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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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: “distance measuring unit; bias control unit” in claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by TA et al. (JP 2022-36806 A) (hereinafter TA) [cited in the IDS field by the applicant].
As of claim 1, TA discloses a distance measuring device comprising:
a light receiving unit that receives a reflected light pulse signal reflected by an object [the light receiving element 5 within the first period There is no risk of saturation, and the distance to the object can be measured accurately…page 7];
a distance measuring unit that performs distance measuring processing on a basis of an output signal of the light receiving unit [the control unit 4 controls the bias voltage of each light receiving element 5 so that the number of light receiving elements 5 that receive light within the first period is less than the threshold value, the control unit 4 may fail to receive the light from the object. It disappears, and the distance to the object can be measured accurately…page 8]; and
a bias control unit that controls a bias voltage of the light receiving unit before the distance measuring unit starts the distance measuring processing [the control unit 4 controls the bias voltage of each light receiving element 5 so that the number of light receiving elements 5 that receive light within the first period is less than the threshold value…page 8].
As of claim 4, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving unit includes: a first light receiving element used for the distance measuring processing; and a second light receiving element used to control the bias voltage [page 7-8].
As of claim 8, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the bias control unit controls the bias voltage on a basis of a voltage level of an output signal of the light receiving unit before the distance measuring unit starts the distance measuring processing [page 7-8].
As of claim 9, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the bias control unit controls the bias voltage on a basis of a voltage level of an output signal of the light receiving unit that has received the reflected light pulse signal before the distance measuring unit starts the distance measuring processing [page 7-8].
As of claim 11, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the bias control unit controls the bias voltage on a basis of a number of crossing times between an output signal of the light receiving unit and a predetermined threshold [page 7-8].
As of claim 16, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, a light emitting unit that emits a light pulse signal, wherein the light receiving unit receives the reflected light pulse signal obtained by reflecting the light pulse signal by the object [page 7-8].
As of claim 17, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting unit emits the light pulse signal during a period in which the distance measuring processing is performed and a period in which the bias control unit controls a bias voltage of the light receiving unit before starting the distance measuring processing [page 7-8].
As of claim 18, TA discloses the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the distance measuring unit measures a distance to the object on a basis of a time difference between a light emission timing of the light pulse signal by the light emitting unit and a light reception timing of the reflected light pulse signal by the light receiving unit [page 7-8].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, 12-15 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the bias control unit controls a bias voltage of the light receiving unit in a first period before the distance measuring unit starts the distance measuring processing and a second period during which the distance measuring processing is performed” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the light receiving unit includes:a first light receiving element used for the distance measuring processing; anda second light receiving element used to control the bias voltage, andthe first light receiving element performs a light receiving operation within a period in which the second light receiving element controls the bias voltage” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 6, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the light receiving unit includes:a plurality of first light receiving elements used in the distance measuring processing; anda second light receiving element used to control the bias voltage, anda part of the first light receiving elements among the plurality of first light receiving elements perform a light receiving operation within a period in which the second light receiving element controls the bias voltage” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 10, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the bias voltage is controlled to cause a cathode voltage or an anode voltage of the first light receiving element to become a predetermined voltage level when the first light receiving element receives the reflected light pulse signal” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 12, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “the light receiving unit includes a plurality of light receiving elements, and the bias control unit controls the bias voltage on a basis of a number of crossing times between output signals of at least a part of light receiving elements among the plurality of light receiving elements and a predetermined threshold” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 13, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “a storage unit that stores a correspondence relationship between a number of times that an output signal of the light receiving unit crosses a predetermined threshold and an output signal level of the light receiving unit; anda storage control unit that reads, from the storage unit, the output signal level corresponding to a number of times counted by the number-of-times counting unit, wherein the bias control unit controls the bias voltage on a basis of the output signal level read by the storage control unit” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 19, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “a second distance range wider than the first distance range, and,in the first mode, the light emitting unit causes the first number of pieces of light emitting elements to simultaneously emit light in a period in which the distance measuring unit performs the distance measuring processing and before the distance measuring unit starts the distance measuring processing, and in the second mode, the light emitting unit does not cause the second number of pieces of light emitting elements to simultaneously emit light before the distance measuring unit starts the distance measuring processing and causes the second number of pieces of light emitting elements to simultaneously emit light within a period in which the distance measuring unit performs the distance measuring processing” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Claims 3, 7, 14-15 are allowable due to their dependencies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights