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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 2/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The objection to the specification is overcome by amendment.
Claim Objection
The objection to claim 4 is overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Initially, note that the Examiner believes paragraph [0029] cited by Applicant is a reference to the paragraph by that number in the original language version and that it corresponds to paragraph 34 in the English-language translation provided with the previous action (note, for example, the ≤ symbol near the end of each version). Note that the present action uses the paragraph numbers from the provided translation.
Applicant’s argument is that Xu discloses only a relationship of angles βx and βy compared to angles αx and αy, not a relationship between pitches in the diffractive optical element, and that the relationship between angles could be effected by making αx and αy differ while keeping angles βx and βy equal, however, this argument is not persuasive. In particular, FIGs. 6-8 show exactly what one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from an arrangement in which the diffractive optical element has one pitch in one direction and a different pitch in a second direction (specifically, the dots from a particular beam are fanned out more along one axis than the other). Achieving stripe patterns in the manner proposed by Applicant would look qualitatively different in that each spot would be wider in one direction than the other, with the centers of the dots arranged isotropically. The existence of an alternative way of achieving stripes is not evidence that Xu actually used that alternative. Further, paragraphs 30 and 34 of Xu both teach that the angle between adjacent diffracted beams depends on the period (also known as the pitch) of the periodic diffraction grating, which amounts to suggesting a way to create stripes by adjusting the pitch in one direction relative to the other. That suggestion from Xu to perform a function in a particular way is not negated by other, alternative ways of achieving that same function, whether those alternatives are taught by Xu or not.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along respect to a second direction”, likely intending to use either “along” (similar to claim 7) or “with respect to” (similar to the previous version of claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, interpreted as corresponding to the structure recited in paragraph 24 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 § 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) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915) in view of Xu (Foreign Patent Document CN 108227231 A), further in view of Paschotta (Non-Patent Literature “Microlenses”).
Regarding claim 1, Mor teaches a line 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 (paragraph 21, VCSELs constructed on die 120), wherein the plurality of light sources are arranged along a first direction (a plurality of light sources will necessarily be arranged in at least one (first) direction);
a lens, configured to collimate the light beams (FIG. 1, projection lens 146); and
a diffractive device, configured to diffract the collimated light beams thereby to project an illumination pattern (FIG. 1, fan-out diffractive optical element 144);
wherein the illumination pattern is formed by overlapping multiple dot patterns that are projected by the light sources (abstract); and the illumination pattern includes a plurality of light patterns in the first direction (FIGs. 2-5 show examples of illumination patterns using dots, each figure first showing an individual dot pattern, then the way that the pattern will be overlapped, then the overlapping pattern).
Mor does not explicitly teach that the diffractive device configured to diffract the collimated light beams thereby to project an illumination pattern is a diffractive microlens array (MLA), that the diffractive MLA includes a plurality of unit lenses, and a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along the first direction is greater than a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along respect to a second direction, nor that the plurality of light patterns are a plurality of line light patterns.
In the same field of endeavor of generating structured light, Xu does teach a diffractive device, configured to diffract the collimated light beams thereby to project an illumination pattern, wherein the diffractive MLA includes a plurality of unit lenses, and a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along the first direction is greater than a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along a second direction (FIG. 7 shows different arrangements of dots projected by the diffractive optical element. The dots labeled with the same number represent dots projected with the same order of diffraction by different light sources. The dots labeled “3” are displaced farther from the dots labeled “1” than the dots labeled “2” are. This indicates that diffraction was applied more strongly in the y-direction than in the x-direction. A smaller pitch relative to wavelength produces stronger diffraction effects, so the x-direction, with its reduced deflection, must have a greater pitch than in the y-direction. Note that while widening the individual dots along one axis could alternatively be used to create stripes from individual spots, such an alternative approach does not appear to be consistent with the figures as they actually appear in Xu.) and that the plurality of light patterns are a plurality of line light patterns (FIG. 5 shows lines of illumination, with dots overlapping). By designing the diffractive device with a wider pitch along a first direction than along a second, Xu is able to simplify the production of fringe patterns by placing dots in an adjacent or overlapping position along one axis with obvious gaps between adjacent stripes (paragraphs 7-8).
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 with the difference in diffractive pitches of Xu in order to produce fringes or stripes in a simplified, cost-effective, and miniaturized way.
While microlenses are referenced by both Mor (paragraph 4) and Xu (paragraph 10), neither specifically uses microlenses as the diffractive device.
In the same field of endeavor of diffractive optics, Paschotta does teach the use of diffractive microlenses, which use diffraction as the basic principle of their operation (section “Operation Principles of Microlenses”, paragraph 3). Diffractive microlenses can be fabricated using techniques developed for use in semiconductor devices, which aids in their construction (section “Fabrication of Microlenses”, third example). Paschotta also mentions rectangular microlens arrays, which would have a greater pitch in one direction than another (section “Microlens Arrays”).
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 line pattern projector of Mor, as modified by Xu, by substituting diffractive optical element with a diffractive microlens array like that of Paschotta, that performs the same function and can take advantage of wafer-level optical techniques.
Regarding claim 2, Mor, as modified by Xu and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the line pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that each of the light sources is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 3, Mor, as modified by Xu and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the line pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that a light source pitch between two neighbor light sources is regular (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 5, Mor, as modified by Xu and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the line pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (FIG. 5, which shows both the ways that the dots are arranged within each replica (first part of the figure) and the way the replicas are arranged (second part of the figure) as being aligned with the horizontal and vertical axes, which are perpendicular, forming rectangular or square grids).
Regarding claim 6, Mor, as modified by Xu and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the line pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor further teaches that the first direction is a horizontal direction, while the second direction is a vertical direction (paragraph 36 describes the two axes of FIG. 5 as horizontal and vertical).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915) in view of Xu (Foreign Patent Document CN 108227231 A), further in view of Paschotta (Non-Patent Literature “Microlenses”) and Zappe (Non-Patent Literature “Micro-optics: a micro-tutorial”).
Regarding claim 4, Mor, as modified by Xu and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the line pattern projector of claim 1 (as described above).
Mor, Xu, and Paschotta do not discuss the minutia of sag heights and angles, so are silent as to whether a maximum sag height of the diffractive MLA is 33.69 µm, and a maximum slope of the diffractive MLA is 73 degrees.
In the same field of endeavor of microlens arrays, Zappe does teach a microlens array for which a maximum sag height of the diffractive MLA is 33.69um, and a maximum slope of the diffractive MLA is 73 degrees (section 4.1, second paragraph, which lists several values of sag heights that do not exceed a maximum sag height of 33.69 µm, and which would not exceed a maximum slope of 73 degrees).
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 line pattern projector of Mor, as modified by Xu and Paschotta, through routine optimization to arrive at dimensions like those of Zappe and which conform to the claimed dimensions as a way to set the desired angles of diffraction and the proper distribution of optical power between diffraction orders.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (US Patent Publication 20190068853) in view of Mor (US Patent Publication 20160178915), further in view of Xu (Foreign Patent Document CN 108227231 A) and Paschotta (Non-Patent Literature “Microlenses”).
Regarding claim 7, Price teaches an optical distance measurement system, comprising:
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);
a line pattern projector (FIG. 5, structured light illuminator 38), configured to project a second illumination pattern (FIG. 5, structured light pattern 26), comprising:
a light source (FIG. 5, light emitter 40);
a lens, configured to collimate the light beams (FIG. 5, unnumbered collimating lens); and
a diffractive device (FIG. 5, diffractive optical element 42), configured to diffract the collimated light beams thereby to project the second illumination pattern (FIG. 5, structured light pattern 26); and
an image capturing device, configured to capture images of illumination patterns reflected from an object (FIG. 7, camera 24).
Price does not explicitly teach that the structured light is generated specifically by a light source array including a plurality of light sources wherein the plurality of light sources are arranged along a first direction, that the diffraction device is specifically a microlens array (MLA) wherein the diffractive MLA includes a plurality of unit lenses, and a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along the first direction is greater than a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along a second direction, wherein the second illumination pattern is formed by overlapping multiple dot patterns that are projected by the light sources; nor that the illumination pattern includes a plurality of line light patterns in the first direction.
In the same field of endeavor of structured light generation, Mor does teach the use of a light source array including a plurality of light sources (FIG. 1, VCSELs constructed on die 120) wherein the plurality of light sources are arranged along a first direction (a plurality of light sources will necessarily be arranged in at least one (first) direction) and that the second illumination pattern is formed by overlapping multiple dot patterns that are projected by the light sources (FIGs 1-6 all show patterns of light that are overlapped by interlacing the dots of different light sources). By using multiple light sources and using diffraction to repeat the pattern in an overlapping way, Mor interlaces the dots from the different copies of the various light sources, which increases the dot density for the same size of device and same level of power per VCSEL.
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 structured and flood light device of Price with the light source array of Mor in order to gain the benefit of increasing total density of dots without having to use more powerful individual light sources.
In the same field of endeavor of generating structured light, Xu does teach a diffractive device, configured to diffract the collimated light beams thereby to project a second illumination pattern, wherein the diffractive MLA includes a plurality of unit lenses, and a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along the first direction is greater than a lens pitch of the plurality of unit lenses along a second direction (FIG. 7 shows different arrangements of dots projected by the diffractive optical element. The dots labeled with the same number represent dots projected with the same order of diffraction by different light sources. The dots labeled “3” are displaced farther from the dots labeled “1” than the dots labeled “2” are. This indicates that diffraction was applied more strongly in the y-direction than in the x-direction. A smaller pitch relative to wavelength produces stronger diffraction effects, so the x-direction, with its reduced deflection, must have a greater pitch than in the y-direction. Note that while widening the individual dots along one axis could alternatively be used to create stripes from individual spots, such an alternative approach does not appear to be consistent with the figures as they actually appear in Xu.) and that the plurality of light patterns are a plurality of line light patterns (FIG. 5 shows lines of illumination, with dots overlapping). By designing the diffractive device with a greater pitch along a first direction than along a second, Xu is able to simplify the production of fringe patterns by placing dots in an adjacent or overlapping position along one axis with obvious gaps between adjacent stripes (paragraphs 7-8).
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 structured and flood light device of Price, as modified by Mor, with the difference in diffractive pitches of Xu in order to produce fringes or stripes in a simplified, cost-effective, and miniaturized way.
While microlenses are referenced by Price (paragraph 51), Mor (paragraph 4), and Xu (paragraph 10), none of them specifically use microlenses as the diffractive device.
In the same field of endeavor of diffractive optics, Paschotta does teach the use of diffractive microlenses, which use diffraction as the basic principle of their operation (section “Operation Principles of Microlenses”, paragraph 3). Diffractive microlenses can be fabricated using techniques developed for use in semiconductor devices, which aids in their construction (section “Fabrication of Microlenses”, third example). Paschotta also mentions rectangular microlens arrays, which would have a wider pitch in one direction than another (section “Microlens Arrays”).
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 structured and flood light device of Price, as modified by Mor and Xu, by substituting diffractive optical element with a diffractive microlens array like that of Paschotta, that performs the same function and can take advantage of wafer-level optical techniques.
Regarding claim 8, Price, as modified by Mor, Xu, and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the optical distance measurement system of claim 7 (as described above).
Price further teaches that the diffuser of the flood illuminator is a microlens array (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 9, Price, as modified by Mor, Xu, and Paschotta, teaches or renders obvious the optical distance measurement system of claim 7 (as described above).
Price further teaches that the diffuser of the flood illuminator is a diffractive optical element (diffuser optical element 48 described in paragraph 51).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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