DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 3-4 are cancelled.
Claim 13 is new.
Claims 1, 6, and 11-12 are amended.
Claims 1-2 and 5-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110,361,718) in view of Okuni (US 2020/0300988) and Imai (US 2021/0103054).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12, Zhang teaches a distance measuring sensor, system, and electronic equipment comprising: an illumination device configured to irradiate… [#13-#17 of Fig 1; 0091-94]; a pixel array section that includes a plurality of pixels in a 2D arrangement [#13, #17 of Fig 1; 0092-93; 0095-96]; wherein the plurality of pixels is configured to receive reflected light returned after irradiation light from an illumination device [#14, #15 of Fig 1; 0091-94] is reflected by an object and that output detection signals based on an amount of received reflected light [#13, #17 of Fig 1; 0092-93; 0095-97]; and a control unit that detects occurrence of an error of the illumination device [S42 – S47 of Fig 3; Fig 4; 0092-94; 0097; 0134]. Zhang does not explicitly teach – but Okuni does teach receive… a notification of an occurrence of an error from the illumination device [0166-0171] restart the illumination device based on the detection of the occurrence of the error of the illumination device [0166-0171]. It would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Zhang to include restarting in case of error detection to cope with the case where the light source does not emit pulsed light, or the improper light sequence due to failure or the like. Zhang does not explicitly teach – but Imai does teach wherein the control unit is further configured to restart the illumination device at a start timing of a distance measuring data unit based on the detection of the occurrence of the error… [0062]. It would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Zhang to restart the device after an error, in order to cease collection of false data at the detector array. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang also teaches a wherein the control unit stops output of a light emission pulse to the illumination device based on the detection of the occurrence of the error… [S42 of Fig 3; 0132-36]. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang also teaches a wherein the control unit stops output of distance measuring data based on the detection of the occurrence of the error…[S42 of Fig 3; 0132-36]. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang also teaches a wherein the control unit is further configured to output, based on the detection of the occurrence of the error… distance measuring data with an error flag added thereto [S45-S46 of Fig 3; 0132-36]. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171]. It would have been obvious for the control processor to report a "failure code" and "a depth map or a point group map" is outputted to the outside to indicate to the user a possible error.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang also discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to acquire type information of the error of the illumination device and execute a control operation based on the type information [S42-S46 of Fig 3; 0094-97; 0132-36]. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Claim(s) 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110,361,718) and Okuni (US 2020/0300988) and Imai (US 2021/0103054), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Ito (JP 2002-308545).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang does not explicitly teach – but Ito does teach wherein the control unit is further configured to count the number of times of the occurrence of the error and, in a case where the number of times of the occurrence of the error is equal to or larger than a specific number of times, notify a host control unit of the occurrence of the error of the illumination device [0006; 0028]. It would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Zhang to do a notification after a specific error or series of errors, in order to cease collection of false data at the detector array, or to alert the user that the output may include erroneous data. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang does not explicitly teach – but Ito does teach wherein, in a case where the type information indicates a specific error, the control unit is further configured to notify a host control unit of the occurrence of the error of the illumination device [0006; 0028]. It would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Zhang to do a notification after a specific error or series of errors, in order to cease collection of false data at the detector array, or to alert the user that the output may include erroneous data. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang does not explicitly teach – but Ito does teach wherein the control unit is further configured to count the number of times of the occurrence of the error and, in a case where the number of times of the occurrence of the error is equal to or larger than a specific number of times, notify a host control unit of the occurrence of the error of the illumination device [0006; 0028]. It would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Zhang to do a notification after a specific error or series of errors, in order to cease collection of false data at the detector array, or to alert the user that the output may include erroneous data. Okuni also teaches this limitation in [0166] – [0171].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 110,361,718) and Okuni (US 2020/0300988) and Imai (US 2021/0103054), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olesen (US 2020/0146554).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang does not explicitly teach –stop output of a light emission pulse based on the detection of the error of the illumination device; transmit a start command to the illumination device for the restart of the illumination device at the start timing of the distance measuring data unit; and resume output of the light emission pulse to the illumination device after the restart. Imai teaches stop output of a light emission pulse based on the detection of the error of the illumination device [0062; 0088; 0102]. Okuni teaches transmit a start command to the illumination device for the restart of the illumination device [0167-71] and resume output of the light emission pulse to the illumination device after the restart [0167-71]. Olesen teaches stop output of a light emission pulse based on the detection of the error of the illumination device [0023; 0054-59; 0083] and transmit a start command to the illumination device for the restart of the illumination device [0023; 0054-59; 0083]. It would have been obvious to modify the sensor of Zhang to stop, and restart light pulse transmission to cope with the case where the light source does not emit pulsed light due to failure or the like.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 5-12 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.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights