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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/710,155 filed on 05/14/2024.
Claims 1 – 5 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 and 05/14/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “distance measurement apparatus”, “light receiving unit”, “switching control unit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “apparatus”, “unit” coupled with functional language “that emits light….”, ”that receives…”, “that switches….”; without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. The above "apparatus”, “ Unit" terms coupled with their respective functional language do not infer any significant structures or mechanisms used to perform the cited functional language, and therefore are not recognized as structures.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 - 5 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: (paragraph: 0025, The distance measurement apparatus 10 is, for example, a laser imaging detection and ranging or laser illuminated detection and ranging (LIDAR) device or a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device. See para: 0026; The light receiving element 18 is a photodiode such as an avalanche photodiode (APD), for example. And see para: 0036; The storage device 808 stores a program module for implementing the function of the control unit 120 including the switching control unit 121. The processor 804 implements the function of the control unit 120 including the switching control unit 121 by reading this program module into the memory 806 and executing the program module).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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.
Claim 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otomo et al. (JP 3669320 B2) in view of Schmitz et al. (DE 102009057104 B4)
Regarding claim 1, Otomo discloses: “A distance measurement apparatus that emits light through a transmissive member and detects reflection light from a target object [see para: 0006; An object of the present invention is to provide an inter-vehicle distance measuring device that accurately measures a distance to a front object and detects a dirt on a front cover], the distance measurement apparatus comprising:
Otomo does not explicitly disclose: “a light receiving unit that receives internal reflection light including reflection light reflected by the transmissive member and the reflection light from the target object; and
a switching control unit that switches a detection process of the reflection light from the target object by using a light reception result of the internal reflection light by the light receiving unit”.
However, Schmitz, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “a light receiving unit that receives internal reflection light including reflection light reflected by the transmissive member and the reflection light from the target object [see para: 0027; Although the transmission energy is generally known via the specification of the laser scanner and its light source. However, the actual transmission energy differs from this in practice, and energy considerations therefore become more reliable when it is measured. By placing it outside the monitored area, for example in the rear housing area of the laser scanner, the measurement of the transmitted energy uses an angular range in which no objects are scanned anyway. Alternatively, for example with a 360° scanner, a small portion of the transmission energy can be coupled out via a glass plate, allowing the transmission power to be monitored]; and
a switching control unit that switches a detection process of the reflection light from the target object by using a light reception result of the internal reflection light by the light receiving unit [see para: 0039; For a safety scanner, the actual goal of the evaluation is to provide a safety signal at a safety output 38 (OSSD, Output Signal Switching Device), for example to trigger an emergency stop of a connected machine. Using the angle and distance data, the evaluation unit 34 calculates the location of an object in the monitoring area 18. This is compared to a two-dimensional protective field, the geometry of which is stored in a further memory area 40 of the evaluation unit 34 by corresponding parameters. This allows the evaluation unit 30 to detect whether the protective field has been violated, i.e., whether an unauthorized object is located within it, and depending on the result, switches the safety output 38. Depending on the embodiment, it is conceivable to carry out the evaluation or parts of the evaluation in a higher-level control system instead of in an internal evaluation unit 34].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system/head mounted camera system disclosed by Otomo to add the teachings of Schmitz as above, in order to provide a means for detecting reflections from the target object, a light receiving unit such sensor or scanner that receives reflection light including reflection light reflected by the light deflection unit and the system evaluates the light-reception result and switches between different detection processes accordingly [Schmitz see para: 0027; 0039].
Regarding claim 4, Otomo and Schmitz disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Otomo discloses: “wherein the switching control unit switches the detection process by using an intensity of the internal reflection light in the light reception result [see para: 0011; The object detection threshold value is a threshold value for recognizing the obstacle as an obstacle ahead of the host vehicle when the received light intensity of the reflected light from the obstacle exceeds the threshold value. The operation switching control unit 19 switches between the distance measurement operation by the distance calculation unit 16 and the contamination detection operation by the contamination diagnosis unit 17 when the contamination detection mode is set].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system/head mounted camera system disclosed by Otomo to add the teachings of Schmitz as above, in order to provide a means for detecting reflections from the target object, it maps internal-reflection intensity across multiple directions to localize attached matter and adapt detection by reception results [Otomo see para: 0011]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 5 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al (US 2022/0155416 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights