Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/255,603

DISTANCE MEASURING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
HELLNER, MARK
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1339 granted / 1477 resolved
+38.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1477 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 statements filed 6/2/2023, 11/14/2025 and 6/7/2024 have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed 6/2/2023 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. Claims 2, 5 and 6 are 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 2 recites “…the bonding wire is disposed on an edge different from the edge of the light receiving element on the side of the luminescence element…”. For the purpose of claim interpretation, it is assumed that the bonding wire can be a single or a multiple subset of the plurality of wires. It is not clear as to whether “the bonding wire” refers to the bonding wire in parent claim 1 or it is one of the plurality of bonding wires previously recited in claim 2. Therefore, clarification is required. Claim 5 recites “…the bonding wire disposed on an edge of the light receiving element on a side of the luminescence element is lower in density than the bonding wire disposed on an edge different from the edge on the side of the luminescence element…” Claim 5 previously recites a plurality of bonding wires. Therefore, it is not clear whether “the bonding wire” refers back to “the plurality of wires” or a single one of the “plurality of wires”. Appropriate clarification is required. Claim 6 depends on claim 5. For the purpose of claim interpretation, it is assumed that the bonding wire can be a single or a multiple subset of the plurality of wires. 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 1-3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Etschmaier et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0373132). With respect to claim 1, Etschmaier et al disclose: A distance measuring device [ taught by figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D ], comprising: a luminescence element that irradiates an object with light [ taught by light emitter (30) ]; a light receiving element that receives light from the luminescence element reflected from the object [ taught by light detector (21) ]; and a substrate on which the luminescence element and the light receiving element are mounted [ taught by substrate (10) ], wherein a bonding wire electrically connecting the light receiving element and the substrate is not disposed on an edge of the light receiving element on a side of the luminescence element [ figure 1B shows the bonding wires (13) on an edge of the receiving element (21) not on the side of the light emitter (30) ]. With regard to claim 2, Etschmaier et al disclose: a plurality of bonding wires electrically connecting the light receiving element and the substrate [ figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D, disclose a plurality of bonding wires (13) ] wherein the bonding wire is disposed on an edge different from the edge of the light receiving element on the side of the luminescence element [ the bonding wires (13) are arranged on an edge different from the edge facing light emitter (30) ]. Claim 3 is shown schematically by figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D. With respect to claim 5, Etschmaier et al disclose: A distance measuring device [ taught by figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D ], comprising: a luminescence element that irradiates an object with light [ taught by light emitter (30) ]; a light receiving element that receives light from the luminescence element reflected from the object [ taught by light detector (21) ]; a substrate on which the luminescence element and the light receiving element are mounted [ taught by substrate (10) ]; and a plurality of bonding wires electrically connecting the light receiving element and the substrate, wherein the bonding wire disposed on an edge of the light receiving element on a side of the luminescence element is lower in density than the bonding wire disposed on an edge different from the edge on the side of the luminescence element [ figures 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D, disclose a plurality of bonding wires (13) arranged on an edge wherein the density of wires on an edge not facing light emitter (30) is less than the three shown facing the emitter (30) ]. Claim 8 is anticipated by the light barrier (40), which divides the mounting region defined by the integrated circuit (20). 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etschmaier et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0373132) in view of Luan et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0062003). Claim 7 differs from Etschmaier et al by reciting a bonding wire electrically connecting the luminescence element and the substrate is not disposed on an edge of the luminescence element on a side of the light receiving element. Figure 2B of Luan et al teaches that it was known to couple a bonding wire (64) to a light source (16) from a side opposite to the side facing a sensor die (14). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a bonding wire in the device of Etschmaier et al, as set forth by claim 7, because Luan taught this was a conventional way to power a light source. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 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. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601925
VIRTUAL IMAGE DISPLAY OPTICAL ARCHITECTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597754
PREDICTIVE CONTROL OF A PULSED LIGHT BEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586976
TUNABLE MICROCHIP LASER AND LASER SYSTEM FOR RANGING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586973
RARE EARTH DOPED FIBER AND FIBER OPTIC AMPLIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578467
LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING (LiDAR)-BASED INSPECTION DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1477 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month