DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 16 originally filed 16 August 2021. By preliminary amendment received 16 August 2021; claims 3 through 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are amended. By amendment received 4 September 2024; claims 1, 5, 7 through 12, and 14 are amended and claims 17 through 19 are added. By amendment received 10 March 2025; claim 1 is amended. By amendment received 29 August 2025; claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 1 through 19 are addressed by this 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Carpaij et al. (Carpaij, WO Pub. 20/14087301 A1) and Yonekubo (US Pub. 2008/0205459) do not teach or render obvious the limitations "The second region lies on both sides of the first region in a horizontal direction" and "The third region lies on both sides of the first region in a vertical direction". This argument is persuasive and all rejections of claims including these limitations are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Barve et al. (Barve, US Pub. 2017/0353012) has been located which renders these features obvious in light of the previously cited art (see below). As such, new rejections have been formulated.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Carpaij and Yonekubo do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein a magnification of the projection optical system in a second region of an irradiated region is larger than a magnification in a first region of the irradiated region" because, according to applicant, Carpaij does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that Carpaij never describes a large or small magnification of the projection optical system.
Initially, in light of the above noted change in rejection, this limitation is now rejected on the basis of the combined teachings of Carpaij and Barve. However, since the argument reasonably applies to the present rejection, the argument will be addressed in the context of the present rejection.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the arrangement of Carpaij produces the claimed arrangement (MPEP §2145II). Specifically, Carpaij teaches a projection system including an emitter array with either sparsely or densely packed emitters (see Carpaij, Fig. 2B depicting an emitter array having variously packed emitters and Fig. 3 depicting a projection system using that emitter). The projection system of Carpaij includes a lens and is designed such that more densely packed emitters impinge on a farther surface and less densely packed emitters impinge on a closer surface (Carpaij, Figs. 2A and 3 depicting that emitters of groups A and are more densely packed and impinge on a more distant region of surface 300 than emitters of group C). Since light is diverging as it impinges on the target surface of Carpaij and since light from more densely packed emitters must travel further to impinge on the target surface, the arrangement of Carpaij naturally causes light from more densely packed emitters to undergo a greater magnification at the target surface than is experienced by light from less densely packed emitters that strikes a nearer portion of the target surface. In the present rejection, the closest target region of Carpaij that is illuminated by the least densely packed emitters is correlated to the claimed first region whereas a further target region of Carpaij that is illuminated by a more densely packed set of emitters is correlated to the second region. Since the region of Carpaij that is correlated to the first region is closer and undergoes less magnification than the region of Carpaij that is correlated to the second region, Carpaij necessarily teaches a system in which a magnification of the system in a second region of an irradiated region is larger than a magnification in a first region of the irradiated region. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein a magnification of the projection optical system in a second region of an irradiated region is larger than a magnification in a first region of the irradiated region" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Carpaij and Barve (see below). Applicant's argument that Carpaij does not teach this feature is not persuasive because the arrangement of Carpaij produces the claimed arrangement (MPEP §2145II).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 5, 13 through 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpaij et al. (Carpaij, WO Pub. 20/14087301 A1) in view of Barve et al. (Barve, US Pub. 2017/0353012).
Regarding claim 1, Carpaij discloses, "A light source including a plurality of light emitters" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pt. 10). "A projection optical system configured to emit light emitted from the light source" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pts. 10 and 200). "Wherein a magnification of the projection optical system in a second region of an irradiated region is larger than a magnification in a first region of the irradiated region" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pts. A, B, and 200). Carpaij does not explicitly disclose, "The second region lies on both sides of the first region in a horizontal direction." "A magnification of the projection optical system in a third region of the irradiated region is larger than a magnification of the first region of the irradiated region." "The third region lies on both sides of the first region in a vertical direction." "A light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region of the light source corresponding to the second region is larger than a light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region corresponding to the first region." "A light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region of the light source corresponding to the third region is larger than the light emission amount per unit area in the light emission region corresponding to the first region." Barve discloses, "The second region lies on both sides of the first region in a horizontal direction" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts 105 and S2, where those emitters S2 to the left and right of emitter S1 are the emitters in the second region). "A magnification of the projection optical system in a third region of the irradiated region is larger than a magnification of the first region of the irradiated region" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts 105 and S2, where a difference in magnification between the first and third region is produced in the same manner as a difference magnification in the first and second region in Carpaij when the projection system of Carpaij is adapted to use the emitter layout of Barve). "The third region lies on both sides of the first region in a vertical direction" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts 105 and S2, where those emitters S2 above and below emitter S1 are the emitters in the second region). "A light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region of the light source corresponding to the second region is larger than a light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region corresponding to the first region" (p. [0015], [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 105, S1, and S2, where emitters in region S1 provide lower emission intensity than the emitters in region S2 due to a reduced current consumption at the same temperature). "A light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region of the light source corresponding to the third region is larger than the light emission amount per unit area in the light emission region corresponding to the first region" (p. [0015], [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 105, S1, and S2, where emitters in region S1 provide lower emission intensity than the emitters in region S2 due to a reduced current consumption at the same temperature). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Carpaij with the teachings of Barve. In view of the teachings of Carpaij regarding a projection system including multiple emitters, the alternate arrangement of the emitters to have a higher concentration in the periphery rather than the center as taught by Barve would enhance the teachings of Carpaij by allowing a different emission profile as well as even heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 2, Carpaij discloses, "Wherein a spacing between adjacent light emitters of the plurality of light emitters is different in at least a portion of the light source" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2B, pts. A and B).
Regarding claim 3, Carpaij discloses, "Wherein a light emission amount of a light emitter is different in at least a portion of the light source" (pg. 6 and Fig. 4, pt. 12, where the described change in aperture corresponds to a change in output intensity).
Regarding claim 4, Carpaij does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein current amounts applied to the plurality of light emitters are the same." Barve discloses, "Wherein current amounts applied to the plurality of light emitters are the same" (p. [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Carpaij with the teachings of Barve for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Carpaij discloses, "A light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region corresponding to the periphery of the irradiated region is larger than a light emission amount per unit area in a light emission region corresponding to the center of the irradiated region" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2B, pts. A and B). Carpaij does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first region lies in a center of the irradiated region." "The second region and the third region lie in a periphery of the irradiated region." Barve discloses, "Wherein the first region lies in a center of the irradiated region" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts 105 and S1). "The second region and the third region lie in a periphery of the irradiated region" (p. [0019] and Fig. 1, pts 105 and S1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Carpaij with the teachings of Barve for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Carpaij discloses, "Wherein the light source is any of a vertical resonator surface emission laser, an edge-emitting laser, or a light emitting diode" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pt. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Carpaij discloses, "A detection part configured to detect light emitted from the light source device and reflected at a target object" (pgs. 6 and 8 and Fig. 9, pts. 110 and 500).
Regarding claim 15, Carpaij discloses, "A calculator configured to obtain information relating to a distance to the target object based on a signal from the detection part" (pgs. 6 and 8 and Fig. 9, pts. 400 and 500, where the control unit determines brightness which varies based on distance).
Regarding claim 16, Carpaij discloses, "The electronic apparatus comprising a controller configured to control the electronic apparatus based on information from the detection device" (pgs. 6 and 8 and Fig. 9, pts. 110 and 400, where the control unit operates the laser projector on the basis of detected brightness).
Regarding claim 17, Carpaij discloses, "Wherein the light source is a vertical resonator surface emission laser" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pt. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Carpaij discloses, "Wherein the light source is a light emitting diode" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pt. 10).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpaij, in view of Barve, and further in view of Yonekubo (US Pub. 2008/0205459).
Regarding claim 6, Carpaij discloses, "A magnifying optical element configured to magnify a light emission angle of light transmitted through the light condensing optical element, and emit the light" (pg. 6 and Fig. 2A, pt. 200).
The combination of Carpaij and Barve does not explicitly disclose, "A light condensing optical element configured to suppress a divergence angle of light emitted from the light source." Yonekubo discloses, "A light condensing optical element configured to suppress a divergence angle of light emitted from the light source" (p. [0072] and Fig. 17, pts. 80R and 82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij and Barve with the teachings of Yonekubo. In view of the teachings of Carpaij regarding a projection system with a condensing lens, the additional inclusion of a collimation lens prior to the condensing lens and the alternate inclusion of edge emitting lasers as taught by Yonekubo would enhance the teachings of Carpaij and Barve by allowing the constraints of the projection lens to be relaxed and by indicating alternate laser formats useful for employing in a projection system.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Carpaij and Barve does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the light source is an edge-emitting laser." Yonekubo discloses, "Wherein the light source is an edge-emitting laser" (p. [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij and Barve with the teachings of Yonekubo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 6.
Claims 7 through 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpaij, in view of Barve, in view of Yonekubo, and further in view of Seibert (US Pub. 2012/0294326).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo does not explicitly disclose, "A position adjuster configured to move the light condensing optical element relative to the light source or to the magnifying optical element." Seibert discloses, "A position adjuster configured to move the light condensing optical element relative to the light source or to the magnifying optical element" (p. [0047] and Fig. 4, pts. 1, 3, and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo with the teachings of Seibert. In view of the teachings of Carpaij and Yonekubo relating to a projection system that includes plural lenses, the additional inclusion of lens adjustment mechanisms as taught by Seibert would enhance the teachings of Carpaij, Yonekubo, and Barve by allowing the alignment between the optical elements to be adjusted.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the position adjuster is able to adjust a position of the light condensing optical element at least in an optical axial direction." Seibert discloses, "Wherein the position adjuster is able to adjust a position of the light condensing optical element at least in an optical axial direction" (p. [0047] and Fig. 4, pts. 1, 3, and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo with the teachings of Seibert for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo does not explicitly disclose, "A position adjuster configured to move the magnifying optical element relative to the light source or to the light condensing optical element." Seibert discloses, "A position adjuster configured to move the magnifying optical element relative to the light source or to the light condensing optical element" (p. [0051] and Fig. 4, pts. 3, 23, and 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo with the teachings of Seibert for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the position adjuster is able to adjust a position of the magnifying optical element at least in an optical axial direction." Seibert discloses, "Wherein the position adjuster is able to adjust a position of the magnifying optical element at least in an optical axial direction" (p. [0051] and Fig. 4, pts. 3, 23, and 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo with the teachings of Seibert for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo does not explicitly disclose, "A position adjuster configured to move the light source relative to the projection optical system." Seibert discloses, "A position adjuster configured to move the light source relative to the projection optical system" (p. [0047] and Fig. 4, pts. 1, 3, and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo with the teachings of Seibert for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the position adjuster is able to adjust a position of the light source at least in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis." Seibert discloses, "Wherein the position adjuster is able to adjust a position of the light source at least in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis" (p. [0047] and Fig. 4, pts. 1, 3, and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Carpaij, Barve, and Yonekubo with the teachings of Seibert for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828