DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 2, 13-14, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 20070030348) in view of Waibel (US 20020067475), Gilmore (US 20070068018), Sege (US 20130346325) and Chiang (DE 10035994), see English Translation of record.
Regarding claim 1, Snyder discloses a device for measuring a distance to a first surface by using an optical-based non-contact distance meter (see Abstract, Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0021-0022: device with laser-based range finder for obtaining distance measurements), for use with a wireless network (see Abstract: device uses wireless communication network), the device comprising:
a light emitter for emitting a light signal along the first line to a first surface (see paragraphs 0021-0022: distance sensor comprises a laser-based emitter, signal returned from a nearby local object/surface, laser by its definition is a device that stimulates atoms or molecules to emit light at particular wavelengths and amplifies that light, typically producing a very narrow beam of radiation, i.e. substantially only a line);
a photosensor for receiving a light signal that is reflected from the first surface in response to the emitted light signal (see paragraphs 0021-0022: distance sensor comprises a laser-based sensor/photosensor, reflected signal returned from a nearby local object/surface);
wherein the range finger/distance sensor produces a measurement signal/correlation, wherein the measurement signal relates to a time-of-flight measurement/correlation of the signal (see paragraph 0042: time-of-flight measurement);
a digital camera having an optical axis for capturing an image in a field of view centered at the optical axis that is aligned to the first line (see paragraphs 0027 and 0029: camera aligned with range finder for capturing a digital image, optical axis aligned with the range finder);
a display for visually displaying data (see paragraph 0032: display screen 42);
an antenna for transmitting and receiving Radio-Frequency (RF) signals over the air (see paragraphs 0006 and paragraph 0024: radiotelephone with antenna 34);
a wireless transceiver coupled to the antenna for wirelessly transmitting data to, and for receiving data from, the wireless network (see paragraphs 0024-0025: cellular communication circuit used to communicate with network 36); and
a hand-held enclosure that houses the light emitter, the photosensor, the processing circuit, the digital camera, the display, the antenna, and the wireless transceiver (see Figs 2 and 4 and paragraphs 0026-0029: enclosure 54, houses cell phone components, includes range finder, i.e. emitter and photosensor, digital camera, processing circuit, display, and communication device, i.e. antenna and transceiver),
wherein the device is configured to display the captured image and to display information that is in response to the measured correlation (see paragraphs 0008 and 0037: displaying distance information with image data from the camera),
wherein the device is configured to transmit to the wireless network the captured image and an information that is in response to the measured time-of-flight/correlation (see paragraphs 0010 and 0031: remitting the distance and image data);
wherein the light signal consists of, or comprises, a non-visible light signal (see paragraph 0021: infrared emitter, i.e. non-visible light source, emitting the recited light signal, making a non-visible light signal), and
wherein the distance meter is a Time-Of-Flight (TOF) meter, and the device is further configured to estimate a distance in response to a measured time period between emitting the light signal and receiving the reflected light signal (see paragraphs 0022 and 0042: distance measurement between emitted signal and detected reflection signal/time of flight measurement).
Snyder does not expressly disclose wherein the light is a light signal substantially along the first line;
a correlator for measuring the correlation between the light signal emitted by the light emitter and the reflected light signal received by the photosensor;
wherein optical axis that is parallel to the first line;
wherein the light signal is a pulse-shaped signal;
wherein the device is addressable in the wireless network using a digital address that comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and
wherein the wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN), the wireless transceiver is a WPAN transceiver, and the antenna is a WPAN antenna.
Waibel discloses wherein the light is a light signal substantially along the first line (see Abstract and Fig. 1: laser beam, a laser beam by its definition is a narrow, intense beam of light); and
wherein optical axis that is parallel to the first line (see Abstract and paragraphs 0012 and 0028: camera and laser have a parallel offset).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder in view of Waibel, i.e. wherein the light source is a laser beam setup to be in an arrangement in parallel offset from the camera, for the advantageous benefit of measuring the distance to a surface that is the center focus with respect to the image being captured by the camera.
Snyder and Waibel do not expressly disclose a correlator for measuring the correlation between the light signal emitted by the light emitter and the reflected light signal received by the photosensor;
wherein the light signal is a pulse-shaped signal;
wherein the device is addressable in the wireless network using a digital address that comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and
wherein the wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN), the wireless transceiver is a WPAN transceiver, and the antenna is a WPAN antenna.
Gilmore disclose a correlator for measuring the correlation between the light signal emitted by the light emitter and the reflected light signal received by the photosensor (see paragraph 0028: pulse generator and timer used to measure the claimed correlation as defined by the specification); and
wherein the light signal is a pulse-shaped signal (see paragraphs 0028 and 0030: pulse of light).
Gilmore further discloses and wherein the device is further configured to estimate a distance in response to a measured time period between emitting the light signal and receiving the reflected emitted pulse (see paragraphs 0005, 0028, and 0031: calculates a distance based on the measured time for the pulse to travel from the emitter to the target and back to the receiver).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder with the teachings of Gilmore, i.e. using timer and pulse generator circuity in the range finder of Snyder to measure the time-of-flight, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional circuit components to monitor the time-of-flight used to determine the distance to the surface reflecting the light.
Snyder, Waibel, and Gilmore do not expressly disclose wherein the device is addressable in the wireless network using a digital address that comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and
wherein the wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN), the wireless transceiver is a WPAN transceiver, and the antenna is a WPAN antenna.
Sege discloses a mobile device connected to a network and wherein the device is addressable in the wireless network using a digital address that comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address (see paragraphs 0033 and 0040: mobile phone addressable via a digital IP address).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder with the teachings of Sege, i.e. using a digital IP address to address the wireless device of Snyder, for the advantageous benefit using conventional communication technology to communicate with mobile devices. This way the device can be efficiently and easily accessed using various communication networks.
Snyder, Waibel, Gilmore and Sege do not expressly disclose wherein the wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN), the wireless transceiver is a WPAN transceiver, and the antenna is a WPAN antenna.
Chiang discloses disclose wherein a wireless network is a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN), the wireless transceiver is a WPAN transceiver, and the antenna is a WPAN antenna (see page 2 4th and 3rd paragraphs from the bottom of the page, i.e. the two paragraphs below the description of Fig. 6: Bluetooth wireless communication, i.e. a WPAN communication network, Bluetooth module 40 contains an antenna 42 and a radio frequency transceiver 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder with the teachings of Chiang, i.e. using Bluetooth to transmit data wirelessly, for the advantageous benefit of using a conventional, low power, widely utilized, communication protocol to transmit data from one device to another.
Regarding claim 2, Snyder, previously modified, further discloses in the enclosure, a software and a processor for executing the software, the processor is coupled to control the light emitter, the photosensor, the correlator, the digital camera, the display, and the wireless transceiver (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0021-0022, 0024, and 0042: processing circuit, which performs processing and controls, i.e. has software, processor is coupled to range finder, i.e. previously discussed emitter, photosensor, and correlator components, camera, display, and communication device, i.e. previously discussed wireless transceiver; and see Figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 0026-0029: enclosure 54 for housing components).
Regarding claim 13, Snyder previously discussed above that the range finder was in the enclosure.
Snyder and Waibel do not expressly disclose further comprising in the enclosure a timer and a pulse generator coupled the light emitter for generating the pulse, and wherein the correlator comprises the timer coupled to the pulse generator and to the photosensor for measuring a time period Δt that starts in response to the generated pulse and ends in response to the received reflected pulse by the photosensor.
Gilmore discloses wherein the range finder comprises a timer and a pulse generator coupled the light emitter for generating the pulse (see paragraphs 0028 and 0030: timer and pulse generator, pulse generator coupled to laser emitter), and wherein the correlator comprises the timer coupled to the pulse generator and to the photosensor for measuring a time period Δt that starts in response to the generated pulse and ends in response to the received reflected pulse by the photosensor (see paragraph 0028: timer connected to pulse generator and detector, i.e. a phototransistor, photodiode, or like device, to determine start and stop conditions for the measured time period fo the distance calculation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder with the teachings of Gilmore, i.e. using timer and pulse generator circuity in the range finder of Snyder to measure the time-of-flight, for the advantageous benefit of using conventional circuit components to monitor the time-of-flight used to determine the distance to the surface reflecting the light.
Regarding claim 14, Snyder, previously modified, further discloses wherein the distance is calculated or estimated based on a measured time-period Δt (see paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 32, Snyder, previously modified, further discloses wherein the device is further operative to send a notification message over the wireless network using the wireless transceiver via the antenna is in response to the measured correlation (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0029: after image and distance is measured/obtained, i.e. previously discussed measured correlation, device then transmits the related distance and digital image data).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 20070030348) in view of Waibel (US 20020067475), Gilmore (US 20070068018), Sege (US 20130346325), Chiang (DE 10035994), and Oki (US 20020149512).
Regarding claim 15, Synder, Waibel, Gilmore, Sege and Chiang do not expressly disclose wherein the light signal is propagated in a medium at a velocity c1, and wherein the distance is calculated or estimated based on, or according to, c1*Δt/2.
Oki discloses wherein the light signal is propagated in a medium at a velocity c1, and wherein the distance is calculated or estimated based on, or according to, c1*Δt/2 (see paragraph 0043-0044: discloses formula for calculating distance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder with the teachings of Oki, i.e. using the disclosed formula for calculating a distance value, for the advantageous benefit of using a conventional/proven accurate formula for calculating the distance value.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 20070030348) in view of Waibel (US 20020067475), Gilmore (US 20070068018), and Sege (US 20130346325), Chiang (DE 10035994), and Gogolla (US 20040105087).
Regarding claim 16, Synder, Waibel, Gilmore, Sege and Chiang do not expressly disclose further for phase-detection, whereby the light signal is a periodic signal, and the device is further configured to estimate a distance in response to a phase difference between the emitted signal and the received reflected signal.
Gogolla discloses further for phase-detection, whereby the light signal is a periodic signal, and the device is further configured to estimate a distance in response to a phase difference between the emitted signal and the received reflected signal (see paragraphs 0004 and 0029: determines measured distance in response to the phase difference between emitted and received signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Snyder with the teachings of Gogolla, i.e. using a phase-based distance measurement method, for the advantageous benefit of using a proven accurate method to implement the distance measurement using the light emitter and receiver of Snyder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the examiner is misinterpretation the rules in relation to the analogous art argument as the prior office action failed to indicate why the references are analogous. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior office action did provide a brief statement as to why the references are analogous to the claimed invention and will repeat such statements below.
In response to applicant's argument that the references are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, Waibel is concerned with laser distance measurements. This relates both the primary reference as it includes laser distance measurements as well as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Gilmore is concerned with laser distance measurements. This relates both the primary reference as it includes laser distance measurements as well as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Sege discloses a mobile device connected to a network and wherein the device is addressable in a wireless network using a digital address. This relates to the primary reference as it is a device that communicates data wirelessly and as well as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Chiang discloses a particular method and components for communicating data wirelessly. This relates to the primary reference as it is a device that communicates data wirelessly and as well as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Oki is concerned with laser measurements. This relates both the primary reference as it includes laser distance measurements as well as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Gogolla is concerned with laser distance measurements. This relates both the primary reference as it includes laser distance measurements as well as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Sege and Chiang are non-analogous art as they are not in the field of laser distance measurements and that laser and distance do not appear in any of the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention in not directed to the singular technology of laser distance measurements. The claimed invention also includes wireless communication technologies. The primary reference Snyder also discloses a laser distance apparatus with wireless communication technologies. As indicated above, Sege discloses a mobile device connected to a network and wherein the device is addressable in a wireless network using a digital address. This relates to the primary reference as it is a device that communicates data wirelessly and as well as the applicant’s claimed invention. Also, Chiang discloses a particular method and components for communicating data wirelessly. This relates to the primary reference as it is a device that communicates data wirelessly and as well as the applicant’s claimed invention. Thus each reference is analogous to both the claimed invention and the primary reference as both the claimed invention and the primary reference are both directed to wireless communication elements. The references, Sege and Chiang are used to show that such wireless communication technologies are known in the art, and would could be implemented in the primary reference Snyder as a conventional means of communicating data.
Applicant argues that the examiners statement of “The restriction between claims is not an indication that such claim is novel/patentable with respect to any prior art" is improver and against the rules of the MPEP. The restriction indicated that various groups limited to various subcombinations. This is different than a species restriction.
For example, if claim 1 was directed to a car comprising a body, 4 tires, and 1 engine. Dependent claim 2 further limits to the tires to tires with special traction features. Dependent claim 3 further limits the engine to an engine with special turbo features. Claims 2 and 3 would be directed to distinct sub-combinations of linking claim 1.
The tires with special traction features of claim 2 are clearly not the same as an engine with special turbo features. Thus, one can reasonable indicate that the tires of claim 2 is not an obvious variant of the engine of claim 3. With respect to this example, are the tires and obvious variant of an engine? The answer is a no.
Likewise with current pending claim claims of group 1, drawn to various light source components, are clearly not the same as the claims of group 3, drawn to various types of wireless network. A wireless network is not equivalent or an obvious variant of a light source. A light source component is not equivalent to or an obvious variant of a wireless network. Thus, the sub-combinations are non-obvious variants with respect to each other. The restriction did not indicate that either of the sub-combinations are novel on their own or combined together. The fact that the claims are directed to clearly different sub-combinations of components justifies that such claim are directed to different distinct inventions, which justifies a search burden. Like in the car example, tires have their own patents in their own field of search, and engines have their own patents with a different field of search. Thus, a claim directed to a tire with special traction features is patentable distinct from a claim directed to an engine to an engine with special turbo features.
The USPTO/examiner is not applying a double standard as argued by the applicant. A statement that claims are patentable distinct, a statement indicating that claims are related to different types of inventions that are unrelated, in not a statement that when combined together, they would be a novel invention.
Applicant argues that the combination of Waibel is improper hindsight because the modification for the modification is the same reasoning stated in the application.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The technological concept of aligning a laser beam with a camera lens is clearly disclosed in the prior art reference. The examiner is not relying upon hindsight reasoning as the concept is taught by the reference. So, the combination of references is only relying upon the concepts taught in the prior art references.
Applicant argues that the modification of Gilmore is improper as the motivation is the same as the modification and that the rejection fails to explain the why and how. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The how is “using timer and pulse generator circuity in the range finder of Snyder to measure the time-of-flight”. The why is “using conventional circuit components to monitor the time-of-flight used to determine the distance to the surface reflecting the light”. Using conventional and proven technologies accomplish a task is a valid modification. There is motivation to use conventional and proven technologies as one with ordinary sill in the art would already have a clear understanding that such technologies successfully work.
Applicant argues that the combination of Sege is improper as the device fo Snyder would already have a phone number. This argument is moot in view of the claimed amendments that now require the digital address to be an IP address. Snyder does not expressly recite the term IP address. Thus, Sege is used to teach addressing a device using an IP address.
Applicant argues that the combination of Chiang is improper as Snyder already using a low power communication protocol. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Snyder does not discuss low power communication. The network of Sege could merely be a mobile network. Bluetooth is far more power-efficient than cellular (mobile network), especially Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), designed for short-range, low-data tasks with minimal drain (1-3% daily), while cellular uses significantly more power for streaming, downloads, or weak signal areas, causing rapid battery depletion, though both depend on usage and signal strength. Thus, the motivation to use a Bluetooth network is a technological a valid motivation.
The applicant also argues that the examiner fails to show the how and why with respect the Chiang modification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The how is “using Bluetooth to transmit data wirelessly”. The why is “for the advantageous benefit of using a conventional, low power, widely utilized, communication protocol to transmit data from one device to another”.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sivan (US 20190182415) discloses a distance measuring device with WPAN communication components.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857