DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/18/2025 has been entered.
Claims 6,15 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 14,20 are amended.
New claims 21-22 are added.
Claims 1-5,7-14,16-22 are pending.
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) 1,7,9,11-14,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) further in view of WO 2015054085 A1(Hudman et al.).
Claim 1, Hazeghi teaches a distance sensor, comprising:
a light projecting system (see figure 4C) to project a pattern comprising a plurality of points of light onto an object, the light projecting system comprising:
a laser light source to project coherent light (figure 4C Ref 300, col 15 line 55-67 and col 16 line 1-10);
and a diffractive optical element having a plurality of layers that are etched to form binary step patterns (figure 4C Ref 350, col 15 line 55-67 note plateaus 352-P, 354-P, and valleys), wherein each binary step pattern of the binary step patterns comprises an irregular arrangement of a plurality of steps, and each step of the plurality of steps comprises a rise and run without a slope (see figure 4C and note DOE 350) ,[…],wherein the plurality of layers is configured to split the coherent light into a plurality of beams of light, wherein each beam of light of the plurality of beams of light forms one point of the plurality of points of light, and wherein the plurality of layers is further configured to control divergence angles of the plurality of beams of light (col 15 line 55-67 note different pattern, 50-n, emitted or projected from surface 354. Col 15 line 1-20 note expand or spread income optical energy);
a light receiving system to capture an image of the pattern projected onto the object (col 5 line1-12 note camera and image);
and a processor to calculate a distance to the object based on an appearance of the pattern in the image and on knowledge of trajectories of the plurality of points of light (col 5 line 1-12 note camera and image, Col 10 line 4-30).
Hazeghi fails but McEldowney teaches wherein at least two steps of the plurality of steps comprise different rises (see figure 5C para 79-84 note multi-level structures).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi and McEldowney and modify the distance sensor such that at least two steps of the plurality of steps comprise different rises because this will facilitate different wavelength of light to pass through (McEldowney para 81).
Hazeghi fails but Hudman teaches a microlens disposed over the laser light source such that the microlens is disposed between the laser light source and the diffractive optical element, wherein the microlens is configured to control the divergence angles of the beams of coherent light before the beams are split, and to enlarge and project the pattern created by the plurality of beams (para 88 figure 9, note microlens, DOE, collimate).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi and Hudman and modify the sensor such that the microlens is disposed between the laser light source and the diffractive optical element. The motivation to do so would be to collimate the beams (Hudman para 88).
Claim 7. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1, wherein the run of each step of the plurality of steps is parallel with runs of other steps of the plurality of steps, but is coplanar with fewer than all of the runs of the other steps (Hazeghi see figure 4C and note DOE 350).
Claim 9. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers is defined in a surface of the diffractive optical element facing the laser light source (Hazeghi see figure 4C, Ref 350 and 300).
Claim 11. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1, wherein the plurality of beams of light forms a pattern of points that is repeated on the surface by other pluralities of beams of light split from the coherent light by the diffractive optical element (Hazeghi see figure 1B and 1C and col 12 line 8-35).
Claim 12. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 11, wherein the pattern of points comprises a regular pattern (Hazeghi see figure 1B and col 12 line 8-35).
Claim 13. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 11 wherein the pattern of points comprises an irregular pattern (Hazeghi see figure 1C and col 12 line 8-35).
Claim 14 and 20 (mutatis mutandis), Hazeghi teaches a method, comprising: causing, by a processing system of a distance sensor including at least one processor, a light projecting system of the distance sensor to project a pattern onto an object, wherein the pattern comprises a plurality of points of light, and wherein the plurality of points of light is formed by a diffractive optical element of the light projecting system that includes a collimator function (figure 4C , col 15 line 55-67 and col 16 line 1-10 ), wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a plurality of layers that are etched to form binary step patterns, wherein the plurality of layers is configured to split coherent light emitted by a laser light source of the light projecting system into a plurality of beams of light, wherein each beam of light of the plurality of beams of light forms one point of the plurality of points of light, and wherein the plurality of layers is further configured to control divergence angles of the plurality of beams of light (figure 4C Ref 350, col 15 line 55-67 note plateaus 352-P, 354-P, and valleys, and col 15 line 55-67 note different pattern, 50-n, emitted or projected from surface 354. Col 15 line 1-20 note expand or spread income optical energy, figure 1A-C and figure 4C , col 15 line 55-67 and col 16 line 1-10), wherein each binary step pattern of the binary step patterns comprises an irregular arrangement of a plurality of steps, and each step of the plurality of steps comprises a rise and run without a slope (see figure 4C and note DOE 350),
causing, by the processing system, a light receiving system of the distance sensor to capture an image of the pattern projected onto the object (col 5 line1-12 note camera and image);
and calculating, by the processing system, sets of three-dimensional coordinates for at least some points of the plurality of points of light, wherein the calculating is based on appearances of the at least some points in the image and knowledge of trajectories of the at least some points (col 5 line 1-12 note camera and image, Col 10 line 4-30).
Hazeghi fails but McEldowney teaches wherein at least two steps of the plurality of steps comprise different rises (see figure 5C para 79-84 note multi-level structures).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi and McEldowney and modify the distance sensor such that at least two steps of the plurality of steps comprise different rises because this will facilitate different wavelength of light to pass through (McEldowney para 81).
Hazeghi fails but Hudman teaches wherein the collimator function comprises a microlens disposed over a laser light source such that the microlens is disposed between the laser light source and the diffractive optical element, wherein the microlens is configured to control divergence angles of beams of coherent light before the beams are split, and to enlarge and project the pattern created by the plurality of beams (para 88 figure 9, note microlens, DOE, collimate).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi and Hudman and modify the sensor such that the microlens is disposed between the laser light source and the diffractive optical element. The motivation to do so would be to collimate the beams (Hudman para 88).
Claim 19. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the method of claim 14, wherein each binary step pattern of the binary step patterns comprises an irregular arrangement of a plurality of steps, and each step of the plurality of steps comprises a rise and run without a slope (Hazeghi see figure 4C and note DOE 350).
Claim(s) 2,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of US 20220158418 A1 (Satoh).
Claim 2. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1. Hazeghi teaches wherein the laser light source emits a single beam of coherent light toward the diffractive optical element.
Hazeghi fails but Satoh teaches wherein the laser light source comprises a single vertical cavity surface emitting laser (para 30 note VCSEL).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Satoh and modify the distance sensor such that the laser light source comprises a single vertical cavity surface emitting laser because the VCSEL has low power consumption.
Claim 16. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the method of claim 14. Hazeghi teaches wherein the laser light source emits a single beam of coherent light toward the diffractive optical element.
Hazeghi fails but Satoh teaches wherein the laser light source comprises a single vertical cavity surface emitting laser (para 30 note VCSEL).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Satoh and modify the distance sensor such that the laser light source comprises a single vertical cavity surface emitting laser because the VCSEL has low power consumption.
Claim(s) 3,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) further in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of US 20190079166 A1 (Kim et al.).
Claim 3. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1.
Hazeghi fails but Kim teaches wherein the laser light source comprises a single edge emitting laser that emits a single beam of coherent light toward the diffractive optical element (para 35).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Kim and modify the distance sensor such that the laser light source comprises a single edge emitting laser because edge emitting lasers produce high power which is beneficial for a distance measuring device.
Claim 17. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the method of claim 14. Hazeghi fails but Kim teaches wherein the laser light source comprises a single edge emitting laser that emits a single beam of coherent light toward the diffractive optical element (para 35).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Kim and modify the distance sensor such that the laser light source comprises a single edge emitting laser because edge emitting lasers produce high power which is beneficial for a distance measuring device.
Claim(s) 4-5,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) further in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of US 20200386540 A1 (Hseih et al.).
Claim 4. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1.
Hazeghi fails but Hseih teaches wherein the laser light source comprises an array of a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers that collectively emits a plurality of beams of coherent light toward the diffractive optical element (para 82 note VCSEL array).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Hseih and modify the distance sensor such that the laser light source comprises an array of a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers because an array of VCSEL will have better efficiency than a single laser light source.
Claim 5.Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney, Hudman and Hseih teaches the distance sensor of claim 4. Hazeghi teaches wherein the plurality of layers is further configured to enlarge the pattern (col. 15 lines 1-5 note expand).
Claim 18. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the method of claim 14. Hazeghi fails but Hseih teaches wherein the laser light source comprises an array of a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers that collectively emits a plurality of beams of coherent light toward the diffractive optical element (para 82 note VCSEL array).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Hseih and modify the distance sensor such that the laser light source comprises an array of a plurality of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers because an array of VCSEL will have better efficiency than a single laser light source.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of US 20190258134 A1 (Chen et al.)
Claim 8. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1. Hazeghi fails but Chen teaches the sensor further comprising a positioning member positioned to maintain an aligned positional relationship between the laser light source and the diffractive optical element, wherein the positioning member is comprised of a liquid crystal polymer (see figure 2, 3A and 3C para 46-49 note liquid crystal ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and Chen and modify the distance sensor such that the sensor further comprises a positioning member wherein the positioning member is comprised of a liquid crystal polymer because this will allow controlling the focusing states of the light beam and provide at least two focusing state (Chen para 45).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) further in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of JP 2013257162 A (OUCHIDA et al.).
Claim 10. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney and Hudman teaches the distance sensor of claim 1. Hazeghi fails but OUCHIDA teaches wherein the coherent light comprises a wavelength of light that is invisible to a human eye, but is visible to a photodetector of the light receiving system (line 40).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman and OUCHIDA and modify the distance sensor such that the coherent light comprises a wavelength of light that is invisible to a human eye, but is visible to a photodetector of the light receiving system. The motivation to do so would be to have light that is invisible to human eye so that the user does not feel unnaturalness (OUCHIDA line 40).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) further in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of JP 2013257162 A (OUCHIDA et al.) further in view of US 20040149913 A1 (Witte et al.).
Claim 21. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney, Hudman and OUCHIDA teaches the distance sensor of claim 10. Hazeghi fails but Witte teaches wherein the photodetector comprises an infrared photodetector configured to detect a projected pattern of light, and wherein the photodetector includes an infrared bandpass filter (para 51 note infrared detector and bandpass filter).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman, OUCHIDA and Witte and modify the distance sensor such that the photodetector comprises an infrared photodetector, and wherein the photodetector includes an infrared bandpass filter. The motivation to do so would be to have a system that cannot be jammed, intercepted or mimicked (Witte Abstract).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9826216 B1 (Hazeghi et al.) in view of US 20110310220 A1 (McEldowney) further in view of WO 2015054085 A1 (Hudman et al.) further in view of JP 2013257162 A (OUCHIDA et al.) further in view of US 20040149913 A1 (Witte et al.) further in view US 20190146071 A1 (Donovan).
Claim 22. Hazeghi as modified in view of McEldowney, Hudman, OUCHIDA and Witte teaches the distance sensor of claim 21. Hazeghi fails but Donovan teaches wherein the points of light are pulsed (para 51, 62 note pulsed ), and wherein the pattern comprises a pseudo random pattern in which regularity of the arrangement of points is minimized (para 76 note pseudo-random).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hazeghi, McEldowney, Hudman, OUCHIDA, Witte and Donovan and modify the distance sensor such that the points of light are pulsed and the pattern comprises a pseudo random pattern . The motivation to do so would be to achieve a desired detection signal noise level (Donovan Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645