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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 currently depends on claim 6. While claim 17 further limits claim 6, as claim 6 recites a light direction change member, claim 17 directly follows claim 16, which also features a light direction change member. As a result, while the claim is not indefinite, a question exists whether claim 17 is meant to depend on claim 6, or claim 16.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A light receiving unit including a plurality of light receiving elements arranged in a two-dimensional direction” in claims 1-20. The examiner notes that while the light receiving unit has a plurality of light receiving elements, the light receiving elements is also interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), with elements being the generic placeholder, light receiving being the function, and no sufficient structure claimed.
“A light change direction member that changes a direction of the laser beam reflected by the MEMS mirror” in claim 6-7 and 16.
“A distance measuring unit configured to measure a distance to the object . . .” in claim 20.
“A plurality of light receiving elements” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim limitation “a distance measuring unit configured to measure a distance to the object . . . ” in claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “a distance measuring unit” is considered a 35 USC 112(f) limitation for the reasons set forth above, the examiner turns to the specification to ascertain what structure is associated with the claimed distance measuring unit. However, no specific structure tied to that unit can be found. Indeed, the specification only discloses the unit using the terminology by which it is claimed – a distance measuring unit (see distance measuring unit 12 in Fig. 2 and paragraph 0042 in the specification, for instance). As a result, it is unclear what the specific structure of the distance measuring unit is to perform the claimed function. Is it a processor? Is it some kind of circuitry? Is it some other element that can measure a distance to an object by a time difference as claimed? As the specification does not provide an answer to these questions, the specification fails to provide the corresponding structure for the unit so that it can perform the claimed distance measuring, and the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for the claimed distance measuring unit, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
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.
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 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al (2019/0094345).
Regarding claim 1, Singer (Fig. 7) discloses a distance measuring device comprising a light projection unit 20 configured to emit light in a two-dimensional manner (“a 2D-emitter array can be realized” as found in paragraph 0115); a light receiving unit 21 including a plurality of light receiving elements 8 arranged in a two-dimensional direction (paragraph 0116 states that the receiver array is arranged in a comparable way to the emitter array 20, causing the plurality of SPAD arrays 8 to be arranged in a two-dimensional direction); and a control unit (inherent to Fig. 7, but see paragraph 0070) configured to control whether or not to perform light reception by the plurality of light receiving elements (see paragraph 0117 – “the activated domains 13 of the receiver arrays 8 are synchronously shifted to the corresponding activated laser bars 22 such that the radiation is collected by the sensitive areas 13”), wherein the light projection unit includes a plurality of light source units (“laser bars 22” in paragraph 0117; see also Fig. 7 explicitly showing three laser bars 22; see also paragraph 0035).
Fig. 7 of Singer fails to disclose that the plurality of light source units includes two or more light source units having different numbers of times of emission per unit time from each other.
However, Singer teaches, in paragraph 0035-0043, that the lasers may be selectively activated (see paragraph 0038), that the lasers have serial or interleaved modulation so that neighboring beams are separated in time (see paragraph 0042), and that each individual transmitter can have a separate unique code (see paragraph 0043). Additionally, it has been disclosed that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the plurality of light source units in Singer to have two or more light source units that have different numbers of times of emission per unit from each other, the motivation being that selective activation of the light source units of the light projection unit allows for many different possible spatial patterns (see paragraph 0038) while allowing for the reduction of cross-talk between the emitted beams (see paragraph 0042 and 0043).
As for claim 2, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose that the control unit controls timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the same light source unit does not emit light a plurality of times within a predetermined period.
However, as noted above regarding claim 1, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Singer; in order to reduce cross-talk, neighboring beams of the laser diode need to be separated in time. Ensuring that the plurality of light source units do not emit light a plurality of times within a predetermined period would make sure that such separation in time remains in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Singer control timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the same light source unit does not emit light a plurality of times within a predetermined period, the motivation being to ensure that cross-talk between the emitted beams remains reduced as desired (see paragraph 0042).
As for claim 3, Singer discloses that the light source unit emits a laser beam (the light sources in Fig. 7 are laser diode arrays as per paragraph 0115), and the predetermined period is set in accordance with a safety standard of the laser beam (see paragraph 0043 – “the allowable eye-safety limits”).
As for claim 4, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose that the control unit sets the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit.
However, as noted above regarding claim 1, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Singer; in order to reduce cross-talk, neighboring beams of the laser diode need to be separated in time. Ensuring that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit would make sure that such separation in time remains in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Singer control timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit, the motivation being to ensure that cross-talk between the emitted beams remains reduced as desired (see paragraph 0042).
As for claim 5, Singer discloses that each of the plurality of light source units emits a laser beam (the light sources in Fig. 7 are laser diode arrays as per paragraph 0115), and the light projection unit includes an optical system 25 that allows the laser beam to pass through (see paragraph 0115) and a MEMS mirror 24 that controls a traveling direction of the laser beam having passed through the optical system (see paragraph 0117).
While Fig. 7 of Singer fails to disclose that the optical system is before the MEMS mirror, the examiner notes that is has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical system 25 of Singer to be placed before the MEMS mirror 24, the motivation being that the functionality of the system would not change if the light passes through the lens prior to being deflected by the mirror instead of the light passing through the lens after being deflected by the mirror.
As for claim 8, Singer discloses that the light projection unit includes a plurality of light source units 22 arranged in a two-dimensional direction (see paragraph 0115 and Fig. 7), and each of the plurality of light source units is capable of individually switching whether or not to emit a laser beam (via driver electronics 23 associated with each laser bar, see paragraph 0115).
As for claim 9, Singer discloses that the light projection unit includes a first light projector and a second light projector configured to be spaced apart along a predetermined direction (see Fig. 7 with a first light projector and a second light projector 22 being paced apart from each other), each of the first and second light projectors emit a linear beam extending in a first direction and cause the linear beam to scan a second direction (the mirror 24 causes the light emitted in a first direction parallel to each other from the light projectors 22 to be scanned along a second direction 29; see also paragraph 0025); and the first and second light projectors emit the respective linear beams such that the linear beams emitted from the first and second projectors partially overlap with each other (see paragraph 0110 – when higher scan resolutions are used, neighboring beams start to overlap).
As for claim 10, Singer discloses that each of the first and second light projectors include the plurality of light source units (see paragraph 0115), and some of the light source units in the first light projector and some of the light source units of the second light projector emit light to a region where the linear beam emitted from the first light projector and the linear beam emitted from the second light projector partially overlap with each other (see paragraph 0110 – when higher scan resolutions are used, neighboring beams start to overlap).
As for claim 11, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 10, but fails to disclose that the control unit sets the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit.
However, as noted above regarding claim 1, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Singer; in order to reduce cross-talk, neighboring beams of the laser diode need to be separated in time. Ensuring that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit would make sure that such separation in time remains in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Singer control timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit, the motivation being to ensure that cross-talk between the emitted beams remains reduced as desired (see paragraph 0042).
As for claim 12, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 12, but fails to disclose that some of the light source units in the first and second light projectors emit light at the same timing.
However, Singer discloses that, in some embodiments, scanning data is acquired by generating a plurality of beams for scanning at the same time (see paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have some of the light source units in the first light projector and some of the light source units in the second light projector emit light at the same timing, the motivation being to provide a higher point rate or density as is an explicitly disclosed advantage of multi-beam laser scanners (see paragraph 0023).
As for claim 15, Singer discloses a plurality of light source units emits a laser beam (the light sources in Fig. 7 are laser diode arrays as per paragraph 0115), and the light projection unit includes an optical system 25 that allows the laser beam to pass through (see paragraph 0115) and a MEMS mirror 24 that controls a traveling direction of the laser beam having passed through the optical system (see paragraph 0117).
While Fig. 7 of Singer fails to disclose that the optical system is before the MEMS mirror, the examiner notes that is has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical system 25 of Singer to be placed before the MEMS mirror 24, the motivation being that the functionality of the system would not change if the light passes through the lens prior to being deflected by the mirror instead of the light passing through the lens after being deflected by the mirror.
Additionally, Singer, while disclosing that each of the first and second light projectors feature a light source unit 22, fails to disclose that each of the projectors feature its own optical system and MEMS mirror.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an optical system and a MEMS mirror for each of the light projectors of Singer, the motivation being to provide more precise scanning capability, with each projector having its own optical system and mirror for scanning individual laser beams.
As for claim 18, Singer discloses that the light projection unit includes a plurality of light source units 22 arranged in a two-dimensional direction (see paragraph 0115 and Fig. 7), and each of the plurality of light source units is capable of individually switching whether or not to emit a laser beam (via driver electronics 23 associated with each laser bar, see paragraph 0115).
As for claim 19, while the embodiment of Fig. 7 does not disclose the specifics, Singer does teach that the light receiving unit is disposed at a position having a substantially equal distance from each of the first and second light projectors (see paragraph 0071, stating that the receiver array are aligned with the individual beams of the transmitter; additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the light receiving unit is located at a position having a substantially equal distance from each of the first and second light projectors, the motivation being to maintain proper alignment between the receiving array and the transmitters (see paragraph 0071) for accurate distance measurements.
As for claim 20, while the embodiment of Fig. 7 does not disclose the specifics, Singer does teach that the light receiving unit receives reflected light obtained by reflecting the light emitted from the light projection unit by an object (see paragraph 0041, “scanned object” for example, along with paragraph 0060, “surface of the object”), and the distance measuring device further comprises a distance measuring unit configured to measure a distance to the object by a time difference between time at which the light projection unit emits the light and a time at which the light emitted from the light projection unit is reflected by the object and received by the light receiving unit (paragraph 0069 discloses time-measuring circuits, which in the best understanding of the examiner is equivalent to the claimed distance measuring unit, where time of flight is a known lidar technique for measuring the distance to an object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the embodiment of Fig. 7 to perform time of flight distance measurements of an object, the motivation being that time of flight is a notoriously well known way to process light reflected off of an object via lidar using the disclosed SPAD arrays to measure the distance based on timing between emission and detection (see paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 21, Singer (Fig. 7) discloses a distance measuring device comprising a light projection unit 20 configured to emit light in a two-dimensional manner (“a 2D-emitter array can be realized” as found in paragraph 0115); and a control unit (inherent to Fig. 7) configured to control whether or not to perform light reception by a plurality of light receiving elements 8 arranged in a two-dimensional direction (see paragraph 0117 – “the activated domains 13 of the receiver arrays 8 are synchronously shifted to the corresponding activated laser bars 22 such that the radiation is collected by the sensitive areas 13”; additionally, paragraph 0116 states that the receiver array is arranged in a comparable way to the emitter array 20, causing the plurality of SPAD arrays 8 to be arranged in a two-dimensional direction), wherein the light projection unit includes a plurality of light source units (“laser bars 22” in paragraph 0117; see also Fig. 7 explicitly showing three laser bars 22; see also paragraph 0035).
Fig. 7 of Singer fails to disclose that the plurality of light source units includes two or more light source units having different numbers of times of emission per unit time from each other.
However, Singer teaches, in paragraph 0035-0043, that the lasers may be selectively activated (see paragraph 0038), that the lasers have serial or interleaved modulation so that neighboring beams are separated in time (see paragraph 0042), and that each individual transmitter can have a separate unique code (see paragraph 0043). Additionally, it has been disclosed that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the plurality of light source units in Singer to have two or more light source units that have different numbers of times of emission per unit from each other, the motivation being that selective activation of the light source units of the light projection unit allows for many different possible spatial patterns (see paragraph 0038) while allowing for the reduction of cross-talk between the emitted beams (see paragraph 0042 and 0043).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer et al (2019/0094345) in view of Ueda et al (JPH10227856).
As for claim 6, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 5, but fails to disclose that the light projection unit includes a light direction change member that changes a direction of the laser beam reflected by the MEMS mirror.
Ueda, in a lidar device (Fig. 6 for example), discloses, in the light projection unit, a light direction change member 26 (see paragraph 0038) that changes a direction of a laser beam (light projecting unit 6 includes a laser as per paragraph 0005) that has reflected from a MEMS mirror (plate-like galvanometer mirror 15 as per paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light direction change member to the light projecting unit of Singer as per Ueda, the motivation being that the addition of an additional reflector allows for compact installation of the measuring device within a vehicle (see paragraph 0039).
As for claim 7, the combination of Singer and Ueda discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 6, but fails to disclose that the direction of the laser beam reflected by the light direction change member is parallel to the laser beam emitted from the light source unit.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the elements of the combined device of Singer and Ueda so that light that reflects off of the light direction change member is parallel to the laser beam emitted from the light source unit, the motivation being to further ensure the compactness of the device as desired by Ueda (see paragraph 0039) while not changing the functionality of the device, as the device will be able to measure distance to the object so long as light from the light source unit is scanned on the object.
As for claim 16, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 15, but fails to disclose that each light projection unit includes a light direction change member that changes a direction of the laser beam reflected by the MEMS mirror.
Ueda, in a lidar device (Fig. 6 for example), discloses, in the light projection unit, a light direction change member 26 (see paragraph 0038) that changes a direction of a laser beam (light projecting unit 6 includes a laser as per paragraph 0005) that has reflected from a MEMS mirror (plate-like galvanometer mirror 15 as per paragraph 0059). Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This would enable a light direction change member to be associated with each light projector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light direction change member to the light projecting unit of Singer as per Ueda, the motivation being that the addition of an additional reflector allows for compact installation of the measuring device within a vehicle (see paragraph 0039).
As for claim 17, the combination of Singer and Ueda, through Ueda, discloses that the light direction change member is a reflecting mirror having a reflecting surface with a fixed inclination angle (see mirror 26 and paragraph 0038, along with Fig. 6 showing that mirror to be fixed in place).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-17, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/996,558 in view of Singer et al (2019/0094345).
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 8 of the ‘558 application discloses distance measuring device comprising (see line 1 of the claim 1 of the ’558 application) a light projection unit configured to emit light in a two-dimensional manner (see lines 2-3 of claim 1 of the ‘558 application); a light receiving unit including a plurality of light receiving elements arranged in a two-dimensional direction (see lines 4-5 of claim 1 of the ‘558 application); and a control unit configured to control whether or not to perform light reception by the plurality of light receiving elements (see lines 6-8 of claim 1 of the ‘558 application), wherein the light projection unit includes a plurality of light source units (see lines 2-3 of claim 8 of the ‘558 application).
Claims 1 and 8 of the ‘558 application, however, fails to disclose the plurality of light source units includes two or more light source units having different numbers of times of emission per unit time from each other.
However, Singer teaches, in paragraph 0035-0043, that the lasers may be selectively activated (see paragraph 0038), that the lasers have serial or interleaved modulation so that neighboring beams are separated in time (see paragraph 0042), and that each individual transmitter can have a separate unique code (see paragraph 0043). Additionally, it has been disclosed that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the plurality of light source units in the ‘558 application to have two or more light source units that have different numbers of times of emission per unit from each other, the motivation being that selective activation of the light source units of the light projection unit allows for many different possible spatial patterns (see paragraph 0038) while allowing for the reduction of cross-talk between the emitted beams (see paragraph 0042 and 0043).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
As for claim 2, the ‘558 application fails to disclose that the control unit controls timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the same light source unit does not emit light a plurality of times within a predetermined period.
However, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Singer; in order to reduce cross-talk, neighboring beams of the laser diode need to be separated in time. Ensuring that the plurality of light source units do not emit light a plurality of times within a predetermined period would make sure that such separation in time remains in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Singer control timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the same light source unit does not emit light a plurality of times within a predetermined period, the motivation being to ensure that cross-talk between the emitted beams remains reduced as desired (see paragraph 0042).
As for claim 3, while claim 4 of the ‘558 application discloses that the light source unit emits a laser beam, the ‘558 application fails to disclose that the predetermined period is set in accordance with a safety standard of the laser beam.
Singer, however, discloses the predetermined period is set in accordance with a safety standard of the laser beam (see paragraph 0043 – “the allowable eye-safety limits”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the predetermined period be set in accordance with a safety standard of the laser beam, the motivation being to ensure eye safety limits are properly followed so that living beings within the scan range of the distance measuring device are not harmfully impacted by use of the distance measuring device (see paragraph 0043 of Singer).
As for claim 4, the ‘558 application fails to disclose that the control unit sets the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit.
However, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Singer; in order to reduce cross-talk, neighboring beams of the laser diode need to be separated in time. Ensuring that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit would make sure that such separation in time remains in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Singer control timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit, the motivation being to ensure that cross-talk between the emitted beams remains reduced as desired (see paragraph 0042).
Claim 5 of the instant application with claim 4 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 6 of the instant application with claim 6 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 7 of the instant application with claim 7 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 8 of the instant application with claim 8 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 9 of the instant application with claim 10 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 10 of the instant application with claim 11 of the ‘558 application.
As for claim 11, the ‘558 application fails to disclose that the control unit sets the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit.
However, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of Singer; in order to reduce cross-talk, neighboring beams of the laser diode need to be separated in time. Ensuring that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit would make sure that such separation in time remains in place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Singer control timing at which the plurality of light source units emits light such that the number of times of emission per unit time of some of the plurality of light source units to be higher than the number of times of emission per unit time of another light source unit, the motivation being to ensure that cross-talk between the emitted beams remains reduced as desired (see paragraph 0042).
As for claim 12, the ‘558 application fails to disclose that some of the light source units in the first and second light projectors emit light at the same timing.
However, Singer discloses that, in some embodiments, scanning data is acquired by generating a plurality of beams for scanning at the same time (see paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have some of the light source units in the first light projector and some of the light source units in the second light projector emit light at the same timing, the motivation being to provide a higher point rate or density as is an explicitly disclosed advantage of multi-beam laser scanners (see paragraph 0023).
Claim 15 of the instant application with claim 13 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 16 of the instant application with claim 15 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 17 of the instant application with claim 16 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 18 of the instant application with claim 17 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 19 of the instant application with claim 12 of the ‘558 application.
Claim 20 of the instant application with claim 20 of the ‘558 application.
Regarding claim 21, claims 1 and 8 of the ‘558 application discloses a distance measuring device comprising (see line 1 of claim 1 of the ‘558 application) a light projection unit configured to emit light in a two-dimensional manner (see lines 2-3 of claim 1 of the ‘558 application); and a control unit configured to control whether or not to perform light reception by a plurality of light receiving elements arranged in a two-dimensional direction (see lines 4-8 of claim 1 of the ‘558 application), wherein the light projection unit includes a plurality of light source units (see lines 2-3 of claim 8 of the ‘558 application).
Claims 1 and 8 of the ‘558 application, however, fails to disclose the plurality of light source units includes two or more light source units having different numbers of times of emission per unit time from each other.
However, Singer teaches, in paragraph 0035-0043, that the lasers may be selectively activated (see paragraph 0038), that the lasers have serial or interleaved modulation so that neighboring beams are separated in time (see paragraph 0042), and that each individual transmitter can have a separate unique code (see paragraph 0043). Additionally, it has been disclosed that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the plurality of light source units in the ‘558 application to have two or more light source units that have different numbers of times of emission per unit from each other, the motivation being that selective activation of the light source units of the light projection unit allows for many different possible spatial patterns (see paragraph 0038) while allowing for the reduction of cross-talk between the emitted beams (see paragraph 0042 and 0043).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 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:
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 10, wherein a light source unit other than the some of the light source units in the first