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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-17, 19-22 are currently pending.
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 5, 6, 19 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim conflicts with independent claim 1. Claim 1 states that the optical separating units reflect the rays of outgoing light and transmit the rays of return light, while claim 5 states the units transmit the rays of outgoing light and reflect the rays of return light. Since both cannot happen at the same time, the claims are conflicting.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear how many first deflection members are in the invention as first deflection members are already claimed in claim 1.
Claim 19 is indefinite based on its dependency.
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)(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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0265335).
Regarding claim 20, Qiu et al. disclose (Fig. 7 shows plural units; Fig. 6 shows cross-section only, single units are visible) a distance measuring apparatus comprising: light emitting units (710; 611) to emit rays of outgoing light respectively; optical separating units (730; 650); optical scanning unit (741; 670) to scan the rays of outgoing light incident on the optical scanning unit at different angles of incidence from each other, the rays of outgoing light traveling via the optical separation units from the light emitting units; light receiving elements (721; 623) to receive rays of return light respectively, the rays of return light being rays of reflected light from an area irradiated with the scanned rays of outgoing light, the rays of return light reflecting off the optical scanning unit and traveling via the optical separating units; a base member (600 and cross-hatched structure) holding the light receiving elements and the optical separating units; a shared light receiving substrate (see detector substrate, not labeled, Fig. 6) on which the light receiving elements are provided; and first deflection members (720; 622) to direct the rays of return light reflected off the optical separating units to the light receiving elements respectively, wherein the optical separating units transmit the rays of outgoing light and reflect the rays of return light, and the first deflection members are disposed outside (visible from outside; see Fig. 7) the base member.
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, 5-7, 9-13, 19, 21, 22, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0181881).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9-13, 19, 21, 22, Qui et al. disclose (Figs. 6 and 7) a distance measuring apparatus comprising: light emitting units (710; 611) to emit rays of outgoing light respectively; optical separating units (730; 650); optical scanning unit (741; 670) to scan the rays of outgoing light incident on the optical scanning unit at different angles of incidence from each other, the rays of outgoing light traveling via the optical separating units from the light emitting units; light receiving elements (721; 623) to receive rays of return light respectively, the rays of return light being rays of reflected light from an area irradiated with the scanned rays of outgoing light, the rays of return light reflecting off the optical scanning unit and traveling via the optical separating units; a base member (600 and cross-hatched structure) holding the light receiving elements and the optical separating units; and a shared light receiving substrate (see detector substrate, not labeled, Fig. 6) on which the light receiving elements are provided; and first deflection members (720; 622) disposed outside the base member, wherein a direction in which the rays of return light, which are just before incident on the light receiving elements, travel and a direction in which the rays of outgoing light, which are just after emitted from the light emitting units, travel are parallel to each other and the first deflection members direct the rays of return light, which travel via the optical separating units, to the light receiving elements respectively. The light deflection members having the same attitudes and positional relationships and the light receiving elements are disposed on an identical plane as claimed. Qui et al. also disclose ([0008]) coaxial optical paths and second deflection members (742; 660) as claimed. Qui et al. do not disclose the optical separating units reflect the rays of outgoing light and transmit the rays of return light. Mathur et al. teach (Fig. 1) an optical separating unit (140) reflecting the rays of outgoing light and transmitting the rays of return light. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to switch the light emitting units and light receiving elements of Qiu et al. in view of Mathur et al. to provide more design flexibility, e.g. different physical location, accommodate available space, as desired, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al., further in view of Keilaf et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0271767).
Regarding claim 14, Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Qui et al. and Mathur et al. not disclose a filter as claimed. Keilaf et al. teach ([0100]) an optical filter as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such an optical filter in the apparatus of Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. Keilaf et al. reduce noise and improve detection as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al., further in view of Hansson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0146064).
Regarding claim 15, Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Qui et al. and Mathur et al. not disclose apertures as claimed. Hansson et al. teach (Figs. 4, 5) a similar device having apertures (slits 142) disposed on optical paths toward light receiving elements as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such apertures in the apparatus of Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. and Hansson et al. to reduce ambient light and improve detection as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al., further in view of Hinderling et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0158826).
Regarding claim 16, Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Qui et al. and Mathur et al. not disclose a light receiving and condensing member as claimed. Hinderling et al. teach (Fig. 2) a similar device having a light receiving and condensing member (8) as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a light receiving and condensing member in the apparatus of Qui et al. in view of Mathur et al. and Hinderling et al. to focus the light onto the detector as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights