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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent International Application No. PCT/JP2023/003615, filed on March 2, 2023, which claims priority from Japanese Application No. JP2022-049084 filed on March 24, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2024 and 6/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mheen et al. (US 2014/0240691 A1) in view of Wan et al. (US 2016/0182788 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Mheen et al. teaches a range-finding device comprising (e.g., “Abstract”): a first imaging section (e.g., Figures 1-3) that includes a light emission section (e.g., 130) that emits spot light (e.g., “Target;” 140) to one or more objects (e.g., 141, 142, 143, or 144) being range-finding targets and a light reception section (e.g., 170) that outputs a first image signal including data on distances to the objects on a basis of a result obtained by light reception of reflected light being the spot light reflected on the objects (e.g., 170; 171, 172, 173, or 174); a second imaging section (e.g., Figure 1; 180) that outputs a second image signal obtained by converting a plurality of beams of color light incident at a time of imaging of the objects to an electric signal (e.g., “image processor” and “signal reading unit”); and a control section that controls drive of the light emission section and the light reception section on a basis of the first image signal and the second image signal (e.g., [0045], [0051], [0053], [0054]).
Mheen et al. fails to explicitly describe the RGB/color camera and its details which coverts beams of light as well as those signals being addition to the control section.
However, Mheen et al. further teaches that the laser radar system may further include a camera 180 that acquires a 2-D image of the target 140 (e.g., [0053 “… In this case, the image processor serves to correct or synthesize the 3-D target image and the 2-D target image acquired by the camera”]).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
289
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wan et al. teaches a similar range-finding device a second imaging section (e.g., Figure 9) being part of the overall range-finding device that incorporates smart illumination strives to improve illumination that are directed on regions of interest with varying sizes in the camera field (i.e., a similar feature(s) taught by Mheen et al.) of view by concentrating the optical power into smaller areas of illumination to enhance depth information (e.g., Figures 2 and 4). In addition, Wan et al. teaches a use of an RGBZ image sensor 903 with pixel cells used to support traditional “2D” visible image capture and the Z pixel cells to support “3D” depth profile imaging (e.g., [0087], [0090], and [0092]).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
449
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt or incorporate teachings of Wan et al. to further include a color camera, an infrared camera, and/or an IMU device, and combinations of these device to realize more abundant function, such as 3D texture modeling, infrared face recognition, and/or SLAM function by further enhance the accuracy of the overall range finding device of Mheen et al. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Also, see MPEP 2144.
Note: Claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). For example, “section,” “spot-light,” “spot-diameter,” “basis,” “adjust(s),” “calculation processing of calculating,” Etc.
Regarding claim 13, Mheen et al. in view of Wan et al. teaches the same/similar range-finding device as described above satisfying claimed (apparatus) limitation(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specify methods with the teachings of Mheen et al. and Wan et al. The claim would have been obvious because the technique of through the range-finding device unit/device in method forms would have been part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught Mheen et al. and Wan et al. to incorporate a color camera and its details to further enhance 3D texture modeling and accuracy of the range-finding device. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 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.
Specifically, regarding dependent claim 2, Mheen et al. further teaches the range-finding device according to claim 1, wherein the light emission section (e.g., Tx) includes a light source section (e.g., 110; 610, 710, 910, 920) that generates the spot light and an optical system (e.g., 130; “beam deflector;” and/or 120; “beam transmission optical system”) that adjusts a spot diameter of the spot light (e.g., [0064-0078 “… When the laser beam is irradiated to a remote target, the diameter of the beam transmission reflection surface laser beam spot (target beam spot), DTBS, generated when the laser beam hits the target generally depends on a distance. When a collimated beam is transmitted or the beam is transmitted while the initial intensity of the beam is large, the DTBS may be suppressed from being changed or increased depending on the distance. Further, when the laser pulse is irradiated to the remote targets at different locations at different times, the respective pitches of the beam transmission reflection surface laser beam spots… when the distance increases, the pitch of the beam transmission reflection surface laser beam spots, PTBS linearly increases signal reflected on the target under the conditions of the PTBS and the DTBS may be displayed on the detecting area… the minimum and maximum sizes of the laser beam”]), the light reception section (e.g., 170) includes a light reception sensor that includes a plurality of pixels for receiving the reflected light and generating the first image signal (e.g., [0077], [0080], [0081], [0091]),
Furthermore, Mheen et al. teaches the beam transmitter Tx may include a components, an optical pulse beam width controller, for controlling a beam width optical pulse and configured by a collimator, a beam expander, and a lens or one combination or two or more [0062 & 0085] as well as the static beam receive Rx further include a signal processing module that may process a time difference or an intensity of the laser beam reflected from the target, thereafter, an analysis apparatus that transmits data through a connection cable using various communication protocols to display may finally acquire the 3-D image. In addition, the image processor calculates different locations depending on time and calculates the distance and/or reflected beam intensity information by analyzing the laser beam which is incident at the time. Finally, the 3-D image is acquired by using a calculation result of the distance and/or reflected beam intensity information [0054].
However, Mheen et al. fails to explicitly teaches the following limitation(s): “… the control section executes determination processing relating to a resolution of the object on the basis of the first image signal and the second image signal, executes calculation processing of calculating, according to a determination result of the resolution, a drive change amount of the light source section, a control amount of the optical system, and an exposure position in the plurality of pixels, and controls drive of the light source section, the optical system, and the light reception sensor on a basis of a calculation result.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kazama et al. (US 2025/0172699 A1) – range-finding device and range-finding method
Niclass et al. (US 11,681,027 B2) – Time-of-flight depth mapping with parallax compensation
Eisele et al. (US 2014/0071433 A1) – Measurement device for measuring a distance between the measurement device and a target object using an optical measurement beam
Niclass et al. (US 2018/0341009 A1) – Multi-range time of flight sensing
Laifenfeld (US 11,681,028 B2) – Close-range measurement of time of flight using parallax shift
Kalscheur et al. (US 2016/0245903 A1) – Dynamic beam spot size for light beam scanning device
Hyde et al. (US 2010/0079012 A1) – Beam power with receiver impingement detection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB Y CHOI whose telephone number is (469)295-9060. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays from 5:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CT.
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.
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.
/JACOB Y CHOI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights