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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is overcome by amendment.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s first argument is that Mor achieves pattern replication and interlacing by a fundamentally different mechanism from that of the claimed invention, however, this argument is not persuasive. Both Mor and the claimed invention shine light from a light source array through a collimating lens to a diffracting optical element, producing interlaced patterns of dots. Mor describes the interlaced patterns as being composed by first making one pattern from the zeroth-order dots of all the emitters (e.g., as shown by Mor in FIG. 5, single replica 158), another pattern of all first-order dots of all the emitters, etc. then interlacing those patterns (e.g., according to replication scheme 160 of Mor), while claim 1 as currently amended describes the interlaced patterns as being composed by making a first pattern from all the diffractive orders of a single light source and a second pattern from all diffractive orders of the second light source (the claim permits, but does not strictly require, more than two) and then interlacing the separate patterns from the separate light sources, but what is claimed is a dot pattern projector, not a way of describing or thinking about a dot pattern projector. Merely describing the same prior art device in different words does not create a patentable distinction, when that same prior art device may be just as easily described using those words.
Applicant’s second argument is that the emitter array and DOE of Mor are designed independently with no relationship, however, this argument is not persuasive. In FIGs. 3-5 of Mor, note how the dots in the overlapping areas have a constant pitch, and dots from the one light source are placed halfway between dots from other light sources with different diffraction orders. If the choices were independent, the replicas of a single light source would be offset haphazardly from other light sources, rather than producing the regular composite patterns shown in those figures. Making that regular composite pattern 164 indicates that the angles corresponding to the claimed α are tied to the fan-out angle of the diffraction θ1.
Applicant’s third argument is that the offset between neighboring emitters’ patterns is a full baseline pitch, not 1/N thereof, however, this argument is not persuasive. Consider FIG. 4 of Mor, taking the (longer) horizontal pitch of the replication scheme 160 as a baseline pitch. The pitch between neighboring emitters’ dots, d, is 1/N of that baseline pitch, where N=7. Also see the prior art rejection below.
Applicant’s fourth argument is that the parameters recited in the claim are linked in a way not taught or suggested by Mor, however, this argument is not persuasive. The setup employed by Mor is similar enough to that of the claimed invention that the same list of parameters affect the functioning of Mor in the same way that they affect the functioning of the claimed invention, by virtue of obeying the same long-known laws of physics (such as the relationship between wavelength, angle of incidence, DOE pitch, and fan-out angles, which fully applies to Mor, whether Mor felt the need to explain the relevant principles of optics or not (see Dhillon for such an explanation)). Further, choosing a design of DOE that is suitable for use with a particular light source array is a form of coupling the structures, rendering them no longer independent.
Applicant’s further arguments relate to a patent cited by Mor or relate to Meng. These arguments have been fully considered, but are moot. The present action does not rely on Meng or the other patent for any matter.
As the independent claim is not allowable, the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
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:
the 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915).
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 having a wavelength λ (paragraph 21, VCSELs constructed on die 120), the plurality of light sources being separated by a light source pitch D_L (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 D_EFL 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 D_M, the microstructure pitch D_M being a lens pitch between neighboring microlenses or a cell pitch between neighboring cells (FIG. 1, fan-out diffractive optical element (FO-DOE) 144);
wherein: the diffracting unit diffracts the collimated light beam emitted from each of the plurality of light sources into a respective single-source dot pattern (FIG. 4, replication scheme 160 shows the pattern that each light source projects), each respective single-source dot pattern including a plurality of dots arranged at a dot pitch (FIG. 4, the (longer) horizontal pitch is a dot pitch for a pattern originating from a single light source), and the plurality of light sources thereby generate a plurality of respective single-source dot patterns that are simultaneously projected (FIG. 4, each dot in single replica 158 represents a different light source, which each has replicas according to replication scheme 160, resulting in composite pattern 164);
at least one light source of the light source array is an off-axis light source not positioned on the optical axis of the lens (as there are multiple light sources that are not arranged in a single line, at least one must be off-axis), such that the collimated light beam corresponding to the off-axis light source deviates from the optical axis by a deviation angle α given by
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.), and each respective single-source dot pattern has a fan-out angle θ-1 between a zero-order diffraction dot and a first-order diffraction dot given by
sin
θ
1
=
λ
/
D
_
M
(see Dhillon n (non-patent literature “the grating equation”), second page, first equation, comparing the difference between n=0 and n=1 where d corresponds to D_M and other letters match their claimed counterparts);
the light source pitch D_L, the effective focal length D_EFL, the microstructure pitch D_M, the wavelength λ, and an interlacing factor N, where N is an integer greater than l, jointly satisfy
N
×
sin
(
tan
-
1
(
D
_
L
/
D
_
E
F
L
)
)
=
λ
/
D
_
M
(note that the left hand side of the equation is equal to the angle of the zeroth-order diffraction beam of the off-axis light source times an integer greater than 1, while the right-hand side is equal the sine of the angle between zeroth- and first-order beams from the on-axis light source. In other words, the equation indicates that the lateral distance between dots from a single light source is an integer multiple of the distance from one of those dots to a dot from a different light source. See Dhillon for more information about how to calculate angles of diffracted light from a DOE), such that the respective single-source dot pattern generated from the off-axis light source is shifted, relative to the respective single-source dot pattern generated from an on-axis light source, by 1/N of the dot pitch (FIG. 4, the distance d between dots of the same order (in single replica 158) from different light sources is 1/N of the dot pitch from a single light source, shown as the horizontal distance between x marks in replication pattern 160 and composite pattern 164, wherein N=7, which is an integer greater than 1. This implies that the claimed equation is also met with N=7.); and
the plurality of respective single-source dot patterns are interlaced with one another to form the illumination pattern as a single array of dots having a combined pitch equal to 1/N of the dot pitch (FIG. 4, composite pattern 164, the pitch between dots in the horizontal direction is equal to 1/7 times the pitch of the dots indicated by the horizontal spacing between x marks).
Regarding claim 2, Mor teaches the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above), wherein each of the light sources is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 3, Mor teaches the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above), wherein a light source pitch between two neighbor light sources is regular (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 4, Mor teaches the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above), wherein 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).
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) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915) in view of Price (US Patent Publication 20190068853).
Regarding claim 11, Mor teaches an optical distance measurement system (paragraph 20, host system), comprising:
the dot pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above), configured to project a second illumination pattern (the pattern of spots from the typical application recited in paragraph 20 of Mor); and
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 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 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 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 Price (US Patent Publication 20190068853) further in view of Freedman (Foreign Patent Publication WO 2008120217 A2).
Regarding claim 12, Mor, as modified by 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 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 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
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