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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 11-12 in the reply filed on 3/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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 radiation unit (in claims 11-12), a separation unit (in claim 11), a first detection unit (in claim 11), a second detection unit (in claim 11). Note that the separation unit, first detection unit, and second detection unit have sufficient structure in claim 12 that they are not interpreted under 112f.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (WO2018216573A1) in view of Murayama (US 20150062305 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 11¸Uchida teaches a measurement apparatus comprising:
a radiation unit (12) configured to radiate, at a predetermined radiation angle, an electromagnetic wave of infrared light (paragraph 37) onto a first point on a surface of an object (ob; paragraphs 9, 37-43, and 47; figure 1);
a light reception system (10) comprising:
a separation unit (16; paragraphs 13-14)configured to receive a reflected wave of infrared light (paragraph 37) of the electromagnetic wave radiated by the radiation unit reflected from the surface of the object (paragraph 14) and visible light reflected from the surface of the object and, separate the reflected wave of infrared light from the visible light, and output the visible light in a first direction and the reflected wave of infrared light in a second direction (paragraphs 20 and 35; figure 1);
a first detection unit (20) configured to detect the reflected wave of infrared light (paragraph 33) separated by the separation unit (16), a second travelling axis of the reflected wave of infrared light that travels in the second direction being parallel to a second detection axis of the first detection unit (paragraph 31) that passes through a center of a detection surface of the first detection unit and that is perpendicular to the detection surface of the first detection unit (paragraph 30);
a second detection unit (17) configured to acquire, based on the visible light separated by the separation unit (paragraph 20), an image of the object, a first travelling axis of the visible light that travels in the first direction from the separation unit being parallel to a first detection axis of the second detection unit that passes through a center of a detection surface of the second detection unit and that is perpendicular to the detection surface of the second detection unit (paragraph 16); and
a control unit (14) configured to:
measure, based on the reflected wave of infrared light separated by the separation unit, a distance from the measurement apparatus to the first point on the surface of the object (paragraphs 34-35); and
calculate information (e.g., a relative position with respect to the other points on object; paragraph 47) indicating a position of a point on the surface of the object based on the distance from the measurement apparatus to the first point on the surface of the object (paragraph 47), the predetermined radiation angle (paragraphs 43 and 47), and the image (paragraphs 45, 20),
wherein, among electromagnetic waves that are incident on the light reception system reflected from the first point (figure 1), the reflected wave of infrared light detected by the first detection unit and the visible light detected by the second detection unit have an identical optical axis (paragraph 49; figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Uchida doesn’t explicitly teach the information is coordinate information.
Like Uchida (and like the instant application), Murayama is directed to an optical distance/position measurement system using infrared light and an image sensor and teaches the control unit configured to calculate coordinate information indicating a position of a point on the surface of the object based on the distance from the measurement apparatus to the first point on the surface of the object and the image (figure 11; paragraphs 100-105; paragraphs 68 and 83-91). Additionally, Murayama teaches this provides the benefit of “enabling the measurement of the length of the positions desired by the user with high accuracy” (paragraph 104).
PNG
media_image2.png
276
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uchida such that the control unit is configured to calculate coordinate information indicating a position of a point on the surface of the object based on the distance from the measurement apparatus to the first point on the surface of the object, the predetermined radiation angle, and the image – in order to enable the measurement of the length of the positions desired by the user with high accuracy.
Regarding claim 12¸Uchida teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the separation unit includes a half mirror, a beam splitter, a dichroic mirror, a cold mirror, a hot mirror, or a prism (paragraph 14), the first detection unit includes avalanche photodiode (APD), a photodiode (PD), or a distance-measurement image sensor (paragraph 34), and the second detection unit includes an image sensor or an imaging array (paragraph 19).
Additional Prior Art
US 20160161611 A1 teaches a distance measurement system using an infrared light and an image sensor
PNG
media_image3.png
622
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
300
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
WO 2019/216140; cited by Applicant discloses
PNG
media_image5.png
444
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights