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 .
Drawings
Fig. 1 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” has been used to designate both the optics housing and energy supply device in [0022]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Fig. 1 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 114, as described in [0022]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Fig. 2 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 142, as described in [0023]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Fig. 2 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 180, as described in [0024]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the phrase “is disclosed,” i.e., a phrase that is implied, in the first sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to patent application no. DE 10 2023 210 097.5 at the beginning of the specification is ineffective because the reference is to a foreign application.
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0005], there is a sentence that is not in English.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 requires:
i., wherein the optics housing at least partially accommodates the transmitting optics and/or the receiving optics and
ii., wherein the receiving lens is arranged at a predefined distance from the photodetector within the optics housing.
At i., it appears Applicant intends the accommodation of the receiving optics at least partially by the housing is optional, i.e., in the instance the optics housing at least partially accommodates the transmitting optics since the claim requires the accommodation of the transmitting optics or the receiving optics.
At ii., however, it appears the receiving lens is required to be within the optics housing, in which instance, the optics housing would at least partially accommodate the receiving optics.
It is unclear how the inclusion of the receiving optics in the optics housing could be optional as per i., but required as per ii., as it appears the receiving optics must at least partially be accommodated by the optics housing at ii.. In such an instance, it appears Applicant may intend -wherein the optics housing at least partially accommodates the receiving optics or both the receiving optics and transmitting optics-.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juenemann et al. (US 2011/0211188).
With respect to independent claim 1, Juenemann et al. discloses a laser range finder, comprising:
an optics housing ([0026], wherein the laser distance measuring device is disclosed as inserted into a housing);
a transmitting optics 1/1.1/1.2 configured to emit at least one laser beam ([0046]); and
a receiving optics 2/2.1/2.2 configured to receive a reflected laser beam ([0046]),
wherein the optics housing at least partially accommodates the transmitting optics and/or the receiving optics ([0026], wherein the laser distance measuring device containing the transmitting optics and receiving optics is inserted into a housing),
wherein the receiving optics includes a receiving lens 2.2 and a photodetector 2.1 ([0046]), and
wherein the receiving lens is arranged at a predefined distance from the photodetector within the optics housing ([0029], wherein the receiver and the optical reception system are disposed in a predetermined position and alignment relative to one another).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein the predefined distance is designed such that a focal point of the receiving lens at least partially impinges on the photodetector ([0029], wherein the receiver is positioned and aligned in such a manner that it’s center in the focal pane of the optical reception system and the nodal points of the optical reception system are located on straight lines which define the reception axis).
With respect to dependent claim 3, Juenemann et al. discloses at least one surface of the receiving lens is curved in such a way that the receiving lens 2.2 has an extended depth of field (see Fig. 1, wherein the receiving lens 2.2 is curved).
With respect to dependent claim 4, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein at least one surface of the receiving lens 2.2 is curved in such a way that an image of the reflected laser beam on the photodetector is maximized (see Fig. 1, wherein the receiving lens 2.2 is curved).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein the receiving lens 2.2 has at least one fastening bar 3 ([0028], wherein the receiving lens 2.2 is attached to printed circuit board 3, i.e., a fastening bar).
With respect to dependent claim 7, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein at least one surface of the receiving lens 2.2 is flat (see Fig. 1, wherein at least one surface of the receiving lens 2.2 is flat).
With respect to dependent claim 8, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein the receiving lens 2.2 has an at least partially circumferential frame (see Fig. 1, wherein the receiving lens 2.2 has an at least partially circumferential frame).
With respect to dependent claim 9, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein the receiving lens comprises at least one fixing element ([0028], wherein solder points attach, i.e., fix, the receiver 2.2 to the circuit board 3).
With respect to dependent claim 10, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein: the optics housing ([0026]) comprises a receptacle 3 configured to receive the receiving lens 2.2, and the receptacle is further configured to arrange the receiving lens at the predefined distance ([0029]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juenemann et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pacala et al. (US 2018/0329065).
With respect to dependent claim 5, Juenemann et al. discloses wherein at least one surface of the receiving lens 2.2 is curved in such a way that the reflected laser beam is imaged laterally enlarged (see Fig. 1, wherein receiving lens 2.2 is curved). The reference further discloses wherein such a beam is imaged laterally on an active surface of receiver 2.1, wherein such a receiver can be a photodiode ([0046]). The reference, however, fails to explicitly define such a photodiode as a SPAD array. Pacala et al. teaches photosensors 1771 that can be included in handheld optical imaging devices ([0057]), wherein such include photodetectors, such as photodiodes, a SPAD, or several photodetectors, such as an array of SPADs which cooperate together to act as a single photosensor; such an array is suggested to have a higher dynamic range, lower dark count rate and other beneficial properties as compared to a single large photon detection area ([0158]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try a SPAD array as receiver 2.1 in the device of Juenemann et al. in order to yield the predictable results of providing a higher dynamic range, lower dark count rate and other beneficial properties as compared to a single large photon detection area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4916536 discloses a wide angle, video rate imaging range finder wherein such includes an optics housing, a transmitting optics configured to emit at least one laser beam and a receiving optics configured to receive a reflected laser beam, wherein the optics housing at least partially accommodates each of the optics, wherein the receiving optics includes receiving lenses and a photodetector and wherein the receiving lenses are arranged in a predefined manner from the photodetector within the optics housing.
US 7030365 discloses a laser range finder comprising an optics housing, a transmitting optics configured to emit at least one laser beam and a receiving optics configured to receive a reflected laser beam, wherein the optics housing at least partially accommodates each of the optics, wherein the receiving optics includes receiving lenses and a photodetector and wherein the receiving lenses are arranged in a predefined manner from the photodetector within the optics housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
09/29/26
Prosecution Insights