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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 3/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s first argument is that the claimed relationship
N
×
sin
α
=
sin
θ
1
decouples total dot density from microstructure pitch of the diffractive unit, allowing one to maintain a high total number of dots with a larger microstructure pitch in a way completely absent from the prior art, however, this argument is not persuasive. First, it should be noted that, as has long been well known in the art, increasing the pitch of a diffractive unit compared to the wavelength of light it is used to diffract will produce smaller fan-out angles, increasing the density of dots produced (consider Dhillon, page 2, first equation, with n=1, which predicts that
sin
θ
1
=
λ
d
, a decreasing function of microstructure pitch), a physical phenomenon from which the present disclosure does not claim to be exempt (note that the example cited in paragraphs 32-33 uses interlacing to compensate for a finer pitch of 31.3 µm, predicting a comparable number of dots to a non-interlaced system with a larger pitch of 62.7 µm). As a result, it is unclear why interlacing would be necessary to maintain a high number of dots while increasing the microstructure pitch of the diffractive elements. Second, Mor, a reference present in the prior art, does teach interlacing to increase the total number of dots (see paragraphs 16-17 of Mor). While Mor teaches patterns of interlacing that do not exactly match the pattern of interlacing claimed, the interlacing pattern of Meng is entirely compatible with the approach of Mor, to the extent of being obvious to combine.
Applicant’s second argument is that Meng relies exclusively on time division multiplexing and sequentially activated transmitters, however, this argument is moot. Neither this action nor the previous action relies on Meng to teach a simultaneous and spatial projector. Instead, the ground of rejection in this and the previous action relies on Mor to teach simultaneously overlapping multiple replicas of an array of light emitting elements, thereby increasing total number of dots projected into a particular field of view and overcoming physical manufacturing constraints (see paragraphs 16-17 of Mor).
Applicant’s third argument is that it was unknown to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention that interlacing patterns of dots inherently increases dot density, however, this argument is not persuasive. To take just one example, Mor teaches increasing density of dots by interlacing patterns of dots (see paragraphs 16-17 of Mor). One of ordinary skill in the art viewing FIG. 4 of Meng would see a pattern of symbols (displayed simultaneously in the figure) with higher total density than the density of any one type of symbol in the pattern, and modifying Mor to produce that pattern instead of another interlaced pattern would be entirely predictable in its results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Since the independent claim is not allowed, the dependent claims are not automatically allowed.
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: image capturing device in claim 11, interpreted as corresponding to the structure recited in paragraph 18 of the specification, comprising a focusing lens, a filter and an image sensor (note that a camera would meet this description or be equivalent thereto, absent evidence to the contrary).
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.
Note that the diffracting unit in claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), as limitations giving it sufficient structure to perform the ascribed functions have now been incorporated into the independent claim that introduces the diffracting unit.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether the claim element introduced as “an optical axis of the lens” is intended to refer to the same “optical axis” that the lens is recited in claim 1 as having or is intended to refer to a different optical axis. Further, it is unclear which optical axis Applicant is intending to refer to later in claim 8. The claim is interpreted as not requiring a difference between the two optical axes of the lens.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915) in view of Meng (US Patent Publication 20200092498).
Regarding claim 1, Mor teaches a dot pattern projector, comprising: a light source array (FIG. 1 and paragraph 21, array of optical emitters constructed on die 120), including a plurality of light sources that emit light beams (paragraph 21, VCSELs constructed on die 120), the plurality of light sources being separated by a light source pitch (paragraph 16, the physical distances between emitters in the array);
a lens, having an optical axis and an optical center, being configured to collimate the light beams emitted by the plurality of light sources (FIG. 1, projection lens 146), wherein a distance between the light source array and the optical center of the lens is equal to an effective focal length of the lens (paragraph 22, penultimate sentence); and
a diffracting unit configured to diffract the collimated light beams thereby to project an illumination pattern, wherein the diffracting unit comprises a microlens array or a diffractive optical element and has a microstructure pitch (FIG. 1, fan-out diffractive optical element (FO-DOE) 144), the microstructure pitch being a lens pitch between neighboring microlenses or a cell pitch between neighboring cells, the diffracting unit is configured to diffract the collimated light beams such that the plurality of light sources respectively project a plurality of dot patterns, each of the plurality of dot patterns including a plurality of dots arranged at a dot pitch (FIGs. 3, 4, and 5 show examples of regular arrangements of dots, with indicators of the dot pitch within a single replica 158, an arrangement of the replicas of the pattern shown by replication scheme 160, and the composite pattern 164);
wherein a light source of the light source array is not positioned on an optical axis of the lens such that a collimated light beam corresponding to the light source deviates from the optical axis by a deviation angle α (creating the angular separation between light spots described in paragraph 23): and each of the plurality of dot patterns has a fan-out angle θ, between a zero-order diffraction dot and a first-order diffraction dot (creating the angular offsets of the multiple replicas described in paragraph 24);
wherein the plurality of dot patterns are simultaneously projected by the plurality of light sources and are interlaced with one another according to an interlacing factor N, where N is an integer greater than 1 (see paragraph 36, for example, which describes the use of interlacing to increase the density of dots by a factor of 4 and decrease the distance between dots by a factor of 2) to form the illumination pattern (FIGs. 3, 4, and 5, composite patterns 164, formed by projecting a copy of a single replica 158 for each of the “x” marks in replication scheme 160); and
wherein the microstructure pitch, the light source pitch, the effective focal length, and the interlacing factor N are jointly selected such that the illumination pattern has a predetermined total number of dots within a predetermined field of illumination (see paragraph 36, for example, which describes the use of interlacing to increase the density of dots by a factor of 4 and decrease the distance between dots by a factor of 2).
Mor does not explicitly teach that the deviation angle α and the fan-out angle θ, satisfying
N
×
sin
α
=
sin
θ
1
, such that the plurality of dot patterns are shifted relative to one another by 1/N of the dot pitch in a first direction or a second direction.
In the same field of endeavor of projecting dot patterns diffractively, Meng does teach that the deviation angle α and the fan-out angle θ, satisfying
N
×
sin
α
=
sin
θ
1
, such that the plurality of dot patterns are shifted relative to one another by 1/N of the dot pitch in a first direction or a second direction (FIG. 4. The B dot pattern is shifted in a first direction from the A dot pattern by half the pitch of each of the dot patterns (corresponding to N=2, an integer greater that 1). The C dot pattern is shifted in a second direction from the A dot pattern by half the pitch of each of the dot patterns (corresponding to N=2, an integer greater that 1). The D dot pattern is shifted in the first direction and the second direction from the A dot pattern by half the pitch of each of the dot patterns (corresponding to N=2, an integer greater that 1). Regarding the equation recited in the claim, note that the zeroth order beam proceeds through the grating along its previous trajectory (see Dhillon (non-patent literature “the grating equation”), second page, third paragraph). For an off-axis light source, the angle of the zeroth order beam is α. Since the lateral displacement of the dot is proportional to the sine of the angle of deviation from a particular axis, the claimed equation is simply saying that the dots produced by a first light source are laterally displaced N times as far apart as the zeroth order dot from the first light source is from the zeroth order dot from a second light source. Meng teaches such an arrangement in FIG. 4 with N=2, showing dots B displaced from their respective dots A by 1/2 times the pitch of the dots A, with similar relationships between other pairs of letters.). By shifting the dot patterns relative to each other by an amount equal to the dot pitch divided by an integer, Meng can avoid gaps in the dot pattern so as to maximize the resolution of the combined dot pattern (paragraph 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the simultaneous and spatial dot pattern projector of Mor by interleaving the individual dot patterns in the particular manner of Meng, without also adopting the sequential projection of Meng, to improve the quality of measurements by interleaving the dots by shifting the patterns by the dot pitch divided by an integer greater than 1 in order to increase the resolution of the combined dot pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Mor, as modified by Meng, teaches or renders obvious the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that each of the light sources is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)) (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 3, Mor, as modified by Meng, teaches or renders obvious the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that a light source pitch between two neighbor light sources is regular (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 4, Mor, as modified by Meng, teaches or renders obvious the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that the light sources are regularly distributed (paragraph 21) or hexagonally distributed within the light source array (FIG. 4. Note that the hexagonal grid shown in FIG. 4 is also regularly distributed).
Regarding claim 7, Mor, as modified by Meng, teaches or renders obvious the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that if a wavelength of the light beams emitted by the light sources is λ, a fan-out angle between a dot of the zero-order diffraction and a dot of the mth-order diffraction in the dot pattern projected by a light source is θm, and a cell pitch or a lens pitch of the diffracting unit is D_M, the above-mentioned parameters will have a relationship of: D_M× sin θ𝑚 = 𝑚 𝜆 (See reference Dhillon (Non-Patent Literature “the grating equation”). The first equation on page 2 equates the distance d between slits (equivalent to D_M from the claim) times the sine of a diffraction angle θ (equivalent to θm from the claim) to the diffraction order n (equivalent to m from the claim) times the wavelength of light λ (equivalent to λ from the claim). While Mor is not explicit about this equation, the same relationship would apply to any diffraction grating, including the fan-out diffractive optical element 144 of Mor.).
Regarding claim 8, Mor, as modified by Meng, teaches or renders obvious the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that if a light source pitch between two neighboring light sources is D_L, an effective focal length of the lens is D_EFL, a deviation angle between an optical axis of the lens and a collimated light beam of a light source that is not positioned at the optical axis is α, the above-mentioned parameters have a relationship of:
α
=
tan
-
1
D
L
D
E
F
L
(paragraph 22, penultimate sentence characterizes projection lens 146 as a lens with die 120, holding the VCSEL array, on the focal plane of the lens. Mor does not explicitly recite the claimed equation, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as the result of placing a light source on the focal plane of a lens, but not on the optical axis of the lens.).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915) in view of Meng (US Patent Publication 20200092498), further in view of Price (US Patent Publication 20190068853).
Regarding claim 11, Mor, as modified by Meng, teaches or renders obvious the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above), configured to project a second light pattern (the pattern of spots from the typical application recited in paragraph 20 of Mor) as part of an optical distance measurement system (paragraph 20, host system).
While Mor does suggest using projector 30 with an imaging and processing system to estimate a 3-D map of an object or scene (paragraph 20), Mor does not explicitly include the image capturing device, configured to capture images of illumination pattern reflected from an object as part of the projector, nor does Mor explicitly teach a flood illuminator, including at least one light source and a diffuser, configured to project a first illumination pattern.
In the same field of endeavor of structured light generation, Price does teach a flood illuminator (FIG. 6, flood fill light illuminator 44), including at least one light source (FIG. 6, light emitter 46) and a diffuser (FIG. 6, diffuser optical element 48), configured to project a first illumination pattern (FIG. 6, flood fill illumination 28) and an image capturing device, configured to capture images of illumination pattern reflected from an object (FIG. 7, camera 24). By including a flood illuminator, Price is able to detect edges of objects in the scene (paragraph 46), and by including a camera, Price is able to capture images of the scene (paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dot pattern projector of Mor, as modified by Meng, by including it in a system like that of Price, including a camera to fulfill Mor’s suggestion to use the projector (paragraph 20 of Mor) with a camera and in order to detect edges in the captured images (paragraph 46 of Price).
Regarding claim 13, Mor, as modified by Meng and Price, teaches or renders obvious the optical distance measurement system of claim 11 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that the diffracting unit comprises a diffractive optical element (FIG. 1, fan-out diffractive optical element (FO-DOE) 144 comprises a diffractive optical element).
Mor does not teach the diffuser, so does not teach that it also comprises a diffractive optical element.
In the same field of endeavor of structured light generation, Price does teach that the diffuser comprises a diffractive optical element (diffuser optical element 48 described in paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the system of Mor, as modified by Meng and Price, by using a type of diffuser taught by Price as the particular means of diffusing the flood fill illumination, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915) in view of Meng (US Patent Publication 20200092498) and Price (US Patent Publication 20190068853) further in view of Freedman (Foreign Patent Publication WO 2008120217 A2).
Regarding claim 12, Mor, as modified by Meng and Price, teaches or renders obvious the optical distance measurement system of claim 11 (as described above).
Mor does not explicitly teach that both of the diffuser and the diffracting unit comprise microlens arrays.
In the same field of endeavor of structured light generation, Price does teach that the diffuser comprises a microlens array (paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the system of Mor, as modified by Meng and Price, by using a type of diffuser taught by Price as the particular means of diffusing the flood fill illumination, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While Price does contemplate integrating the diffuser with the diffraction unit for the structured light (paragraphs 56-57), Price does not explicitly teach also making the diffraction unit for the structured light emitter comprise a microlens array.
In the same field of endeavor of generating structured light, Freedman teaches using a microlens array to generate the structured light (FIG. 7, micro-lenses 92), which allow sending dots of light in a pattern, in the same manner as the diffractive optical element of Mor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mor, as modified by Meng and Price, to substitute a microlens array like that of Freedman for the diffractive optical element used to produce structured light, predictably achieving the same outcome with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights