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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/5/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 1/5/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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 5 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 5 recites:
The ranging device according to claim 1, wherein, when a ratio between the second distance and the first distance is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold, the processor specifies a half distance of the first distance as the third distance between the light projection circuit and the ranging target.
The meaning of specifies a half distance of the first distance is not clear.
Figure 7 of the specification teaches that time-of-flight range measurements above 5m are within the error range, thus allowing the system of use time-of-flight range as a valid third distance.
Therefore, the meaning of half of the first (time-of-flight) distance being the third distance is not clear.
For the purpose of claim interpretation, claim 5 is being read as the third distance being one half of the speed of light multiplied by the time-of-flight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0268899).
With respect to claim 1, Li et al disclose: A ranging device [ taught by figures 3 and 4 ] comprising: a light projection circuit configured to project laser light [ taught by light emitting unit (10) ]; a light receiving circuit configured to receive reflected light of the laser light projected by the light projection circuit [ taught by light receiving units (20) and (30) ]; and a processor [ taught by the calculating unit (40) ] configured to: measure a time from a time when the light projection circuit projects the laser light to a time when the light receiving circuit receives the reflected light [ paragraph [0034] states, “…The second receiving unit 30 is configured to receive the pulse laser reflected from the target object and generate a corresponding second signal; the second signal is for calculating and determining distance according to the time-of-flight principle, that is, the second signal is for being transmitted to the calculating unit 40 for calculating and determining distance by the calculating unit 40 based on the second signal and according to the time-of-flight principle…” ]; calculate a first distance from the light projection circuit to the light receiving circuit via a ranging target, by using the time [ taught by determining distance according to the time-of-flight principle ]; and specify a third distance between the light projection circuit and the ranging target, by using a light projection angle of the laser light, the first distance, and a second distance between the light projection circuit and the light receiving circuit [ paragraph [0033] states, “…Herein, the principle of trigonometrical ranging is that the laser emitting unit 10 emits laser, and after a target object is irradiated, the reflected light is received by the first receiving unit 20 such as a linear CCD (Charge Coupled Device), and since the laser emitting unit 10 and the first receiving unit 20 are spaced apart by a distance, target objects at different distances will be imaged at different positions on the first receiving unit 20 such as the linear CCD according to optical paths; further, the distance between the measured target object and the ranging apparatus 100 can be derived by calculating according to the trigonometric formula…”; in figure 4, L is the first distance, the baseline spacing between the emitting unit (10) and receiving unit (20) is the second distance, and the interior angles of the triangle are the light projection angle ] when a ratio of the first distance with respect to the second distance is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold [ paragraph [0039] states, “…In one example, the calculating unit 40 may determine the distance between the target object and the ranging apparatus 100 primarily adopting the second distance when the first distance and the second distance are both above a first set distance. For example, the first set distance may be set to 10 meters. When the first distance is 11 meters and the second distance is 12 meters, the calculating unit 40 determines the distance between the target object and the ranging apparatus 100 as 12 meters. This is because, when the distance between the target object and the ranging apparatus 100 is relatively long, the distance calculated according to the time-of-flight principle is relatively accurate…”; therefore, when the ranging distance gets closer to the device, based on a set distance, the first distance (triangulation, read as second distance in the claim mapping) is used, thus meeting a ratio less than a threshold because L divided by the baseline spacing gets smaller as the target distance gets closer ].
Claims 6 and 7 are anticipated by the subject matter of Li et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 3 is anticipated by the teaching of time-of-flight principle disclosed by paragraph [0034].
With regard to claim 4, paragraph [0039] states, “…For example, the first set distance may be set to 10 meters. When the first distance is 11 meters and the second distance is 12 meters, the calculating unit 40 determines the distance between the target object and the ranging apparatus 100 as 12 meters. This is because, when the distance between the target object and the ranging apparatus 100 is relatively long, the distance calculated according to the time-of-flight principle is relatively accurate…”; thus, teaching a ratio of L vs the baseline spacing negligible enough to allow more accurate time-of-flight ranging.
Claim 5, as presently understood under 35 USC 112, is anticipated by the system of Li et al using time-of-flight distance date in ranges beyond 10 meters – time-of-flight bases distance on one half of the speed of light multiplied by measured time-of-flight from emitter to target back to receiver.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al(United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0268899).
Claim 2 differs from Li et al by specifically reciting a trigonometric formula for determining range based on a triangle with two known side lengths and an adjacent angle.
Paragraph [0008] of Li et al states, “…generate a corresponding first signal, wherein the first signal is for calculating and determining distance according to a triangle ranging principle…”; thus, indicating that the level of ordinary skill in the art required knowledge of geometry formulas to determine range by triangulation.
Therefore, the use of well-established geometry to determine range by triangulation would have been a reasonable expectation of one of skill in the art motivated by the system of Li et al requiring using the triangle ranging principle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645