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 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8 - 9 , and 1 2 -14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji et al. (WO 2019098263 A1) . Tsuji et al. (US 2020/0333460 A1) is relied upon for citation as the English translation. Regarding claim 1 , 8 , 9 Tsuji discloses a ranging device , ranging device control method, at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (See [0137] memory with program instructions) ; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See [0137] CPU) to measure a distance between light-emitting device and an incidence position of an object, based on reflected light of laser light being incident with a first beam diameter on the incidence position from the light-emitting device ( See Fig 5 [0076] detecting reflected light from an incident direction ) , adjust a beam diameter of laser light being incident on the incidence position to a second beam diameter according to the distance (See [ 0077-0078 ] adjusting the beam diameter to decrease the diameter in the direction in which reflected light is detected ) , and generate sensing data relating to the object, based on reflected light associated with the laser light being incident with the second beam diameter on the incidence position from the light-emitting device (See [0079-0080] re-measure using laser with decreased beam diameter) , wherein the at least one processor adjusts a beam diameter of the laser light in such a way that the second beam diameter at the incidence position becomes smaller than the first beam diameter at the incidence position (See [0076-0080] decreasing the beam diameter) . Regarding claim 2 , Tsuji further discloses t he ranging device according to t he ranging device according to wherein at least one processor generates the sensing data according to spatial resolution appropriate to the second beam diameter at the incidence position (See [0051] decreasing the beam diameter in the appropriate direction. A reduction in point cloud data reads on a spatial resolution appropriate to the second beam diameter ) . Regarding c laim 3 , Tsuji further discloses t he ranging device according to t he ranging device according to wherein the at least one processor generates, as the sensing data, a three-dimensional model of the object according to spatial resolution appropriate to the second beam diameter at the incidence position (See [0069] [0099] three-dimensional mapping) . Regarding c laim 5 , 12, 13 and 14 , Tsuji further discloses t he ranging device according claim 1, wherein the at least one processor executes control of outputting the sensing data (See [0137] distance measurement apparatus realized by processing modules causing a CPU to execute program stored in memory) . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 4, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (WO 2019098263 A1) in view of JP 2014517921 A , hereinafter D1 . Regarding claim 4 , 10, and 11 , Tsuji discloses t he ranging device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the object is a communication steel tower. D1 discloses that it was known to use a range finder to determine to sense an object such as an antenna tower (“ The FOV of the light receiver can be widened by disposing a photodetector having a larger photosensitive surface on the focal plane of the objective lens having a short effective focal length. For sensing over an FOV extending in a given direction, an elongated rectangular photosensitive surface that remains extremely narrow in the perpendicular direction is preferred. The use of a single photodetector has a positive impact on the cost of the photodetector, but is not practical in most applications due to the lack of angular resolution within the FOV. Indeed, in addition to measuring the distance of an object present in the FOV, the majority of applications require determination of the angular position of the object relative to a reference direction, at least approximately. Similarly, the ability to evaluate the approximate projected size and shape of distance-measured objects allows classification of detected objects, i.e., they are cars, sports utility vehicles, heavy trucks, Determining whether motorcycles, bicycles, pedestrians, antenna towers, environmental particles, pavements, walls, etc. provides a further important advantage for many applications. ”). Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Tsuji with the known methods of D1 predictably resulting in the object sensed being a communication steel tower by applying the court recognized rational of a pplying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improveme nt to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of detecting a wide variety of objects as suggested by D1. Claim (s) 6, 15, 16 and 1 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (WO 2019098263 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2005/0057741 A1) . Regarding claim 6 , 15, 16 and 18 , Tsuji further discloses the ranging device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor causes the light-emitting device to output the laser light having the second beam diameter with intensity appropriate to the distance. Anderson discloses that it was known to adjust a beam size and intensity (See [0019]). Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Tsuji with the known methods of Anderson predictably resulting in the light-emitting device to output the laser light having the second beam diameter with intensity appropriate to the distance by applying the court recognized rational of a pplying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improveme nt to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of fine-tuning a range finder to adjust a beam for a desired area. Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (WO 2019098263 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2005/0057741 A1) in view of JP 2014517921 A , hereinafter D1 . Regarding claim 17 , Tsuji further discloses the ranging device according to claim 4 , wherein the at least one processor causes the light-emitting device to output the laser light having the second beam diameter with intensity appropriate to the distance. Anderson discloses that it was known to adjust a beam size and intensity (See [0019]). Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Tsuji with the known methods of Anderson predictably resulting in the light-emitting device to output the laser light having the second beam diameter with intensity appropriate to the distance by applying the court recognized rational of a pplying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improveme nt to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of fine-tuning a range finder to adjust a beam for a desired area. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7, 19 and 20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Tsuji et al. (US 2020/0333460 A1) discloses comparing a measured difference between a first beam diameter and a second smaller beam diameter (See [0081] ). When a difference is less than the threshold value the indication is a decreased beam diameter will not change a measurement result and the adjustment of the beam is finished. The prior art fails to disclose “ the light irradiation limiting device causes the light-emitting device to output the laser light having the second beam diameter to the incidence position having the distance equal to or more than a threshold value among the plurality of the distances, and causes the light-emitting device not to output the laser light having the second beam diameter to the incidence position having the distance less than the threshold value among the plurality of the distances ” The prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest all of the features of dependent claims 7, 19, and 20. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5668 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm . 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 Brian Pendleton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7527 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT FERNANDO . ALCON Examiner Art Unit 2425 /FERNANDO ALCON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425