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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 September 2024 by the applicant has been considered and is included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 5 reads “are on substantially the same straight line”, however this should read “are on substantially a same straight line” as no same straight lines have previously been introduced.
Claim 8, line 6 reads “being inclined at the same angle…”, however this should read “being inclined at a same angle…” as no angle has previously been introduced.
Claim 11, line 7 reads “inclined at the same angle…”, however this should read “being inclined at a same angle…” as no angle has previously been introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 includes the limitation which reads “the pair of light emitting devices is disposed such that parts of the respective irradiation ranges overlap at a distance of at most 50 cm from the lens”. Figure 2, and paragraph [0034] of the instant application show this distance as reference to “Dd”, however beyond stating that the system will dispose the pair of light emitting devices such that Dd is less than or equal to 50 cm, the specification gives no further instruction as to how this limitation on the initial intersection of light emission regions will be limited to this distance. Paragraph [0029] on states that “Each of the light emitting devices 111a and 111b includes an LED, an LD, or the like, and emits irradiation light to a distance measuring object.” There is no indication within the specification that there is any substantial way to control the claimed invention’s emission field-of-views (FOVs) such to limit the intersection point to this range. Additionally, as written, the limitation could be interpreted to indicate that the irradiation ranges overlap to only 50cm from the device. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) based on the specification (Fig. 2) clarifies that Dd is the first point of overlap for the irradiation ranges. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted to agree with this BRI.
Claims 7-13 are similarly rejected as they are dependent upon claim 6.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuura et al. (hereinafter Matsuura, US 20190107626 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura anticipates a distance measuring module comprising:
a plurality of light emitting devices that emits irradiation light to a distance measuring object ([0064]; Fig. 1, where first light source (101) and second light source (102) emit light towards object);
and an imaging device that captures an image of reflected light of the irradiation light reflected by the distance measuring object ([0064]; Fig. 1, imager (104) collects light reflected by object),
wherein the plurality of light emitting devices is disposed in such positions and at such angles that a combined irradiation range including an overlapping portion of respective irradiation ranges of the irradiation light includes an imaging range of the imaging device ([0081], [0129] - [0132]; Figs. 3, 12A-12D, where first emission range (111, 1101) and second emission range (112, 1102) have common emission range (110, 1105) based on inclination of light sources, which all make up a portion of the total combined field of view).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuura anticipates the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of light emitting devices is disposed such that respective light emitting directions have an inclination with respect to an optical axis of a lens included in the imaging device ([0064], [0071]; Fig. 1, where first emission axis (121) from first light source (101) and second emission axis (122) from second light source (102) are inclined compared to the optical axis of the imager (104) which is aligned with the lens central axis).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuura anticipates the distance measuring module according to claim 2, wherein
the respective ones of the plurality of light emitting devices emit the irradiation light having the same light emission intensity at the same light emission timing ([0022], [0066]; where light source controller (103) drives light sources in terms of timing and intensity control, and may control sources to emit simultaneously at same intensity to increase intensity to common emission range).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuura anticipates the distance measuring module according to claim 3, wherein
a pair of the light emitting devices is disposed such that the respective light emitting directions are line-symmetric with respect to the optical axis of the lens ([0064], [0071]; Fig. 1, where first emission axis (121) from first light source (101) and second emission axis (122) from second light source (102) are symmetric and oppositely directed, and the imager (104) optical axis is directed towards object).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuura anticipates the distance measuring module according to claim 4, wherein
the pair of light emitting devices is disposed such that centers of respective light emitting surfaces and a center of the lens are on substantially the same straight line ([0064], [0068]; Fig. 1, where first light source (101), second light source (102) and imager (104), which includes a lens, all lie in same imaging plane).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuura anticipates the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein
each of the light emitting devices includes a light emitting diode (LED) or a laser diode (LD) ([0065]).
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) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (hereinafter Matsuura, US 20190107626 A1) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi, US 20240163543 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuura teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 5, but is silent on the specific distance from the device where the emission ranges overlap.
Choi teaches a system with at least one camera, which is used along with a distance sensor to determine distances to an object within a region of interest, where the individual fields of view (FOV) combine to a larger total FOV, and where components are disposed such that parts of the respective irradiation ranges overlap at a distance of at most 50 cm from the lens ([0107] - [0113]; Figs. 4D-4E where field of views of two sensors (276 and 282) are first overlapped at a distance of between 2.7 and 5.4 cm from the location of the sensors, and this distance is based on the field-of-view (FOV) angles of the specific detectors).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Matsuura to incorporate the teachings of Choi to specifically set the overlap range for the emitters in the system to occur at a distance of 50 cm or less with a reasonable expectation of success. While the system of Choi is directed to specifically determining a region of interest as an overlap between a distance detector and a camera based on the needs of the system and an area intended to be observed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a similar adjustment to the locations and/or optics of emitters, such as by use of diffractive optics, lenses, or distance between emitters, would have a similar and predictable adjustment to the location of an overlap between FOVs.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuura as modified above teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 6, wherein
the pair of light emitting devices is disposed side by side so as to be adjacent to one side of the imaging device ([0064]; Fig. 1, where first light source (101) and second light source (102) are adjacent to one side of imager (104)).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (hereinafter Matsuura, US 20190107626 A1) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi, US 20240163543 A1), and further in view of Matsuura et al. (hereinafter ‘917, US 20210190917 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuura as modified above teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 6, but does not teach an embodiment where the emitters sandwich the detector.
‘917 teaches an omnidirectional distance measuring device, where the pair of light emitting devices is disposed so as to sandwich the imaging device ([0050]; Fig. 9; where each light emitting unit (11a) and (11b) sandwich common light receiving unit (12)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Matsuura to incorporate the teachings of ‘917 to rearrange two emitters and a detector to orient the two emitters on either side of the detector with a reasonable expectation of success as the rearrangement of these components would not inherently change the operation of the system of Matsuura. (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) for supporting rationale under Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Matsuura as modified above teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 7, but is silent on the specifics of a housing and the orientation of the surfaces within the housing.
‘917 teaches an omnidirectional distance measuring device, which includes a housing frame having a front surface and inclined surfaces, the front surface being a surface that faces the distance measuring object and where the lens is exposed, the inclined surfaces being inclined at the same angle in a direction opposite to an imaging direction of the imaging device on both sides of the front surface ([0028], [0050]; Fig. 9, where light emitting units (11a, 11b) sit on equal but opposite-facing inclined side surfaces which flank the flat front surface where fisheye lens (121) sits and which faces the objects intended to be imaged),
wherein each of the pair of light emitting devices is provided on corresponding one of the inclined surfaces,
wherein the housing frame has a placement surface parallel to an imaging surface of the imaging device ([0027], [0050]; Fig. 9 where housing (2) has a top surface side, which attaches to a ceiling (for example) and which is parallel to the imaging surface of image sensor (13)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Matsuura to incorporate the teachings of ‘917 to orient the two emitters on either side of a detector, by use of a housing with a front surface for a detector, angled side surfaces for the emitters and a placement surface which is parallel to an imaging surface with a reasonable expectation of success. The omnidirectional system of ‘917 is intended to be installed on a ceiling, which allows for time-of-flight sensing with a maximum amount of detection area while removing the necessity for moving components which adjust the detection areas ([0010], [0041]), and the system of Matsuura would readily incorporate a housing with this structure, as Matsuura teaches inclining the emitters with respect to the detection direction to form the total FOV ([0081]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (hereinafter Matsuura, US 20190107626 A1) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi, US 20240163543 A1), and further in view of Gruhlke (US 20190068857 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuura as modified above teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 10, but is silent on the specifics of a support structure used with the light emitting devices.
Gruhlke teaches an image capture apparatus which has an extended field-of-view, and a plurality of light sources and image sensors, where the device includes a support substrate on which the imaging device and the pair of light emitting devices are mounted,
wherein the pair of light emitting devices is mounted on the support substrate via a mount member having inclined surfaces inclined at the same angle in a direction opposite to an imaging direction of the imaging device ([0038]; Fig. 5. where mounting structure (510) includes inclines surfaces to which LED 1 (502) and LED 2 (504) as well as other optical components such as cameras (202, 204) are mounted).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Matsuura to incorporate the teachings of Gruhlke to utilize a substrate with a mounting member with inclined surfaces to adjust the direction of emission of light sources with a reasonable expectation of success. Gruhlke teaches that adjusting the placement angles of cameras and light emitters allows for an adjustment to the field-of-view (FOV) of the system, allowing for a total FOV which is larger than the individual components can offer, and one way to accomplish this is to use angles surfaces within the housing itself ([0022], [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuura as modified above teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 11, wherein
the pair of light emitting devices is mounted on the mount member such that central axes of the respective light emitting directions do not intersect each other ([0064]; Fig. 1, where first emission axis (121) does not cross second emission axis (122)).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuura as modified above teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 11, but is silent on an embodiment where the light emitting devices have optical axes which cross one another.
Gruhlke teaches an image capture apparatus which has an extended field-of-view, and a plurality of light sources and image sensors, where the device includes an embodiment where the pair of light emitting devices is mounted on the mount member such that central axes of the respective light emitting directions intersect each other (Fig. 5).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Matsuura to incorporate the teachings of Gruhlke to utilize a substrate with a mounting member with inclined surfaces to adjust the direction of emission of light sources with a reasonable expectation of success. Gruhlke teaches that adjusting the placement angles of cameras and light emitters allows for an adjustment to the field-of-view (FOV) of the system, allowing for a total FOV which is larger than the individual components can offer, and one way to accomplish this is to use angles surfaces within the housing itself ([0022], [0038]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (hereinafter Matsuura, US 20190107626 A1) in view of Matsuura et al. (hereinafter ‘917, US 20210190917 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuura teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 1, but is silent on the type of lens used in the imaging device.
‘917 teaches an omnidirectional distance measuring device, where a pair of light emitting devices is disposed such that parts of the respective irradiation ranges overlap at a distance of at most 50 cm from the lens ([0107] - [0113]; Figs. 4D-4E where field of views of two sensors (276 and 282) are first overlapped at a distance of between 2.7 and 5.4 cm from the location of the sensors, and this distance is based on the field-of-view (FOV) angles of the specific detectors).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Matsuura to incorporate the teachings of ‘917 to specifically use a wide or ultra-wide lens, such as a fisheye lens, with an imaging device as taught by ‘917 with a reasonable expectation of success. As ‘917 describes, the use of a fisheye lens being disposed to collect light for a receiving unit allows for the maximum amount of detection areas while removing the necessity for moving components which adjust the detection areas ([0010], [0041]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aguilar et al. (US 20140267586 A1) teaches a remote sensor apparatus which includes a plurality of image sensors, light sources, and a shared housing where a wide-angle lens sits atop the CMOS sensors for a system with an increased FOV while minimizing component requirements.
Klosterman (US 20190297238 A1) teaches a system with a plurality of cameras for imaging systems, where the cameras are integrated into an array such to increase the field of view, and where various methods to angle the individual fields of view of the cameras are discussed.
Wang et al. (US 20220349999 A1) teaches a LIDAR device which uses a combination of emission fields of view and receiver fields of view, where the housing includes angled surfaces which components can be mounted to, and where emission and detection are controlled based on needs of the system such as detection range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights