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 8/28/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed 8/28/2023 are approved by the examiner. 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 s 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 209858727 U) in view of Kyocera Corp (JP 2019-110326). With respect to claim 1, Wang et al disclose: A light detecting device configured to scan a projection beam toward a detection area and detect a reflected beam from the detection area [ taught by figure 1 ] , the light detecting device comprising: a reception optical system configured to guide the reflected beam along a reception optical axis [ taught by the prims (4) and receiving lens (3) ] ; a light receiver configured to output a detection signal by receiving the reflected beam through the reception optical system [ taught by the one-dimensional APD array (1) ] ; and a reception prism configured to refract the reflected beam in front of the light receiver [ taught by the prism (4) ] , wherein the light receiver forms a reception surface having a reception aspect ratio in which a long side extends along a first reference axis orthogonal to the reception optical axis [ a one-dimensional APD array (1) has an aspect ratio in either the X or Y axis that is orthogonal to the reception Z axis ] , the reception surface is disposed in a posture inclined around the first reference axis with respect to a second reference axis orthogonal to the reception optical axis and the first reference axis , and the reception prism has an optical surface disposed in a posture inclined around the first reference axis with respect to the second reference axis [ figure 2 shows the surface of the prism (4) defined by C2 to E2 at 45 degrees to the reception axis ] , and the optical surface is formed by an incident surface or/and an emission surface of the reception prism [ figure 1 shows the one-dimensional APD array (1) proximate the emission surface of the prism (4) ] . Wang et al does not teach the reception surface is disposed in a posture inclined around the first reference axis with respect to a second reference axis orthogonal to the reception optical axis and the first reference axis . Figure 1 of Kyocera Corp teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have inclined the detectors (3) of an optical range measuring device with respect to the reception axis in order to compactly position the components in a recess. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in tilting the one-dimensional APD array (1) of Wang et al, when seeking to mount the components in a recess, as taught by Kyocera Corp. Claim 2 is rejected by the combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 1. Figure 1 of Wang et al shows the prism (4) held in place by mirror base (5), thus rendering claim 3 met by the combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 2 . Claim 4 is taught by the one-dimensional APD array (1) disclosed by Wang et al, thus being met by combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 2. Claim 5 is met by the scanning mirror (8) directing light through the prism (4), as disclosed by figure 1 of Wang et al. Therefore, claim 5 is met by the combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 2. Claim 6 is met by the vertically scanning emitting module (2) disclosed by Wang et al, thus rendering claim 6 met by the combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 2. Claim 7 is taught by the receiving lens (3) of Wang et al, thus rendering claim 7 met by the combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 2. Claim 8 recites a lens barrel housing the receiving lens (3) of Wang et al. Although not disclosed by the combination of Wang et al and Kyocera Corp, as applied to claim 2, this structure would have been obvious to a skilled artisan because barrels were well known in optics as a means to hold a lens. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9 and 10 are 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. 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