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. Priority The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 03/20/2023 , claims foreign priority to DE Application No. 102020005762.4 , filed on 09/21/2020 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements ( lDS ) submitted on 03/20/2023, 07/24/2025 and 12/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. 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. Claims 1 3 -1 5 and 1 9 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“Underwater Laser-illuminated Range-gated Imaging Scaled by 22.5 cm ns -1 with Serial Targets,” published 2004) in view of Kundu (US20200211226A1). Regarding claim 13 , He discloses a method for calibrating a lighting device and an optical sensor (pp. 209-210, 218, scaling/evaluating the synchronized laser-camera gating with serial targets) , comprising: a control of the lighting device (Fig. 4, laser 7) and the optical sensor (Fig. 4, gated camera 2) are chronologically coordinated with each other (p. 211, delay generator/controller fires the laser and triggers the camera for gating, synchronized in 1 ns delay steps ) ; a visible distance region is assigned to the coordinated control ( p p. 211- 212, Table 1, Fig. 4, working region spanning assigned targets T1 through T5 at known distances along illumination direction ) ; a series of recordings in chronological sequence are recorded with the optical sensor via the coordinated control when lit by the lighting device (p p . 213 -215 , Fig. 6 and Fig. 8, gated images are recorded in 1 ns delay steps of calibration sequence from 28 ns to 44 ns ) ; in a recording that is chronologically first in the series ( p. 214, Fig. 6 (b) , first gated image at 28 ns) , in which a first calibration marker that has at least one pre-determined dimension is recognized ( p. 210, Fig. 2, target T1 with 14 cm X 14 cm 3-bar target , recognized in the T1 gray-level trace of Fig. 8(b) ) , [1: …] ; and the coordinated control and/or the visible distance region are evaluated and/or changed on a basis of a far border of the visible distance region (p. 211, Table 1, Fig. 4, far border of visible distance region corresponding to target T5; p. 216, Fig. 9, evaluation is performed across targets T1 spanning to far broader of T5 ) and [ 2 : …] . He does not disclose: “ a first actual distance of the first calibration marker is determined using the at least one pre-determined dimension” ; and, [visible distance region is evaluated on a basis of] “ the first actual distance . ” However, Kundu teaches (1) in ¶¶ 30, 96-97 the determination of a distance ( Distance of EQ21) to a calibration marker ( ¶ 96, a sign) using a pre-determined dimension ( W of EQ21); and (2) i n ¶¶ 70, 96 evaluating distance to a calibration marker across a distance region ( ¶ 70, distance s Z 1 through Z n of a sign measured across field of view frames 1 through n). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of He in view of the teachings of Kundu with a reasonable expectation for success in order to calibrate the optical sensor and remove distortion parameters, thereby yielding a method with improved measurement accuracy and precision ( Kundu , ¶¶ 19, 21-25, 28 ). Regarding claim 1 4 , He in view of Kundu teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: in a recording that is chronologically last in the series (He, p. 214, Fig. 6(r), gated image at 44 ns) , in which a second calibration marker that has the at least one pre-determined dimension is recognized (He, p. 210, Fig. 2, target T5 has same 14 cm X 14 cm 3-bar target, recognized in the T5 g ray-level trace of Fig. 8(f)), a second actual distance of the second calibration marker is determined using the at least one pre-determined dimension (Kundu, ¶¶ 30, 70, 96-97, subsequent distance measurements based on known dimension, as previously combined) ; and the coordinated control and/or the visible distance region are evaluated and/or changed on a basis of a near border of the visible distance region (He, p. 211, Table 1, Fig. 4, near border of visible distance region corresponding to target T1; p. 216, Fig. 9, evaluation is performed across targets spanning near boarder region of T1 to T5) and the second actual distance (Kundu, ¶¶ 30, 70, 96-97, subsequent distance measurements across field of view frames 1 through n based the known dimension, as previously combined) . Regarding claim 1 5 , He in view of Kundu teaches the method of claim 14, and further teaches: in a recording in the series, in which the first and the second calibration markers are recognized (He, Fig. 8(c), T1 and T5 recognized in the gray-level traces ) , […] ; and the coordinated control and/or the visible distance region are evaluated and/or changed on the basis of the far border and the near border of the visible distance region (He, p. 211, Table 1, Fig. 4, far border of visible distance region corresponding to target T5, near border of visible distance region corresponding to target T1 ; p. 216, Fig. 9, evaluation is performed across targets spanning near boarder region of T1 to far broader of T5) , the first actual distance, and the second actual distance (Kundu, ¶¶ 30, 70, 96-97, distance measurements across frames 1 through n , corresponding to the visible distance region , based on a pre-determined dimension, as previously combined) . The current combina tion of He in view of Kundu does not teach: [in a recording in the series, in which] “the first actual distance and the second actual distance of the respective first and the second calibration markers are determined using the at least one pre-determined dimension . ” However, Kundu teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 65, 96-97 , where two or more signs are recognized in a single frame and distance calculation s are performed for each sign based on a pre-determined dimension of the sign . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of He in view of Kundu with the further teachings of Kundu with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide additional calibration targets at different distances , thereby increasing the amount of calibration inputs , providing for improved calibration accuracy ( Kundu , ¶ 25 ). Regarding claim 1 9 , He in view of Kundu teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: wherein the calibration marker has at least one of an identification feature ( He, p. 210, Fig. 2, targets T1 through T5 having 14 cm X 14 cm 3-bar target, as further identified in the gray-level trace of Fig. 8) , an optical feature for determining at least one optical parameter, and a lighting feature for determining a lighting intensity. Regarding claim 20 , He in view of Kundu teaches the method of claim 14, and further teaches: wherein the first calibration marker and the second calibration marker have a pre-determined spatial distance from each other (He, p. 211, Table 1, predetermined distance between T1 and T5) . Regarding claim 22 , He discloses a calibration device ( Fig. 4 ), comprising: a lighting device (Fig. 4, laser 7) ; an optical sensor (Fig. 4, gated camera 2) ; and a control device ( Fig. 4, delay generator/controller 6 ) configured to perform a method for calibrating the lighting device and the optical sensor (pp. 209-210, 218, scaling/evaluating the synchronized laser-camera gating with serial targets) , comprising: a control of the lighting device and the optical sensor are chronologically coordinated with each other (p. 211, delay generator/controller fires the laser and triggers the camera for gating, synchronized in 1 ns delay steps) ; a visible distance region is assigned to the coordinated control (pp. 211-212, Table 1, Fig. 4, working region spanning assigned targets T1 through T5 at known distances along illumination direction) ; a series of recordings in chronological sequence are recorded with the optical sensor via the coordinated control when lit by the lighting device (pp. 213-215, Fig. 6 and Fig. 8, gated images are recorded in 1 ns delay steps of calibration sequence from 28 ns to 44 ns) ; in a recording that is chronologically first in the series (p. 214, Fig. 6(b), first gated image at 28 ns) , in which a first calibration marker that has at least one pre-determined dimension is recognized (p. 210, Fig. 2, target T1 with 14 cm X 14 cm 3-bar target, recognized in the T1 gray-level trace of Fig. 8(b)) , [1: …] ; and the coordinated control and/or the visible distance region are evaluated and/or changed on a basis of a far border of the visible distance region (p. 211, Table 1, Fig. 4, far border of visible distance region corresponding to target T5; p. 216, Fig. 9, evaluation is performed across targets T1 spanning to far broader of T5) and [ 2 : …] . He does not disclose: “ a first actual distance of the first calibration marker is determined using the at least one pre-determined dimension”; and, [visible distance region is evaluated on a basis of] “ the first actual distance .” However, Kundu teaches (1) in ¶¶ 30, 96-97 the determination of a distance ( Distance of EQ21) to a calibration marker ( ¶ 96, a sign) using a pre-determined dimension ( W of EQ21); and (2) in ¶¶ 70, 96 evaluating distance to a calibration marker across a distance region ( ¶ 70, distance s Z 1 through Z n of a sign measured across field of view frames 1 through n). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the calibration device of He in view of the teachings of Kundu with a reasonable expectation for success in order to calibrate the optical sensor and remove distortion parameters, yielding improved measurement accuracy and precision ( Kundu , ¶¶ 19, 21-25, 28 ). Claim 2 1 corresponds to the control device described as part of the calibration device in claim 22 and recites substantially the same limitations. Accordingly, claim 2 1 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 22 . Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Kundu further in view of Calder (US20200217965A1). Regarding claim 17 , He in view of Kundu teaches the method of claim 13, however, does not teach: wherein an actual number of photons arriving at the optical sensor is measured and wherein a lighting intensity of the lighting device is evaluated and/or changed on a basis of a difference between the actual number and a target number of photons arriving at the optical sensor. However, Calder teaches a range-gated camera (¶ 62) implementing a “photon counter circuit that is configured to increment the count signal Vcount responsive to each photon detected by the detector” (¶ 68) and monitored relative to “a preset number of photons” where a readout flag is triggered when the preset threshold is extended (¶ 53) where “a power level of the emitter signal may be reduced in response” (¶ 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of He in view Kundu with the teachings of Calder with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid detector saturation and ensure accurate and reliable measurements of closer and brighter targets (Calder, ¶¶ 47, 53, 110, 124). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Kundu further in view of Johnson (US8368876B1). Regarding claim 18 , He in view of Kundu teaches the method of claim 13, however, does not teach: wherein the lighting device has a first lighting device and a second lighting device that are alternately used to light an observation region. Johnson teaches the limitation in Fig. 5, Col. 12:50-57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of He in view Kundu with the teachings of Johnso n, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting an alternating dual light source arrangement as taught by Johnson would increase the effective imaging cadence and provide for enhanced target contrast, thereby yielding improved optical characterization and calibration performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is 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. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows. With respect to claim 16, He in view of Kundu fails to teach or suggest: “ if the series of the first and the second calibration markers (19) is not recognized in any of the recordings (35), the coordinated control changes such that the assigned visible distance region (15) is enlarged by a pre-determined factor. ” He discloses a synchronized laser and gated camera calibration method in which sequential targets are imaged in 1 ns delay steps. He further explains that certain targets may be “gated-out” or appear black depending upon the selected delay. However, He does not disclose a control strategy in which failure to recognize first and second calibration markers in any of the recordings triggers the change in coordinated control to expand a visible distance region by a predetermined factor, as recited in claim 16. Neither Kundu, Calder, nor Johnson remedies the deficiencies of He . The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include: Chen (CN109343076A) discloses a method for calibrating a ranging system through coordinated illumination and sensor operations using known distance calibration markers to deriving actual versus measured distance relationships and corresponding adjustment of calibration settings. However, Chen is silent towards the recognition of first and second calibration markers of known dimension in first and last recordings to determine actual distances, and enlarging the visible distance region by a predetermined factor when the calibration markers are not recognized, as covered under claim 16. Trail (US20170180713A1) discloses the synchronized control of a light source and sensor to capture images across selected depth ranges, adjusting ranges based on detected objects. However, Trail but it does not disclose calibration using recognized markers of known size to derive actual distances, nor expanding the monitored distance range by a preset factor when the marker sequence is not detected, as covered under claim 16. Slobodyanyuk (US20200065994A1) discloses a method for calibrating an optical sensor camera through coordinated illumination of reference points and time-sequenced image capture for identification of known markers and derive calibration relationships. However, Slobodyanyuk does not disclose the determination of actual distances from first and second calibration markers based on their predetermined dimensions in first and last recordings, nor the enlarging a visible distance region by a predetermined factor when the markers are not recognized, as covered under claim 16 Gruber (“Gated2Depth: Real-Time Dense Lidar From Gated Images,” published February 2019) which discloses a synchronized pulsed illumination and temporally gated camera system that captures a chronological sequence of range images and derives depth from those coordinated captures. However, Gruber does not disclose a first and second calibration marker of known dimension in first and last recordings for determining actual distances, nor enlarging a visible distance region by a predetermined factor when the markers are not recognized, as covered under claim 16. In sum, the prior art of record lacks any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the features of claim 16, thereby failing to render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1078 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT YUQING XIAO can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3603 . 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. /ZHENGQING QI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645