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 s 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 3, “SN” is not defined in the claim or the specification. It appears that this is a translation issue and SN should refer to Signal to Noise ratio. Specifically, the specification states “ The error detecting portion 25 may achieve an increase in the SN of the incidence intensity signal of the clutter reflected light RLc by lowering the light receiving sensitivity of the light receiving portion 60, 1.e., by reducing the quantity of signal amplification. Incidence intensity signals of the clutter reflected light RLc are much stronger than incidence intensity signals of the ambient light. So, a low light receiving sensitivity disables receipt of incidence intensity signals caused by the ambient light, which results in an increase in the SN of the incidence intensity signal of the clutter reflected light RLc. ” (page 14, lines 12-18). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that SN in this context refers to the well-known “signal to noise ratio”. Regarding claim 6, lines 2 and 3 contain “and and”. Appropriate correction 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. 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: “light emitting portion” in claim 1, “light receiving portion” in claim 1, “distance measuring portion” in claim 1, “error detecting portion” in claim 1, “scanning portion” in claims 4, 5, and 7, and “control portion” in claim 7. 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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takagawa et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0033452. Regarding claim 1 , Takagawa teaches a n optical distance measuring apparatus (abstract) comprising: a light emitting portion configured to emit irradiation light (Figure 2, ref 13; paragraph 41; IR light source) ; a light receiving portion configured to output a signal according to an intensity of incident light, the incident light including a reflected light resulting from the emitted irradiation light (Figure 2, ref 16; paragraph 38 APD) ; a case that accommodates the light emitting portion and the light receiving portion (Figure 1, case 10 includes a window 12; paragraph 38 and a light reflecting member 101) ; a distance measuring portion configured to perform a distance measurement process of measuring a distance to an object according to the intensity of the incident light (Figure 2; ref 182; Figure 3, ref 17 “distance measurement unit”) ; and an error detecting portion configured to perform an error detection process of detecting an error in the light emitting portion using a reflected light resulting from the irradiation light emitted in a period when the distance measurement process is not performed (Figure 11A and 11B; paragraph 59 and 60; teaches as the light is raster scanned and strikes reflecting member 101 that becomes a reference point for measurement of time when the raster scan ends and can be used to calibrate and determine if an overscan or deviation occurs; As the light strikes the reflecting member and does not continue to the object containing space this period of time is “when the distance measurement process is not performed” as required by the claims ) . Regarding claim 2. Takagawa teaches The optical distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the error detecting portion is configured to detect an error in the light emitting portion using a reflected light resulting from the irradiation light reflected inside the case (Figures 1 light reflecting member 101 is located on the window and therefore inside the case) . 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. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichiyanagi et al. US Pub. No. 20190041517. Regarding claim 3. Takagawa is silent with respect to t he optical distance measuring apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the error detecting portion is configured to increase an SN of the reflected light reflected inside the case to detect an error in the light emitting portion. Takagawa does teach to reflect light from the window and to use a APD (Figure 1 and paragraph 38). Ichiyanagi teaches wherein the error detecting portion is configured to increase an SN of the reflected light reflected inside the case to detect an error in the light emitting portion (paragraphs 77, 104, and 109) . Specifically, Ichiyanagi teaches that adjusting the amplication ratio for an APD to mixiimum the SN ratio to distinguish and increase the precision of distance measurements from reflected light in both dark and bright conditions (paragraph 16 and 109). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have the error detecting portion is configured to increase an SN of the reflected light reflected inside the case to detect an error in the light emitting portion for the purposes of increase the precision of distance measurements from reflected light in both dark and bright conditions as taught by Ichiyanagi. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. US Pub. No. 20 220196812 . Regarding claim 4. Takagawa teaches The optical distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a scanning portion configured to mechanically scan the emitted irradiation light back and forth in a scan angle range (Figures 1 and 2, ref 15 “MEMS mirror”) , Takagawa is silent with respect to wherein the irradiation light emitted in the distance measurement process and the irradiation light emitted in the error detection process are both scanned in the same scan angle range. Takagawa does teach to reflect light from the window and to use a APD (Figure 1 and paragraph 38). Nelson teaches to use total internal reflect to create a reference signal to determine a zero distance time for the purpose of calibrating time bins (paragraph 21-23; Figure 1a and 1b). The combination of Takagawa and Nelson would teach to scan across the region and have a portion of the light internally reflect off the window to reach the sensor and provide a zero time stamp for each location of the scan region. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have wherein the irradiation light emitted in the distance measurement process and the irradiation light emitted in the error detection process are both scanned in the same scan angle range for the purposes of increase the precision of distance measurements by having a zero calibration for each scan location. The time that the reference light reaches the sensor is not during the time of distance measurements of objects in the scan space therefore the modified device would still read on the limitations of claim 1. Claim(s) 5 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagawa as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. US Pub. No. 20 220196812 and Dumais et al. US Pub. No. 20190369254. Regarding claim 5. The optical distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1 , Takagawa is silent with respect to further comprising a scanning portion configured to electronically scan the emitted irradiation light back and forth in a scan angle range, wherein the irradiation light emitted in the distance measurement process and the irradiation light emitted in the error detection process are both scanned in the same scan angle range. However Takagawa teaches to mechanically scan and it would be obvious to have the irradiation light emitted in the distance measurement process and the irradiation light emitted in the error detection process are both scanned in the same scan angle range by combining the teachings of Takagawa and Nelson. See claim 4 above for details of obviousness. Takagawa and Nelson are silent with respect to electronically scanning. Dumais teaches using an LCOS (liquid crystal on silicon) to scan in an LIDAR system using a plurality of light sources (abstract, paragraph 31). The using of the LCOS reduces detector array costs and improves sensitivity (paragraph 67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have a scanning portion configured to electronically scan the emitted irradiation light back and forth in a scan angle range for the purposes of reduc ing detector array costs and improves sensitivity ( Dumais: paragraph 67). Regarding claim 6 . Although claim 6 does not depend on claim 5 the motivation and combinations in claim 5s rejection above teaches the requirements of claim 6. Specifically, Dumais teaches The optical distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the light emitting portion comprises a plurality of light sources ( Figure 1 ) ; and the error detecting portion is configured to perform the error detection process on each of the light sources at different timings (paragraph 26) . Therefore, claim 6 would be obvious in view of the motivations and modifications discussed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Regarding claim 7. The optical distance measuring apparatus according to claim 6, further comprising: Dumais teaches a scanning portion configured to scan the emitted irradiation light back and forth in a predetermined scan angle range; and a control portion configured to control a scan angle of the scanning portion (Figure 1; paragraph 26) , The combination of Takawaga, Nelson and Dumais would teach wherein, the light emitting portion is configured to, in the error detection process, emit the irradiation light using the different light sources for each of a plurality of regions divided using the scan angle (see the rejection of claims 5 and 6 above. Furthermore, Dumais teaches sequentially activating each light source to redirect the light beam to a different location (paragraph 26) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada; Masato et al. US 20120187283 A1 teaches stray light from reflects inside the case produce a ghost or secondary image (Figure 10B). TACHINO; Yoshihide US 20210341592 A1 teaches reflecting within the housing to determine the presence or absence of an abnormality in the light receiving unit. SATO; HIDEKI et al. US 20200088875 A1 teaches similar to Nelson reflects off the window for the purposes of baselining or calibrating. Ichiyanagi; Hoshibumi US 20190041517 A1 teaches adjusting APD amplification (paragraph 77). Ichikawa; Yoichi et al. US 20180128919 A1 teaches frame to frame error correction. Sergeev; Nikolai US 20230408657 A1 teaches Figure 5 adjusting the mirror to back reflect to the detector and verify the light source is working. Yang; Xiaoyong et al. US 20170363721 A1 teaches the use of a reference array to collect light reflected off the from window. UENO; Akifumi et al. US 20220268896 A1 teaches determing a deviation amount of the detection angle and mirror position correction. RYU; Chang Myung et al. US 20190033433 A1 teaches a reference SPAD that collects light reflected off the transmission window. Gupta; Mohit et al. US 20200386893 A1 teaches adjusting amplification for dead time correction and increases the SN ratio in a SPAD detector array. MORI; Toshihiro et al. US 20110235018 A1 teaches TOF measurements with distance correction. OZAKI; Noriyuki et al. US 20210181308 A1 teaches a non-measurement period of the scan. Mandai; Shingo et al. US 20180209846 A1 teaches adjusting the sensitivity of SPADs to incrase the SN ratio. MIZUNO; Fumiaki US 20220229192 A1 teaches a reset period and adjusting for ambient light. Kiyono; Mitsuhiro et al. US 20210239802 A1 teaches the general state of the art. Robertsson; Hans R. US 4227261 A teaches reflecting a portion of the light back to the detector for calibration purposes. Barbier; Dominique Paul et al. US 10034111 B1 teaches adjusting amplification for SN ratio improvements. HOASHI YOSHIAKI JP 2017125771 A teaches reflection members located at the end of the scanning range for calibrating scan location. BERNIER E et al. WO 2019228350 A1 teaches electronic scanning. HIRAMATSU T et al. US 20190146086 A1 teaches reflecting off the front window surface for calibration. GREIMEL-LAENGAUER B et al. EP 3193192 A1 teaches reducing cross talk. SEO Y et al. US 20140300887 A1 teaches adjusting amplification setting. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawn DeCenzo whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3227 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9am to 4pm . 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, Kathleen Bragdon can be reached at 571-272-0931 . 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. /Shawn Decenzo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6202