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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dutton et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20180091784 A1), hereinafter Dutton.
Regarding claim 1, Dutton teaches a light pixel projection module for integration into an electronic device, the light pixel projection module being adapted to emit pixels of light that are to be projected onto a surface ([0021] FIG. 1A is a functional block diagram of an image projection device 100 including a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor 102 for use in controlling a projection parameter of the image projection device), the light pixel projection module comprising:
a light pixel generating assembly including a pixel light source (The VCS control signals control the LCD 119 to generate an image light beam 121 including a plurality of pixels that collectively form an image to be projected onto the projection surface 104.);
a light pixel projection assembly for projecting a light pixel generated by the light pixel generating assembly (The VCS control signals control the LCD 119 to generate an image light beam 121 including a plurality of pixels that collectively form an image to be projected onto the projection surface 104.); and
an optical time-of-flight (ToF) measurement assembly for measuring a distance between the projection module and an external object ([0023] The TOF sensor 102 transmits an optical signal that propagates towards the projection surface 104, and detects the time required for the transmitted optical signal to propagate to the projection surface and reflect off the projection surface and return to the TOF sensor.), the ToF measurement assembly including:
a) a ToF light source for emitting light, which is to be directed onto the external object and reflected off the external object ([0023] These transmitted and reflected optical signals are indicated generally as optical signals 106 in FIG. 1A.);
b) a beam splitting optical device for splitting an incident light beam into a reflected main beam component and a transmitted and attenuated secondary beam component ([0036] FIG. 5 is a more detailed functional block diagram of one embodiment of the TOF sensor 102 of FIGS. 1A;[0039] A reference SPAD array 216 receives an internal reflection 218 of the transmitted optical pulse signal 202 from the lens 204 upon transmission of the transmitted optical pulse signal.); and
c) an APD-based ToF photodetector for light detection ([0038] Each SPAD cell in the SPAD array 208 will provide an output pulse or SPAD event when a photon in the form of the returned optical pulse signal 206 is detected by that cell in the target SPAD array 212),
wherein the beam splitting optical device is arranged in the optical path of light beams emitted by the ToF light source such that it splits each light beam emitted by the ToF light source into: i) a main beam component leaving the module and heading towards the external object (Fig. 5); and
ii) a secondary beam component remaining within the module and hitting the ToF photodetector (Fig.5, element 218; [0039] an internal reflection 218); and
wherein the beam splitting optical device also acts as the light pixel projection assembly (Fig. 5, element 204; [0039] lens 204).
Regarding claim 7, Dutton teaches the projection module of claim 1, further comprising a package, which houses the elements of the projection module, the ToF light source and the ToF photodetector thus sharing the same package (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11, Dutton teaches the projection module of claim 1, wherein the ToF photodetector includes at least one single photon avalanche diode or SPAD ([0039] A reference SPAD array 216 receives an internal reflection 218 of the transmitted optical pulse signal 202 from the lens 204 upon transmission of the transmitted optical pulse signal.).
Regarding claim 12, Dutton teaches the projection module of claim 11, wherein the ToF photodetector consists of a single SPAD and the ToF measurement assembly further comprises a ToF light scanning device for scanning the main beam component over the external object to obtain a 3D image thereof ([0038] Each SPAD cell in the SPAD array 208 will provide an output pulse or SPAD event when a photon in the form of the returned optical pulse signal 206 is detected by that cell in the target SPAD array 212. [0039] A reference SPAD array 216 receives an internal reflection 218 of the transmitted optical pulse signal 202 from the lens 204 upon transmission of the transmitted optical pulse signal.).
Regarding claim 13, Dutton teaches an image projection device for projecting a pixelated image onto a surface, the image projection device including the projection module of claim 1 and a light scanning module for distributing the light pixels projected by the projection module onto different parts of the surface, thus creating the pixelated image ([0026] Thus, the image projection circuitry 110 may utilize any of these technologies or any other suitable technology for generating the projected light beam 128 that is projected onto the projection surface 104 to thereby project the desired images on the projection surface. An image projection device according to another embodiment of the present disclosure will be described below in more detail with reference to FIG. 1B.).
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Berns et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20080176332 A1), hereinafter Berns.
Regarding claim 2, Dutton teaches the projection module of claim 1,
Dutton fails to teach the module wherein the beam splitting optical device is a layer stack with an upper mirror section acting as a largely reflecting mirror, and a lower light attenuating section arranged underneath the upper mirror section.
However, Berns teaches the module wherein the beam splitting optical device is a layer stack with an upper mirror section acting as a largely reflecting mirror, and a lower light attenuating section arranged underneath the upper mirror section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the layered optical device with an attenuator and mirror similar to Berns, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing two components of a known optical beam splitting optical device with multiple components to both reflect and attenuate a portion of the outgoing beam.
Regarding claim 5, Dutton, as modified above, teaches the projection module of claim 2,
Dutton fails to teach the module wherein the lower light attenuating section is a neutral density filter with a fractional transmittance of no more than 0.01%.
However, Berns teaches the module wherein the lower light attenuating section is a neutral density filter with a fractional transmittance of no more than 0.01% ([0053] Laser power was controlled manually by a neutral density wheel, which allowed regulation of beam power from 0 to 700 mW.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the neutral density filter similar to Berns, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of utilizing the known properties of a neutral density wheel to limit any value of attenuation from 0% to 100%.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Berns and further in view of Finkelstein et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200057151A1), hereinafter Finkelstein.
Regarding claim 3, Dutton, as modified above, teaches the projection module of claim 2,
Dutton fails to teach the module wherein the layer stack is deposited over the active surface area of the ToF photodetector.
However, Finkelstein teaches the module wherein the layer stack is deposited over the active surface area of the ToF photodetector (Fig. 1; [0044] The receiver optics 112 are aligned such that it collects light from the spectra of both the active illumination (lidar emission by the emitters 115 e) and ambient (with some acceptable aberrations), and such that it projects or directs light collected over the field of view 190 onto both a ToF sensor 110 d and an image sensor 110 i, each of which outputs a respective detection signal in response...The receiver optics 112 may include one or more lenses, beam splitters, and/or filters.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the stack over the surface of the ToF photodetector similar to Finkelstein, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring coverage over the photodetector in a configuration that is efficient for the overall design.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Berns and further in view of Di Teodoro et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2007010443 A1), hereinafter Di Teodoro.
Regarding claim 4, Dutton, as modified above, teaches the projection module of claim 2,
Dutton fails to teach the module wherein the upper mirror section is an optical longpass filter with a cutoff wavelength that is higher than the maximum wavelength of the light beams emitted by the ToF light source such that the secondary beam component of a light beam split by the beam splitting optical device amounts to no more than 5% of the light beam's overall intensity.
However, Di Teodoro teaches the module wherein the upper mirror section is an optical longpass filter with a cutoff wavelength that is higher than the maximum wavelength of the light beams emitted by the ToF light source such that the secondary beam component of a light beam split by the beam splitting optical device amounts to no more than 5% of the light beam's overall intensity ([0107] In some embodiments, the output dichroic mirror/beamsplitter 113C is a long-pass filter that is highly reflective at 976 nm and highly transmissive at 1064 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the long pass filter mirror similar to Di Teodoro, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of filtering the wavelength intensities to a desired range for the use of the overall module in a desired setting.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Zhang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20190293794 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Dutton teaches the projection module of claim 1,
Dutton fails to teach the module further comprising a photodetector assembly for detecting a drift in the irradiance of the pixel light source and/or the ToF light source.
However, Zhang teaches the module further comprising a photodetector assembly for detecting a drift in the irradiance of the pixel light source and/or the ToF light source (Fig. 3C; [0038] In contrast, in various embodiments of the present disclosure, the two optical signals traverse the same or substantially the same optical path, and so amplitude and frequency drift issues for the optical signals are mitigated, since they were emitted at substantially the same time.; [0054] Photodetector 335 is thus used to measure the beat frequency between the two optical frequencies emitted by the two lasers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the assembly to detect drift similar to Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of maintaining calibration of a coherent emitting beam by self-referencing the emitted beam.
Regarding claim 9, Dutton, as modified above, teaches the projection module of claim 8,
Dutton fails to teach the module wherein the photodetector assembly includes one or more silicon photomultipliers.
However, Zhang teaches the module wherein the photodetector assembly includes one or more silicon photomultipliers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the silicon photomultiplier similar to Zhang, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of implementing a known technology into the photodetectors of the overall device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Zhang, further in view of Finkelstein et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200057151A1), hereinafter Finkelstein.
Regarding claim 10, Dutton, as modified above, teaches the projection module of claim 8,
Dutton fails to teach the module wherein the beam splitting optical device covers both the photodetector assembly and the ToF photodetector.
However, Finkelstein teaches the module wherein the beam splitting optical device covers both the photodetector assembly and the ToF photodetector (Fig. 1; [0044] The receiver optics 112 may include one or more lenses, beam splitters, and/or filters.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dutton to comprise the optical device covering the photodetector assembly similar to Finkelstein, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the number of components and conserving space in the overall design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 7:00-4:00 PST.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645