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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 20 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16-18, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grunnet-Jepsen et al. (2020/0004126).
Regarding claim 1, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses an optic piece (Figure 1, 125, light pattern projector; Figure 6D) for use with a projection system (Figure 1), the optic piece comprising: a body (central portion 642, projector lens material, exemplified by the dashed lines) having a first side (bottom dashed line portion) and a second side that is opposite the first side (top dashed line portion), the body at least partially transparent ([0060] teaches 642, lens material, is transmissive); a first array of lenses on the first side of the body (415, convex array surface), the first array of lenses being configured to receive light from a light source having an emission wavelength ([0053] teaches 415, convex array surface, may be proximal to a LED source); and a second array of lenses on the second side of the body (515, convex array surface), wherein the optical piece is configured to output multiple ones of a semi-random or random light pattern, for stereo vision purposes ([0004], [0037] teaches 125, pattern projector, casts a fixed pattern of light such as 120, pseudo-random light pattern).
Regarding claim 2, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 1, wherein the first side of the body includes a planar surface, and the first array of lenses protrudes from the first side along a direction away from the second side (bottom dashed line is depicted to be planar and 415, convex array surface, is depicted to protrude from the bottom dashed line away from the top dashed line).
Regarding claim 3, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 2, wherein the planar surface is a first planar surface, the second side including a second planar surface from which the second array of lenses protrudes (top dashed line is depicted to be planar from which 515, convex array surface, protrudes).
Regarding claim 4, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 3, wherein the second array of lenses includes a first lens and a second lens, the first lens having a first focal length, the second lens having a second focal length different from the first focal length ([0055, 0057] teaches the focal lengths and lens shapes may be modulated within the MLA (microlens array), thus interpreted to have lenses with varying focal lengths).
Regarding claim 5, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 1, wherein the second side includes a curved surface (Figure 6D depicts the top surface of the curved).
Regarding claim 6, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 5, wherein ones of the second array of lenses include at least one of a same curvature or a same focal length (at least [0057] teaches 551, lenslets, are all substantially identical within the array).
Regarding claim 7, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 1, wherein ones of the first array of lenses are contiguous and ones of the second array of lenses are contiguous (Figure 6D depicts 415, convex array surface, and 515, convex array surface, to be contiguous).
Regarding claim 12, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses a system (Figure 1) comprising: a light source to emit light configured to emit light of a same emission wavelength (130, LED source); and an optical piece to project the light from the light source (125, light pattern projector; Figure 6D) onto a surface (Figure 1 depicts 125, light pattern projector, to project 120, pseudo-random light pattern on a surface), the optical piece including: a first array of lenses (Figure 6D, 415, convex array surface) on a first side of the optical piece (bottom dashed line portion), the first side facing the light source ([0053] teaches 415, convex array surface, may be proximal to a LED source), ones of the first array of lenses having a first surface area (surface area of a lens of 415, convex array surface); and a second array of lenses (515, convex array surface) on a second side of the optical piece, the second side opposite the first side (top dashed line portion), ones of the second array of lenses having a second surface area greater than the first surface area (at least [0057] teaches the diameter of the individual microlenses may be varied, thus Examiner notes one of the second array of lenses can be chosen to be larger than one of the smaller of the first array of lenses), wherein the optical piece is configured to output multiple ones of a semi-random or random light pattern, for stereo vision purposes ([0004], [0037] teaches 125, pattern projector, casts a fixed pattern of light such as 120, pseudo-random light pattern).
Regarding claim 13, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the light source includes at least one laser or at least one light emitting diode ([0036] teaches 130, LED source).
Regarding claim 16, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the second array of lenses includes at least a first lens (for exemplary purposes, the central lens at 421, central collector axis) and a second lens (for exemplary purposes, a periphery lens, at the line of 515, convex array surface), the first lens to project a first pattern at a first location (at least [0057]), the second lens to project the first pattern at a second location different from the first location (at least [0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the first pattern is based on a grid defined by the first array of lenses (at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 18, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the system of claim 12, wherein a portion of the first array of lenses receives the light emitted from the light source (at least [0048]).
Regarding claim 22, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, wherein the light source emits infrared light ([0037]).
Regarding claim 25, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, wherein ones of the first array of lenses having a respective first surface area (surface area of a lens of 415, convex array surface), and ones of the second array of lenses having a respective second surface area that is larger than the first surface area (at least [0057] teaches the diameter of the individual microlenses may be varied, thus Examiner notes one of the second array of lenses can be chosen to be larger than one of the smaller of the first array of lenses).
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.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunnet-Jepsen et al. (2020/0004126) in view of Shibuya et al. (2023/0324778, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optic piece of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the optic piece is at least partially composed of polycarbonate. Grunnet-Jepsen and Shibuya are related because both teach an optic piece for use with a projection system.
Shibuya teaches an optic piece wherein the optic piece is at least partially composed of polycarbonate (at least Figure 1, 20, fixed diffusion plate; [0048] teaches 20, fixed diffusion plate, can be made of a polycarbonate resin).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Shibuya and provide wherein the optic piece is at least partially composed of polycarbonate. Doing so would allow for a durable material that can reliably transmit light in an incidence wavelength band.
Regarding claim 19, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the system of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the light source is separated from the optical piece by a distance greater than 10 micrometers. Grunnet-Jepsen and Shibuya are related because both teach an optic piece for use with a projection system.
Shibuya teaches a system wherein the light source is separated from the optical piece by a distance greater than 10 micrometers (Figure 1, at least [0073] teaches the distance between 10, light source, and 20, fixed diffusion plate, is set to 5 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Shibuya and provide wherein the light source is separated from the optical piece by a distance greater than 10 micrometers. Doing so would allow for a compact optical projection system while maintaining image clarity.
Claims 10, 11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunnet-Jepsen et al. (2020/0004126) in view of Nakamura et al. (2016/0320615, of record).
Regarding claim 10, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first array includes a grid, the first array of lenses uniformly spaced along at least one dimension of the grid. Grunnet-Jepsen and Nakamura are related because both teach an optic piece for use with a projection system.
Nakamura teaches an optical piece wherein the first array includes a grid, the first array of lenses uniformly spaced along at least one dimension of the grid (at least Figures 13, 14A, and 14B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura and provide wherein the first array includes a grid, the first array of lenses uniformly spaced along at least one dimension of the grid. Doing so would allow for improved image resolution.
Regarding claim 11, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first array includes a grid, the first array of lenses randomly spaced along at least one dimension of the grid. Grunnet-Jepsen and Nakamura are related because both teach an optic piece for use with a projection system.
Nakamura teaches an optical piece wherein the first array includes a grid, the first array of lenses randomly spaced along at least one dimension of the grid (at least Figure 15; [0340]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura and provide wherein the first array includes a grid for which ones of the first array of lenses are randomly spaced along at least one dimension. Doing so would allow for reduction of degradation of image quality by preventing visual interference patterns.
Regarding claim 23, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first and/or the second array of lenses has a semi-random or random grid arrangement. Grunnet-Jepsen and Nakamura are related because both teach an optic piece for use with a projection system.
Nakamura teaches an optical piece wherein the first and/or the second array of lenses has a semi-random or random grid arrangement (at least Figure 15; [0340]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura and provide wherein the first and/or the second array of lenses has a semi-random or random grid arrangement. Doing so would allow for reduction of degradation of image quality by preventing visual interference patterns.
Claims 20, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunnet-Jepsen et al. (2020/0004126) in view of Wu et al. (2022/0252899).
Regarding claim 20, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses an apparatus (Figure 1) comprising: means for emitting light (130, LED source); and an optical piece configured to receive light (125, light pattern projector; Figure 6D) and output multiple ones of a semi-random or random light pattern, for stereo vision purposes ([0004], [0037] teaches 125, pattern projector, casts a fixed pattern of light such as 120, pseudo-random light pattern).
Grunnet-Jepsen fails to teach the optical piece is configured to receive light of a same wavelength from at least two locations from the means for emitting light. Grunnet-Jepsen and Wu are related because both teach an optical projection system.
Wu teaches an apparatus comprising: an optical piece is configured to receive light of a same wavelength from at least two locations from the means for emitting light (at least Figure 33, 104, light sources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Wu and provide the optical piece configured to receive light of a same wavelength from at least two locations from the means for emitting light. Doing so would allow for a larger viewing range for the observer, thereby improving viewing convenience.
Regarding claim 21, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the light source comprises multiple light sources all configured to emit light at a same wavelength. Grunnet-Jepsen and Wu are related because both teach an optical projection system.
Wu teaches an optical piece wherein the light source comprises multiple light sources all configured to emit light at a same wavelength (at least Figure 33, 104, light sources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Wu and provide wherein the light source comprises multiple light sources all configured to emit light at a same wavelength. Doing so would allow for a larger viewing range for the observer, thereby improving viewing convenience.
Regarding claim 24, Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the optical piece of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein at least one lens of the first array of lenses is configured to receive light emitted from at least two different locations of the light source. Grunnet-Jepsen and Wu are related because both teach an optical projection system.
Wu teaches an optical piece wherein at least one lens of the first array of lenses is configured to receive light emitted from at least two different locations of the light source (at least Figure 33, 104, light sources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Grunnet-Jepsen to incorporate the teachings of Wu and provide wherein at least one lens of the first array of lenses is configured to receive light emitted from at least two different locations of the light source. Doing so would allow for a larger viewing range for the observer, thereby improving viewing convenience.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Grunnet-Jepsen discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the optical piece is configured to assist stereo vision that uses one or more triangulation techniques for depth and/or 3D determination (at least [0004, 0035]).
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 BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights