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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, Species 3, claims 18-25, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 24, 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3-9, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20170115497) in view of Wang (20190273905).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses (see at least [0047]-[0053], [0055]-[0058], [0061]-[0078]) an optical device ([0050], apparatus for projecting coded sequences of structured illumination), comprising: a “” vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) (Fig 23, [0127], VSCEL array) with a set of emission zones ([0127], VCSEL elements in sequence produces many different coded patterns) configured to emit structured light forming a set of dots (Fig 23, [0128], spots); a single-element collimating lens (2331) aligned to the “” VCSEL (Fig 23); and a tiling diffractive optical element (DOE) (2362) aligned to the single-element collimating lens (Fig 23, [0128], beams from a surface-emitting array with a pattern shown in inset 2340 are projected by a lens 2331 and the beams are directed at a DOE 2362), wherein the tiling DOE (2362) comprises a set of tile segments aligned to the set of emission zones ([0128], DOE 2362 creates adjacent multiple replicas of the VCSEL beam array in two dimensions), wherein a tile segment (2340), of the set of tile segments (Fig 23, 2340), is configured to project, from the set of emission zones toward portions of a target ([0128], a pattern shown in inset 2340 are projected by a lens 2331), the structured light forming the set of dots (pattern 2363) but does not disclose a two-zone VSCEL; wherein the set of tile segments is arranged in an M x N grid of tile segments forming a 2M x N projection of the structured light, wherein a first M x N projection, of the 2M x N projection, is from a first emission zone of the set of emission zones, and wherein a second M x N projection, of the 2M x N projection, is from a second emission zone. However, in a similar endeavor, Wang teaches a two-zone (Fig 3, [0034], plurality of light sources 202 is arranged on the substrate 201 to form a two-dimensional pattern array) VSCEL ([0035], VCSEL array); wherein the set of tile segments is arranged in an M x N grid of tile segments forming a 2M x N projection of the structured light (Fig 3, [0035], sub-arrays 303 and 304), wherein a first M x N projection (303), of the 2M x N projection (Fig 3, [0034]-[0035], sub-array pattern), is from a first emission zone of the set of emission zones , and wherein a second M x N projection, of the 2M x N projection, is from a second emission zone (Fig 3, [0034]-[0035], the sub-array 302 is formed by the sub-array 301, the overall VCSEL array is essentially formed by translating the one sub-array 301). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Chen with a two zone VSCEL similar to Wang for the purpose of including a VCSEL array that is easily implemented and ensuring high irrelevance within an optical system (Wang, [0048]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the emission regions within an optical device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification of rearranging parts because in the optical device according to the prior art, the configuration of the respective components may be substituted with an arbitrary configuration capable of exhibiting the same function, as taught by Chen ([0045]) in view of Wang ([0025]). Thus, all the claimed elements [are] known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination [yields] nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 2 and Chen further teaches wherein M > 2 and N > 2 (Fig 27B, Fig 27D, [0133]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 2 and Chen further teaches wherein M = 2 and N = 2 (Fig 27A, Fig 27C, [0133]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 2 and Chen further teaches wherein a total quantity of dots of the set of dots is e x z x M x N (Fig 27B, Fig 27D, [0133], coded sequence of different pattern structures can be projected by activating different sets of surface-emitting elements in the array), wherein z represents a quantity of emission zones and e represents a quantity of emitters in each emission zone ([0133], using a larger number of emitting elements appropriately spaced that full coverage of the projected pattern can be obtained).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to render the total quantity of dots emitted as structured light within the optical device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Chen, Fig 27A-27D), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another range. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses (see at least [0047]-[0053], [0055]-[0058], [0061]-[0078]) an optical device ([0050], apparatus for projecting coded sequences of structured illumination), comprising: a “” vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) (Fig 23, [0127], VSCEL array) with a set of emission zones ([0127], VCSEL elements in sequence produces many different coded patterns) configured to emit structured light forming a set of dots (Fig 23, [0128], spots); a single-element collimating lens (2331) aligned to the “” VCSEL (Fig 23); and a tiling diffractive optical element (DOE) (2362) aligned to the single-element collimating lens (Fig 23, [0128], beams from a surface-emitting array with a pattern shown in inset 2340 are projected by a lens 2331 and the beams are directed at a DOE 2362), wherein the tiling DOE (2362) comprises a set of tile segments aligned to the set of emission zones ([0128], DOE 2362 creates adjacent multiple replicas of the VCSEL beam array in two dimensions), wherein a tile segment (2340), of the set of tile segments (Fig 23, 2340), is configured to project, from the set of emission zones toward portions of a target ([0128], a pattern shown in inset 2340 are projected by a lens 2331), the structured light forming the set of dots (pattern 2363) but does not disclose but does not disclose a two-zone VSCEL; wherein the set of tile segments is arranged in an M’ x N’ grid of tile segments forming a 2M x N projection of the structured light, wherein a first M x N projection, of the 2M x N projection, is from a first emission zone of the set of emission zones, and wherein a second M x N projection, of the 2M x N projection, is from a second emission zone of the set of emission zones, and wherein at least one of M < M' or N <N'. However, Wang teaches a two-zone (Fig 3, [0034], plurality of light sources 202 is arranged on the substrate 201 to form a two-dimensional pattern array) VSCEL ([0035], VCSEL array); wherein the set of tile segments is arranged in an M x N grid of tile segments forming a 2M x N projection of the structured light (Fig 3, [0035], sub-arrays 303 and 304), wherein a first M x N projection (303), of the 2M x N projection (Fig 3, [0034]-[0035], sub-array pattern), is from a first emission zone of the set of emission zones, and wherein a second M x N projection, of the 2M x N projection, is from a second emission zone and wherein at least one of M < M' or N <N' (Fig 3, [0034]-[0035], the sub-array 302 is formed by the sub-array 301, the overall VCSEL array is essentially formed by translating the one sub-array 301). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Chen with a two zone VSCEL similar to Wang for the purpose of including a VCSEL array that is easily implemented and ensuring high irrelevance within an optical system (Wang, [0048]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the emission regions within an optical device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP § 2144.04. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification of rearranging parts because in the optical device according to the prior art, the configuration of the respective components may be substituted with an arbitrary configuration capable of exhibiting the same function, as taught by Chen ([0045]) in view of Wang ([0025]). Thus, all the claimed elements [are] known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination [yields] nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Chen further teaches wherein the set of tile segments form a set of non-overlapping projections of the structured light (Fig 27A, [0133], emitting elements 2767 is in a structured, non-regular array layout pattern).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 7 and Chen further teaches wherein a gap between a first projection form a first tile segment (Fig 27A, Fig 27C, [0133], location of the emitting elements 2767 is in a structured, non-regular array layout pattern), of the set of tile segments, and a second projection form a second tile segment, of the set of tile segments (Fig 27A, Fig 27C, [0133], location of the emitting elements 2767 is in a structured, non-regular array layout pattern), is approximately the same as a gap between discrete dots within the set of tile segments (Fig 27A show the gap between each dot within pattern 2766 is the same).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Chen further teaches wherein the set of dots of the structured light is arranged in at least one of: a hexagonal packing pattern, a square packing pattern, a non-uniform packing pattern (Fig 27B, Fig 27D).
Regarding claim 26, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 6 and Chen further teaches wherein an extinction of orders in the M' x N' grid of tile segments results in a M x N projection from each emission zone of the set of emission zones (Fig 27B, [0133], center pattern 2768 shown in FIG. 27B).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to render the total quantity of dots emitted as structured light within the optical device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Chen, Fig 27A-27D), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device.
Regarding claim 27, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 6 and Chen further teaches wherein a total quantity of dots of the set of dots is e x z x M x N (Fig 27B, Fig 27D, [0133], coded sequence of different pattern structures can be projected by activating different sets of surface-emitting elements in the array), wherein z represents a quantity of emission zones and e represents a quantity of emitters in each emission zone ([0133], using a larger number of emitting elements appropriately spaced that full coverage of the projected pattern can be obtained).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to render the total quantity of dots emitted as structured light within the optical device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Chen, Fig 27A-27D), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the device would possess utility using another range. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 28, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within claim 6 and Chen further teaches wherein at least one of M > 2 or N > 2 (Fig 27B, Fig 27D, [0133]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20170115497) in view of Wang (20190273905) and in further view of Georgy (KR 10-2016-0028156 A). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Wang discloses the invention as described within 1 but does not disclose wherein a fill factor of the 2M x N projection is less than 10%. However, Gregory teaches wherein a fill factor of the 2M x N projection is less than 10% ([0084], fill factor of the dots 410 on the screen may adjust the quality, such as opacity and brightness of the output image composed of 1 to 50% and within the claimed range). It would have been obvious to modify the optical device of Chen and Wang with a fill factor as demonstrated by Georgy for the purpose of optimizing the quality and brightness of an output image (Georgy, [0083]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-9 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.
The newly amended claim language of claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 26-28 have been addressed in the above office action.
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 Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872