DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehmadi et al. US 11,668,830 hereinafter referred to as Nehmadi in view of Nagai US 2017/0227643 hereinafter referred to as Nagai.
In regards to claim 1, Nehmadi teaches:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory connected to or built in the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:”
Nehmadi Figure 2 teaches processing system 210 and storage 240.
“perform first distance measurement of measuring a distance to an imaging region based on an irradiation timing at which a light irradiator emits light to the imaging region and a light-receiving timing at which a light receiver receives reflected light of the light from the imaging region;
Nehmadi Figure 4 and column 13 lines 28-35 teaches S460 includes emitting a laser beam (or a light pulse) using a laser diode. The laser hits a target and a portion of the laser's energy is reflected back toward the active sensor. The returning signal is detected and the time elapsed between emission of the light pulse from the laser and the detection of the returned signal is determined. A distance measurement of the distance to the object may be determined based on the determined elapsed time.
“perform second distance measurement of measuring the distance to the imaging region”
Nehmadi Figure 4 and column 12 lines 41-44 teach At S450, passive measurements are performed based on the acquired image. The passive measurements include measuring at least a distance from at least one, some or all the classified objects.
“a first distance measurement result obtained by performing the first distance measurement and a second distance measurement result obtained by performing the second distance measurement” and “the first distance measurement result and the second distance measurement result.”
Figure 4 steps 450 and 460
“and give a notification indicating that [distance measurements] are different from each other, based on [distance measurements]”
The step of notifying a user that an error may have occurred or that a measurement is not reliable does not provide unexpected results because it merely results in notifying that measured results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). For example, Nagai teaches in paragraph [0090] In the case of the first and second embodiments, the above differential value is a value obtained from two adjacent sampling values, which is a value itself calculated in the third embodiment. When the time-of-flight distance measurement device 1 determines that the difference between the values exceeds the threshold (yes in S12), the time-of-flight distance measurement device 1 determines that the waveform has not been sufficiently settled (S13), outputs an alarm to notify the user of the possibility of malfunction (S14). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Nehmadi in view of Nagai to have included the features of “and give a notification indicating that [distance measurements] are different from each other, based on [distance measurements]” because values that affect errors such as a duty or a rising time can be detected (Nagai [0013]).
In regards to claim 2, Nehmadi/Nagai teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the processor is configured to perform the second distance measurement based on a distance measurement method different from the distance measurement method used in the first distance measurement”
Nehmadi Figure 4 teaches passive distance measurement (S450) and active distance measurement (S460).
In regards to claim 3, Nehmadi/Nagai teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the processor is configured to give the notification based on the information regarding the difference or relationship between the first distance measurement result and the second distance measurement result”
Nagai teaches in paragraph [0090] In the case of the first and second embodiments, the above differential value is a value obtained from two adjacent sampling values, which is a value itself calculated in the third embodiment. When the time-of-flight distance measurement device 1 determines that the difference between the values exceeds the threshold (yes in S12), the time-of-flight distance measurement device 1 determines that the waveform has not been sufficiently settled (S13), outputs an alarm to notify the user of the possibility of malfunction (S14). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Nehmadi in view of Nagai to have included the features of “and give a notification indicating that [distance measurements] are different from each other, based on [distance measurements]” because values that affect errors such as a duty or a rising time can be detected (Nagai [0013]).
In regards to claim 4, Nehmadi/Nagai teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 4 contains similar limitations written in method format. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 5, Nehmadi/Nagai teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 5 contains similar limitations written in method format. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “give a notification indicating that a first distance measurement result obtained by performing the first distance measurement and a second distance measurement result obtained by performing the second distance measurement are different from each other, based on the first distance measurement result and the second distance measurement result.” However, the Examiner has used more than one reference to teach this claimed feature and therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
For clarification, Nehmadi teaches performing the distance measurements. As indicated in the rejection above, steps 450 and 460 in Figure 4, inter alia, teach the various distance measurements. Therefore, it is known to perform the claimed first and second distance measurements.
Nagai teaches that it is known to give a notification when distance measurements are different. For clarification, Nagai teaches in paragraph [0090], as indicated in the rejection above, the above differential value is a value obtained from two adjacent sampling values, which is a value itself calculated in the third embodiment. When the time-of-flight distance measurement device 1 determines that the difference between the values exceeds the threshold (yes in S12), the time-of-flight distance measurement device 1 determines that the waveform has not been sufficiently settled (S13), outputs an alarm to notify the user of the possibility of malfunction (S14).
Therefore, it is known to perform the claimed distance measurements and it is known to notify when distance measurements are not different. Modifying Nehmadi to provide a notification based on different measured distances as known from Nagai would produce the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the step of notifying a user that an error may have occurred or that a measurement is not reliable does not provide unexpected results because it merely results in notifying that measured results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights