DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,056. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are grammatical in nature.
In regards to claim 1, the ‘056 patent uses different grammatical structure as opposed the instant application. For example, the final clause of claim 1 of the instant application (claim 1 lines 11-14) starts with a recitation “give a notification … measurements are different from each other.” This is then followed by explicitly reciting that the measurements are “based on the first distance measurement result and the second distance measurement result.” The ‘056 patent starts the clause in the equivalent position of the claim by reciting “in a case in which 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” and then follows this clause with the notification clause. However, the grammatical difference of claiming the “case” of the results being different is not patentably distinct from claiming that the difference is “based on” the measurement results. And the change in location of giving a “notification” does not have an effect on the invention. Therefore, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘056 patent. (See table below).
In regards to claims 4-5, the claims are nearly identical to that of claim 1 except written in method and article format. Therefore, the rejection of these claims is similar to that of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,056 in view of Nehmadi et al. US 11,668,830.
In regards to claim 2, Nehmadi Figure 4 teaches passive distance measurement (S450) and active distance measurement (S460). (See table below). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified the ‘056 patent in view of Nehmadi to have included the features of “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” because It would therefore be advantageous to provide a solution for generating 3D-maps that would overcome the deficiencies of the prior art (Nehmadi column 2 lines 25-27).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,877,056 in view of Nagai US 2017/0227643.
In regards to claim 3, 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 the ‘056 patent 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]).
Claim No.
Instant Application 19/035,212
US Patent 11,877,056
1
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory connected to or built in the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
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;
perform second distance measurement of measuring the distance to the imaging region;
and 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.
Claim 1 lines 1-4
Claim 1 lines 5-10
Claim 1 lines 11-12
Claim 1 lines 19-23
Claim 1 lines 15-19
2
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).
3
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).
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.
Conclusion
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