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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a light emitting unit configured to emit light” in claim 1;
“a beam steering unit configured to perform beam steering on light emitted by the light emitting unit” in claim 11; and
“a light emitting unit that emits light’ in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ridderbusch (US 2017/0090032 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ridderbusch discloses a distance measuring device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2) comprising:
a light emitting unit configured to emit light (ref 103, paragraph [0047]);
a sensor unit configured to perform a light receiving operation for distance measurement by a ToF method (ref 111, paragraph [0049]), for reflected light obtained when an object reflects light emitted from the light emitting unit (ref 105, paragraph [0048]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a distance by the ToF method on a basis of a light reception signal of the sensor unit (ref 117, paragraphs [0051], [0054], [0056]);
an object detection unit configured to perform object detection processing on a basis of a sensing image obtained by sensing on a distance measurable range that is a view angle range in which distance measurement can be performed using the sensor unit (ref 111, paragraph [0056]); and
a control unit configured to control the calculation unit to calculate a distance to a target object on a basis of a light reception signal obtained by the sensor unit when a position according to a position of the target object detected by the object detection unit is irradiated with light emitted by the light emitting unit (paragraphs [0037], [0056], [0060], [0063]).
Regarding claim 2, Ridderbusch discloses wherein the object detection unit performs the object detection processing on a basis of a gradation image generated on a basis of a light reception signal of the sensor unit (paragraphs [0004], [0026], [0053]-[0056], an image represents the distance to a photographed object by pixel values is a gradation image).
Regarding claim 3, Ridderbusch discloses wherein the control unit causes the object detection unit to execute the object detection processing on the gradation image obtained by causing the sensor unit to execute a light receiving operation in a state where the light emitting unit does not emit light (paragraphs [0017], [0053]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Ridderbusch discloses wherein the control unit performs evaluation processing of evaluating whether or not reflected light from the target object is received in an object detection pixel region in the sensor unit for every irradiation position of light while changing the irradiation position, the light being emitted by the light emitting unit in a partial region including an object detection region in the distance measurable range, and performs control to output, as a value of a distance to the target object, a value based on a distance in the object detection pixel region and calculated by the calculation unit in a setting state of an irradiation position at a time when evaluation is made that reflected light from the target object is received in the object detection pixel region, in a case where the evaluation is made in the evaluation processing (paragraphs [0048]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Ridderbusch discloses an optical transmission control unit configured to be switchable between a filter enabling mode in which an optical bandpass filter effect is applied to light received by the sensor unit and a filter disabling mode in which the optical bandpass filter effect is not applied to light received by the sensor unit, the optical bandpass filter effect setting a wavelength band of light emitted by the light emitting unit as a target wavelength band, wherein the control unit controls the optical transmission control unit to the filter enabling mode in a case where the sensor unit performs light reception for distance measurement, and controls the optical transmission control unit to the filter disabling mode in a case where the sensor unit performs light reception for the object detection processing (paragraphs [0037], [0046]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Ridderbusch discloses a beam steering unit configured to perform beam steering on light emitted by the light emitting unit (ref 105, paragraphs [0048], [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Ridderbusch discloses, wherein the object detection unit performs the object detection processing on a basis of the gradation image obtained by the sensor unit and a sensing image obtained by a different sensor unit that obtains a sensing image whose type is different from a type of a sensing image obtained by the sensor unit (ref 205, paragraphs [0059]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Ridderbusch discloses a distance measuring device comprising:
a sensor unit configured to perform a light receiving operation for distance measurement by a ToF method (ref 111, paragraph [0049]), for reflected light obtained when an object reflects light emitted from a light emitting unit that emits light (ref 105, paragraph [0048]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a distance by the ToF method on a basis of a light reception signal of the sensor unit;
an object detection unit configured to perform object detection processing on a basis of a sensing image obtained by sensing on a distance measurable range that is a view angle range in which distance measurement can be performed using the sensor unit (ref 111, paragraph [0056]); and
a control unit configured to control the calculation unit to calculate a distance to a target object on a basis of a light reception signal obtained by the sensor unit when a position according to a position of the target object detected by the object detection unit is irradiated with light emitted by the light emitting unit (paragraphs [0037], [0056], [0060], [0063]).
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 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridderbusch as applied to claim 1 or claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Belokonskiy (WO 2020/089062 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels.
However, Belokonskiy teaches a ToF device (abstract, Figs. 7, 8) including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels (page 8, line 25 – page 9, line 30)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Belokonskiy by including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Regarding claim 5, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the control unit gives an instruction to the sensor unit to perform partial reading of an object detection pixel region specified from an object detection processing result obtained by the object detection unit, and causes the calculation unit to calculate the distance on a basis of a light reception signal subjected to partial reading by the instruction.
However, Belokonskiy teaches a ToF device (abstract, Figs. 7, 8) including wherein the control unit gives an instruction to the sensor unit to perform partial reading of an object detection pixel region specified from an object detection processing result obtained by the object detection unit, and causes the calculation unit to calculate the distance on a basis of a light reception signal subjected to partial reading by the instruction (page 8, line 25 – page 9, line 30)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Belokonskiy by including wherein the control unit gives an instruction to the sensor unit to perform partial reading of an object detection pixel region specified from an object detection processing result obtained by the object detection unit, and causes the calculation unit to calculate the distance on a basis of a light reception signal subjected to partial reading by the instruction in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Regarding claim 8, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels, and the control unit causes the sensor unit to perform partial reading of a light reception signal of the object detection pixel region for the every irradiation position, and performs the evaluation on a basis of a light reception signal obtained by the partial reading, in the evaluation processing.
However, Belokonskiy teaches a ToF device (abstract, Figs. 7, 8) including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels, and the control unit causes the sensor unit to perform partial reading of a light reception signal of the object detection pixel region for the every irradiation position, and performs the evaluation on a basis of a light reception signal obtained by the partial reading, in the evaluation processing (page 8, line 25 – page 9, line 30)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Belokonskiy by including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels, and the control unit causes the sensor unit to perform partial reading of a light reception signal of the object detection pixel region for the every irradiation position, and performs the evaluation on a basis of a light reception signal obtained by the partial reading, in the evaluation processing in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Claims 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridderbusch as applied to claim 1 or claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Poikonen et al. (US 2021/0134854 A1), hereinafter “Poikonen”.
Regarding claim 4, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels.
However, Poikonen teaches a ToF device (abstract, Fig. 12A) including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels (paragraph [0424])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Poikonen by including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform partial reading of reading a light reception signal for only some pixels in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Regarding claim 6, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform event-based type partial reading, and the control unit controls the calculation unit to calculate the distance on a basis of a light reception signal subjected to partial reading by the sensor unit.
However, Poikonen teaches a ToF device (abstract, Fig. 12A) including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform event-based type partial reading, and the control unit controls the calculation unit to calculate the distance on a basis of a light reception signal subjected to partial reading by the sensor unit (paragraph [0424])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Poikonen by including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform event-based type partial reading, and the control unit controls the calculation unit to calculate the distance on a basis of a light reception signal subjected to partial reading by the sensor unit in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Regarding claim 9, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform event-based type partial reading, and the control unit performs evaluation as to whether or not reflected light from the target object is received in the object detection pixel region on a basis of whether or not a light reception signal is read in the sensor unit, as the evaluation for the every irradiation position.
However, Poikonen teaches a ToF device (abstract, Fig. 12A) including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform event-based type partial reading, and the control unit performs evaluation as to whether or not reflected light from the target object is received in the object detection pixel region on a basis of whether or not a light reception signal is read in the sensor unit, as the evaluation for the every irradiation position (paragraph [0424])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Poikonen by including wherein the sensor unit is configured to be able to perform event-based type partial reading, and the control unit performs evaluation as to whether or not reflected light from the target object is received in the object detection pixel region on a basis of whether or not a light reception signal is read in the sensor unit, as the evaluation for the every irradiation position in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridderbusch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pastor et al. (US 2020/0110259 A1), hereinafter “Pastor”.
Regarding claim 12, Ridderbusch is silent regarding wherein the light emitting unit includes a plurality of light sources configured to emit light to individually different areas of the distance measurable range, and the control unit changes an irradiation position of light emitted by the light emitting unit in accordance with a light source to be caused to emit light among the plurality of light sources.
However, Pastor teaches an optical detection device (abstract, Fig. 2) including wherein the light emitting unit includes a plurality of light sources configured to emit light to individually different areas of the distance measurable range, and the control unit changes an irradiation position of light emitted by the light emitting unit in accordance with a light source to be caused to emit light among the plurality of light sources (paragraph [0062])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ridderbusch with the teaching of Pastor by including wherein the light emitting unit includes a plurality of light sources configured to emit light to individually different areas of the distance measurable range, and the control unit changes an irradiation position of light emitted by the light emitting unit in accordance with a light source to be caused to emit light among the plurality of light sources in order to reduce measurement time and single processing time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (US 2005/0162638) teaches a device for generating range-image data including a range image represented by a graduation image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights