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 .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 20 January 2026.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the specification.
Claims 1, 7, 12, 15, and 17 were amended. Claims 2-6, 8-9, and 14 were cancelled. New claims 18-24 were added. Therefore, claims 1, 7, 10-13, and 15-24 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Imae fails to disclose “after light projection of distance measuring light for a first distance measurement operation has been completed in the first distance measuring sensor, the first distance measuring sensor supplies a start trigger to the second distance measuring sensor to start a second distance measurement operation.” However, Imae discloses a timing scheme where the first and second sensor are alternatively operated (Fig. 6). In Fig. 7, Imae further teaches that after data acquiring for first light reception unit is completed, the imaging control unit transmits an image capture signal to the second light reception unit (Fig. 7, S13 – S14, Paragraph [0092]). This is an equivalent process to the present application where two sensors are communicate through a control device or bridge processing part, as shown in Figs. 3-4.
Applicant also argues that the combination of Imae and Saito fails to discloses the first and second distance measuring sensors and their types. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 10-13, 16-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imae, US 20200301017 A1 (“Imae”)in view of Saito et al., JP 2013195117 A (“Saito”).
Regarding claim 1, Imae discloses a distance measuring device comprising: a control part that controls a plurality of distance measuring sensors including a first distance measuring sensor and a second distance measuring sensor (Fig. 4, first light reception unit 101, second light reception unit 102, first light emission unit 103, second light emission unit 104, Paragraph [0058]-[0060],[0062]-[0063]), […]; and a data processing part that generates common information on a basis of distance measurement results of the plurality of distance measuring sensors (Fig. 4, imaging control unit 111, range finding unit 112, Paragraph [0067]-[0069]), wherein the control part controls operation timings of the first distance measuring sensor and the second distance measuring sensor so as to allow the first distance measuring sensor and the second distance measuring sensor to operate in a time-division manner to avoid interference (Fig. 6, A-side light emission and reception timing, B-side light emission and reception timing, Paragraph [0084], [0087]), and after light projection of distance measuring light for a first distance measurement operation has been completed in the first distance measuring sensor, the first distance measuring sensor supplies a start trigger to the second distance measuring sensor to start a second distance measurement operation (Fig. 7, S13 – S14, Paragraph [0090]-[0092]).
Imae does not teach: wherein the first distance measuring sensor is a distance measuring sensor of a direct Time of Flight (ToF) system and the second distance measuring sensor a distance measuring sensor of an indirect ToF system.
However, Saito teaches a distance measuring device that can operate its laser to be pulse-driven or high-frequency-driven. The distance measuring device also contains a distance calculation unit with both a pulse response measurement device and a phase difference measurement device to calculate the distance through direct time of flight or indirect time of flight in each operation mode. (Fig. 1, laser light source 11, distance calculation unit 30, pulse response measurement device 31, phase difference measurement device 32 Paragraph [0017], [0020]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imae’s range finding device by operating the second light source and sensor as an indirect TOF sensor, which is disclosed by Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include both a direct and indirect TOF sensor in order to have high accuracy in both long and short distance measurements, as suggested by Saito (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein in accordance with a distance measurement system of the first distance measuring sensor and a distance measurement system of the second distance measuring sensor, the control part causes at least one part of the operation timings of the first distance measuring sensor and the second distance measuring sensor to concurrently operate (Imae, Fig. 5, A-side light emission and reception timing, B-side light emission and reception timing, Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein by selectively using the distance measurement results from the plurality of distance measuring sensors, the data processing part generates the common information (Imae, Fig. 4, range finding unit 112, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 10, wherein by selectively using the distance measurement results from the plurality of distance measuring sensors in accordance with distance measurement systems of the plurality of distance measuring sensors, the data processing part generates the common information (Imae, Fig. 4, range finding unit 112, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 11, wherein by selectively using any of a distance measurement result of the first distance measuring sensor or a distance measurement result of the second distance measuring sensor in accordance with the distance measurement systems of the first distance measuring sensor and the second distance measuring sensor, the data processing part generates a depth map as the common information (Imae, Fig. 4, range finding unit 112, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 12, wherein the data processing part […] in accordance with the distance measurement systems of the first distance measuring sensor and the second distance measuring sensor and generates a depth map as the common information (Imae, Fig. 4, range finding unit 112, Paragraph [0069]).
Imae, as modified in view of Saito, does not teach uses the distance measurement result of the first distance measuring sensor as to a distance measurement result at a farther distance than a predetermined distance and the distance measurement result of the second distance measuring sensor as to a distance measurement result at a closer distance than the predetermined distance.
However, Saito teaches a distance measuring device that can operate its laser to be pulse-driven or high-frequency-driven. The distance measuring device also contains a distance calculation unit with both a pulse response measurement device and a phase difference measurement device to calculate the distance through direct time of flight or indirect time of flight in each operation mode. (Fig. 1, laser light source 11, distance calculation unit 30, pulse response measurement device 31, phase difference measurement device 32 Paragraph [0017], [0020]). The pulse response measurement device is used for measuring long distances accurately which the phase difference measurement device is used for measuring short distances accurately (Paragraphs [0010]-[0011])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imae’s range finding device by operating the second light source and sensor as an indirect TOF sensor, which is disclosed by Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include both a direct and indirect TOF sensor in order to have high accuracy in both long and short distance measurements, as suggested by Saito (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 16, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein on a basis of the distance measurement results from the plurality of distance measuring sensors, the data processing part generates peak information of each of pixels as the common information (Imae, Fig. 4, range finding unit 112, Paragraph [0069]).
Claims 17-22 and 24 are a method claim corresponding to apparatus claims 1, 7, 10-13, and 16 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imae, as modified in view of Saito, in further view of Markendorf et al., US 20160252619 A1 (”Markendorf”).
Regarding claim 15, Imae, as modified in view of Saito, discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1.
Imae, as modified in view of Saito, does not teach: wherein the distance measuring sensor of the direct ToF system has pixels being constituted of avalanche diodes, and the distance measuring sensor of the indirect ToF system has pixels being constituted of current assisted photonic demodulators (CAPDs).
However, Markendorf teaches a laser tracker contains a range-picture camera (RIM camera) that calculated distance through a direct or indirect TOF method. (Fig. 1, camera 24, Paragraph [0063]). Markendorf teaches the laser tracker having an avalanche photodiode sensor to receive a laser pulse when using a direct TOF method (Fig. 4c, receiver 18d, Paragraph [0144]). Markendorf also teaches a RIM camera that has a CMOS time-of-flight range picture sensor with Current Assisted Photonic Demodulation (CAPD) that creates a 3D point cloud from light having a different wavelength from an illuminator (Fig. 5c, RIM camera 45, Paragraph [0156]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range finding device disclosed by Imae and Saito by substituting first and second photodetectors with an APD and a CAPD for the dTOF and iTOF sensors, respectively, which is disclosed by Markendorf. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the photodetectors disclosed by Imae and Saito for the known APD and CAPD sensors and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 23 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights