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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 03/05/2026 with regard to the “image capturing elements” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Savoca (US 4791297 A).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the arrangement of input components is not simply a rearrangement of parts as the arrangement claimed improves sensitivity since the first and second inputs have different FOVs.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not a non-obviousness result of rearranging components, as more input units on an axis would obviously lead to more images over the FOV in that axis, and thus allow for compensation for decrease in sensitivity in peripheral portions. In fact, the same concept is true in the prior art, only in the other direction.
Applicant argues the claimed invention allows for easier determination of scanning angle and which input unit receives light without complex calculations.
It is unclear from applicant's arguments how this makes determination easier, as this is not explained. Instead, applicant only states it does, without any comparison to the prior art cited. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 16, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff (US 20150177383 A1) in view of Savoca (US 4791297 A).
Claim 16: Ruff teaches a range finder comprising:
a first irradiation system that has an irradiator that irradiates a first electromagnetic wave (Fig. 2, laser 15),
and irradiates the first electromagnetic wave toward the space where an object exists while changing the irradiation position (Fig. 2, steering mirror 20A and [0030] and [0008] - distance measurement);
a first detector that detects a reflected wave of the first electromagnetic wave reflected by the object in order to measure the distance to the object (Fig. 2 and 4, receive elements 30R);
a plurality of input units that share a part of the field of view with each other (Fig. 2, receive elements 30R having overlapping FOVs),
wherein the irradiator is arranged away from the plurality of input units (Fig. 2, showing output of laser- steering control mirror 20A – set apart from receive elements 30R) […]
and the second electromagnetic wave is incident from the space (Fig. 2, scattered light reflected back to receiver);
[…]
wherein each of the plurality of input units includes a lens (Fig. 2 - receive elements may include lens and Fig. 4, lenses 41 and [0039]),
shares the visual field of the peripheral edge portion of the input units adjacent to each other (Fig. 2, overlapping FOVs),
and is arranged as the optical axes of the respective lenses intersect on the side in which the second electromagnetic wave is incident (Fig. 2, showing receive elements 30R arranged at an angle to each other),
(Fig. 1, showing total system FOV as a 2-D grid/plane and [0030] – mirror 20A directs light through total system FOV – implies mirror scans in both horizontal and vertical directions).
and further comprising a calculator that calculates a distance to the object based on the reflected wave detected by the first detector from the object that exists within a field of view shared by the plurality of input units ([0037] - calculation).
Ruff does not teach wherein the irradiator is […] in a direction intersecting the arrangement direction of the plurality of input units, and wherein the plurality of input units is arranged along the horizontal direction, and the irradiator is arranged in the vertical direction with respect to the horizontal direction.
However, one would simply need to rearrange the receivers with respect to the laser and scanning mirror to obtain the claimed result. Thus, this is simply a rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI.B). As there is no new or unexpected result gained from rearranging the receivers, this limitation is obvious (See response to arguments above).
Ruff does not teach, but Savoca does teach, a plurality of image-capturing elements provided individually for each of the plurality of input units for capturing an image of the space based on the second electromagnetic waves incident from the corresponding input unit (Fig. 5, beam splitter 32 separating light to visible light detector 11 and infrared detector 22 and Col. 4, lines 54-62).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the system with a beam splitter, as taught by Savoca, in the rangefinder as taught by Ruff, because this would reduce noise by allowing the system to specifically detect light which has been emitted from the rangefinder and reflected off an object, and further detect and cancel out background light
Claim 17: Ruff, as modified, teaches the range finder according to claim 16, wherein a part of the plurality of input units is exposed, and wherein the optical axes of the lenses exposed from the plurality of input units face different directions (Fig. 2, showing receive elements 30R arranged at an angle to each other).
Claim 20: Ruff, as modified, teaches the range finder according to claim 16, having a plurality of the first detectors, and wherein the first detector is provided for each of the plurality of input units (Fig. 2, receive elements 30R and Fig. 4, photodetectors 40 paired with lenses 41, [0039]).
Claim 21: Ruff, as modified, teaches the angle finder according to claim 16,
an area in which the field of view is shared by the plurality of input units is included within a predetermined distance range in which the distance to the object can be measured, reflected waves from the object existing within the shared field of view and within the non-shared field of view are incident on each of the plurality of input units, wherein the calculator calculates distances to the object existing in the field of view shared by the plurality of input units and in the field of view not shared by the plurality of input units by a ToF method ([0037] - calculation along with Fig. 2, overlapping FOVs).
Claim 22: Ruff, as modified, teaches the range finder according to claim 16, a plurality of light receiving systems are formed, each of which includes one of the input units and the image-capturing element on which the second electromagnetic wave incident from the input unit is incident, and the plurality of light receiving systems have the same configuration (Fig. 2, receive elements 30R and Fig. 4, photodetectors 40 paired with lenses 41, [0039]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff (US 20150177383 A1) in view of Savoca (US 4791297 A), further in view of Eri (JP 2018200927 A).
Claim 19: Ruff, as modified, teaches the rangefinder according to Claim 16.
and further comprising a separator that separates or transmits the second electromagnetic wave that incidents on the plurality of input units according to wavelength and causes […] light contained in the second electromagnetic waves to travel to a second detector (Savoca Fig. 5, beam splitter 32 separating light to visible light detector 11 and infrared detector 22 and Col. 4, lines 54-62).
Neither Ruff or Savoca teach, but Eri does teach, wherein the irradiator irradiates an infrared light as the first electromagnetic wave ([0036] – irradiating section radiates infrared waves).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the infrared irradiator, as taught by Eri, in the rangefinder as taught by Ruff, as modified in view of Savoca, because the use of different wavelengths, including infrared, in such rangefinders is well known in the art and would yield predictable results (changing of wavelength would yield predictable results in the mathematical calculation of distance, for instance).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights