DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Objections to drawings are overcome.
Rejections for claims under 112(b) are overcome.
Applicant’ amendment to claim 17 is sufficient to overcome the 112(f) interpretation of the claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of the claim amendment.
Rejections of claims 5, 8, 13 and 16 are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regard claim 5, prior art alone or as combined fails to teach or render obvious the following limitations if all claims above the dependent chain are included:
detecting directions of the detecting elements located on the opposite sides relative to the center position of the light emitter in the first direction are inclined away from the light emitter in the first direction.
Regarding claim 8, prior art alone or as combined fails to teach or render obvious the following limitations if all claims above the dependent chain are included:
wherein the detecting elements of the detector include two detecting elements that are inclined toward opposite sides in the first direction and inclinations of the two
detecting elements with respect to an optical axis of the optical system are each 42.5° or greater and 62.5° or smaller in absolute value.
Claims 13 and 16 include allowable subject matter due to claim dependency.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 4/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (foreign patent application 2022-096860 filed on 06/15/2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/07/2022 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for emitting light and means for deflecting light in claim 17. In each case, the claim limitation specifically recites the structural element.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanori et al, JP 2019158598 A (“Takanori”)1, and further in view of Toyota JP 5257053 B2 (“Toyota”)2.
Regarding claim 1, Takanori teaches an optical distance-measuring device (Fig 6) comprising:
a light emitter
a detector including a plurality of detecting elements configured to detect a reflection of light outgoing from [the light emitter]
Takanori fails to teach
a light emitter having a plurality of light-emitting areas that are arrayed in a first direction;
an optical system provided at a position toward which the light emitter emits light, the optical system causing light beams respectively emitted from the plurality of light-emitting areas to be deflected in respectively different directions;
the plurality of detecting elements is along the first direction.
On the other hand, Toyota teaches a VCSEL light emitter having a plurality of light-emitting areas that are arranged in an array for sequential scanning (Fig. 2, p. 5), an optical system is provided at a position toward which the light emitter emits light, the optical system causing light beams respectively emitted from the plurality of light-emitting areas to be deflected in respectively different directions (Fig. 2, p. 5, lens 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Takanori’s optical distance-measuring device, in view of Toyota’s teaching by replacing the light projecting unit 10 with Toyota’s VCSEL emitter arrays to provide scanning. One would also use VCSEL emitter array for its compact size and low cost. Additionally, one would line up emitter array in the same direction of Takanori’s detector array to provide best detection.
Regarding claim 2, Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, teaches the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the detecting elements of the detector include detecting elements located on opposite sides relative to a center position of the light emitter in the first direction (Takanori, Fig. 6, p. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, teaches the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 2, wherein the detecting directions of the detecting elements located on the opposite sides relative to the center position of the light emitter in the first direction are inclined toward the light emitter in the first direction (Takanori, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, teaches the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 3, wherein the detecting elements located on the opposite sides relative to the center position of the light emitter in the first direction are located at different positions in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Takanori, Fig. 5, p. 4, detectors on a circle).
While Takanori in Fig. 6 does not teach positioning the detectors in a circle, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the invention, would have learned from the embodiment of Fig. 5 and make the modification that puts the detectors in a circlea doing so improves distance measurement accuracy. (Fig. 5, p. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, teaches the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 2, wherein a direction of drawing a wire from each of the detecting elements located on the opposite sides relative to the center position of the light emitter in the first direction is inclined toward the light emitter in the first direction (Takanori, Fig. 6, p. 4).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 14, they include limitations of claims 1-4, and 6 respectively, and further recite an image forming apparatus comprising: the optical distance-measuring device according to claims 1-4 and 6, wherein the light emitter is set such that the first direction coincides with a horizontal direction while a second direction intersecting the first direction coincides with a vertical direction.
Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, further teaches an image forming apparatus comprising the corresponding distance-measurement device (see rejections of claims 1-5), the light emitter is set such that the first direction coincides with a horizontal direction while a second direction intersecting the first direction coincides with a vertical direction (Toyota, Fig. 2, Fig. 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have oriented the imaging device to suit one’s detection need, including placing the emitters/detectors horizontally and/or vertically as needed.
Regarding claim 17, it recites substantially similar limitation as claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 18, Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, teaches the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the detecting elements of the detector include detecting elements located on opposite sides relative to a center position of the light emitter in the first direction are located at different positions in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Takanori, Fig. 5, p. 4, place the detectors around the emitter).
While Takanori in Fig. 6 does not teach positioning the detectors in a circle, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the invention, would have learned from the embodiment of Fig. 5 and make the modification to put the detectors on a circle as doing so would improve distance measurement accuracy. (Fig. 5, p. 4).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanori and Toyota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Do Valle et al., US 20210294129 A1 (“Do Valle”).
Regarding claim 7, Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota, teaches the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 1. However, the combination fails to teach wherein the detecting elements of the detector include detecting elements located on opposite sides relative to a center position of the light emitter in a second direction that intersects the first direction.
On the other hand, Do Valle teaches placing light detector around a light source for homogeneous signal detection (Fig. 6, [0069]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified Takanori’s optical distance-measurement device to place detectors around the center of the emitters for homogeneous signal detection.
As further modified, Takanori teaches claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, it includes limitations of claim 7, and further recites an image forming apparatus comprising: the optical distance-measuring device according to claim 7, wherein the light emitter is set such that the first direction coincides with a horizontal direction while a second direction intersecting the first direction coincides with a vertical direction.
Takanori, as modified in view of Toyota and Do Valle, further teaches an image forming apparatus comprising the corresponding distance-measurement device (see rejections of claim 7, the light emitter is set such that the first direction coincides with a horizontal direction while a second direction intersecting the first direction coincides with a vertical direction (Toyota, Fig. 2, Fig. 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have oriented the imaging device to suit one’s detection need, including placing the emitters/detectors horizontally and/or vertically as needed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-2730-4603.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 English translation is provided. Pages and text citation refers to the translated version.
2 See note 1.
Prosecution Insights