reference distance, [0012, 18, 25-27, 30-31, 45-46, 63]; image processing apparatus can be considered as part of the distance measuring device), and
Kubota does not explicitly teach in the active state, the light receiving device is further configured to acquire a distance map image associated with the subject.
Srivastava teaches switching from standby state to active state and use of IR camera and transmitter (Figs. 1-3, [0030, 36-37]).
Murakami teaches creating and use of distance image data ([0344]; lidar [2949])
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 Kubota such that in the active state, the light receiving device is further configured to acquire a distance map image associated with the subject similar to Srivastavi and Murakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of creating more detailed depth images which can help more accurately identify a nearby person.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota JP 2019168397 A1 in view of Srivastavi US 20190087690 A1 and Murakami US 20220183010 A1, and further in view of Masuda US 20190079170 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1,
Kubota does not explicitly teach but Masuda teaches wherein the light receiving device is further configured to switch an internal status of the light receiving device based on the detection result ([0031-38] operation mode of light emitting unit 11 and light receiving unit 12 are switched depending on a person in the distance image; from power-saving mode to high definition operation mode, Figs. 3-7).
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 Kubota such that the light receiving device is further configured to switch an internal status of the light receiving device based on the detection result similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing power consumption when higher definition sensing is not needed.
Regarding claim 3, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 2,
Kubota does not explicitly teach but Masuda teaches wherein the light receiving device is further configured to switch a status of the light source section based on the detection result ([0031-38] operation mode of light emitting unit 11 and light receiving unit 12 are switched depending on a person in the distance image; from power-saving mode to high definition operation mode, Figs. 3-7).
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 Kubota such that the light receiving device is further configured to switch a status of the light source section based on the detection result similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing power consumption when higher definition sensing is not needed.
Regarding claim 4, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1,
Kubota does not explicitly teach wherein the light receiving device includes an imaging section including pixels, each of the pixels include a light receiving element, and the light receiving device is further configured to perform simple distance measurement in which a distance is measured with use of pixel signals in a partial region within a pixel region of the imaging section.
Madura teaches the imaging section contains an array of pixels and measuring distance with use of signals in a partial region within a pixel region of the imaging section (Fig. 4, combined pixels are a partial region with a pixel region and are used to measure distance, [0032])
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 Kubota such that the light receiving device includes an imaging section including pixels, each of the pixels include a light receiving element, and the light receiving device is further configured to perform simple distance measurement in which a distance is measured with use of pixel signals in a partial region within a pixel region of the imaging section similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing power consumption when higher definition sensing is not needed.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota JP 2019168397 A1 in view of Srivastavi US 20190087690 A, Murakami US 20220183010 A1, and Masuda US 20190079170 A1, and further in view of Kazemi US 20190294170 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 4,
Kubota does not explicitly teach wherein the light source section is further configured to irradiate the subject with pulsed light to be emitted in a determined cycle, and the light receiving device is further configured to perform the simple distance measurement by reception of reflected pulsed light from the subject and measurement of a time of flight of light from a phase difference between a light emission cycle and a light reception cycle.
Masuda teaches simple distance measurement with decreased intensity ([0031-38])
Kazemi teaches tof measurement based on a phase shift of pulsed, transmitted and received light ([0039])
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 Kubota such that the light source section is further configured to irradiate the subject with pulsed light to be emitted in a determined cycle, and the light receiving device is further configured to perform the simple distance measurement by reception of reflected pulsed light from the subject similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success and measurement of a time of flight of light from a phase difference between a light emission cycle and a light reception cycle similar to Kazemi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing power consumption when higher definition sensing is not needed and still being able to detect the distance of an object using a well-known time of flight calculation measurement and calculation.
Regarding claim 6, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 5,
Kubota does not explicitly teach wherein in the light source section, at least one of a frequency or a light emission amount of the pulsed light to be emitted is variable, and at least one of the frequency or the light emission amount of the pulsed light is decreased in the simple distance measurement as compared with a case of distance measurement acquisition of the distance map image.
Masuda teaches simple distance measurement with decreased intensity ([0031-38]; increased intensity for high definition imaging for distance map).
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 Kubota such that in the light source section, at least one of a frequency or a light emission amount of the pulsed light to be emitted is variable, and at least one of the frequency or the light emission amount of the pulsed light is decreased in the simple distance measurement as compared with a case of distance measurement acquisition of the distance map image similar to Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing power consumption when higher definition sensing.
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota JP 2019168397 A1 in view of Srivastavi US 20190087690 A1 and Murakami US 20220183010 A1, and further in view of Fisher US 20200072946 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1,
Kubota does not explicitly teach but Fisher teaches wherein the light receiving device is further configured to perform imaging in a continuous light emission state to acquire an image (indirect time of flight lidar system with continuous emission of light to acquire distance image ([0052-53]).
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 Kubota such that the light receiving device is further configured to perform imaging in a continuous light emission state to acquire an image (indirect time of flight lidar system with continuous emission of light to acquire distance image similar to Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of determining distances for a distance image using a well-known method.
Regarding claim 8, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 7,
Kubota does not explicitly teach wherein the light receiving device is further configured to perform face detection based on the acquired image.
Srivastavi teaches a light receiving device performing face detection on a basis of an acquired image (Figs. 1-3, [0030, 36]; face detection on microcontroller 101 coupled to camera 103 when processor 102 is in a low power mode)
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 Kubota such that the light receiving device is further configured to perform face detection based on the acquired image similar to Srivastavi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping only increase power consumption when a person is nearby and increased sensing is needed.
Regarding claim 9, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 8,
Kubota does not explicitly teach wherein the light receiving device is further configured to perform impersonation confirmation, by detection of facial irregularities, based on the acquired image and comparison of the facial irregularities with registered data.
Murakami teaches detecting and authenticating faces based on distance image data and comparing with person registered in advance ([0344]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using the light receiving device’s/optical sensor’s operation unit processing (Kubota: unit 12 in [0024-28]) would prevent unnecessarily waking up the application processor).
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 Kubota such that the light receiving device is further configured to perform impersonation confirmation, by detection of facial irregularities, based on the acquired image and comparison of the facial irregularities with registered data similar to Murakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping only increase power consumption when a known person is nearby and increased sensing is needed.
Regarding claim 10, Kubota teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 8,
Kubota does not explicitly teach wherein the application processor is further configured to perform face authentication based on the distance map image.
Srivastavi teaches waking host system and performing host face detection on processor 102 after low power face detection on microcontroller 101 ([0036-37]).
Murakami teaches detecting and authenticating faces based on distance image data and comparing with person registered in advance ([0344]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using the image processing apparatus with CPU (Kubota: 100 and 301 in Fig. 3, [0015-17]) would use the increased processing power of the CP to efficiently perform more computationally intensive tasks like face authentication).
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 Kubota such that the application processor is further configured to perform face authentication based on the distance map image similar to Srivastavi and Murakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using more powerful computing resources for more computationally intensive tasks.
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