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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 6 January 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 20 were amended. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, and 12-14 were cancelled. New claim 21 was added. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15-21 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the Remarks, filed 6 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Donovan et al., US 20220146680 A1 in view of Kuwata et al., US 20070019960 A1.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan et al., US 20220146680 A1 (“Donovan”) in view of Kuwata et al., US 20070019960 A1 (“Kuwata”).
Regarding claim 1, Donovan discloses an irradiation device comprising: a light source that performs irradiation with light (Fig. 1, VCSEL array 102, Paragraph [0033]); a refraction portion that has a curved region and is arranged at a position at which the curved region is directly irradiated with the light from the light source (Fig. 1, first lens 112, Paragraph [0033]), and refracts the light of the irradiation from the light source (Paragraph [0037]: in some embodiments directing element 110 is not a separate element but an optical coating on one or more lens surfaces); and a light reception portion that is arranged at a position, which is adjacent to the light source and at which reflective light reflected by the curved region after the irradiation from the light source is received (Fig. 1, monitor photodiode 106, Paragraph [0033]), and that receives the reflective light (Fig. 2A, MPD 106, Paragraph [0042]), wherein a plurality of light sources are provided, and each of the plurality of light sources is an independently drivable surface emitting light source (Fig. 1, VCSEL array 102, Paragraph [0018]), […].
Donovan does not explicitly teach: a refraction portion that has a curved region that refracts the light of the irradiation from the light source and wherein the refraction portion is arranged such that an optical axis of the refraction portion is offset from and parallel to an optical axis of the light source.
However, Kuwata teaches a ball lens held in the output of a window that has an optical axis that is offset and parallel to the optical axis of the VCSEL chip (Fig. 2, ball lens 134, VCSEL chip 140, center S, reference line Q, light axis K, Paragraph [0042]-[0043]). The light from the VCSEL is partially reflected by the ball lens into the light receiving element (Fig. 1B, ball lens 134, light receiving element 150, Paragraph [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Donovan’s first lens and directing element with Kuwata’s ball lens as well as placing the lens off axis from the VCSEL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase a received light amount of reflected light and improve the detection more accurately, as suggested by Kuwata (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1, wherein the light reception portion causes the plurality of light sources to sequentially emit light and receives the reflective light (Donovan, Fig. 5, monitor 512, controller and interface electronics 502, laser driver 504, Paragraph [0059]; See also Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1, wherein the curved region is one continuous surface, and each of the plurality of light sources irradiates a different position of the curved region with light (Donovan, Fig. 2A, light from VCSEL array 102 hits different positions on lens 112, Paragraph [0042]; Kuwata, Fig. 1B, ball lens 134, Paragraph [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Donovan’s first lens and directing element with Kuwata’s ball lens as well as placing the lens off axis from the VCSEL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase a received light amount of reflected light and improve the detection more accurately, as suggested by Kuwata (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 5, wherein the curved region is one continuous surface, and each of the plurality of light sources irradiates a different position of the curved region with light (Donovan, Fig. 2A, light from VCSEL array 102 hits different positions on lens 112, Paragraph [0042]; Kuwata, Fig. 1B, ball lens 134, Paragraph [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Donovan’s first lens and directing element with Kuwata’s ball lens as well as placing the lens off axis from the VCSEL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase a received light amount of reflected light and improve the detection more accurately, as suggested by Kuwata (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a region in which the light source is arranged has an oblong shape, the light reception portion is arranged at a position adjacent to a long side of the region (Donovan, Fig. 2B, area 254 of the VCSEL array 102, area 252 of the monitor photodiode 102, Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 18, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1, further comprising: a control portion that controls the light source using a light reception result of the light reception portion (Donovan, Fig. 5, monitor 512, controller and interface electronics 502, laser driver 504, Paragraph [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1, wherein the refraction portion has a greater width in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis than the light source, and a width of an incidence surface of the refraction portion is narrower than a width of an emission surface (Donovan, Fig. 1 and 2A, lens 112, VCSEL array 102, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, Donovan discloses a distance measurement apparatus comprising: an irradiation device including a light source that performs irradiation with light (Fig. 1, VCSEL array 102, Paragraph [0033]), a refraction portion that has a curved region and is arranged at a position at which the curved region is directly irradiated with the light from the light source (Fig. 1, first lens 112, Paragraph [0033]), and refracts the light of the irradiation from the light source (Paragraph [0037]: in some embodiments directing element 110 is not a separate element but an optical coating on one or more lens surfaces), and a light reception portion that is arranged at a position, which is adjacent to the light source and at which reflective light reflected by the curved region after the irradiation from the light source is received (Fig. 1, monitor photodiode 106, Paragraph [0033]), and that receives the reflective light (Fig. 2A, MPD 106, Paragraph [0042]); a detection portion that irradiates a measured object with the light from the irradiation device and detects reflective light reflected by the measured object (Fig. 5, detector array 510, Paragraph [0058]); and a derivation portion that derives a distance to the measured object using a detection result of the detection portion (Fig. 5, receive and time-of-flight computation electronics 508, Paragraph [0058]), wherein a plurality of light sources are provided, and each of the plurality of light sources is an independently drivable surface emitting light source (Fig. 1, VCSEL array 102, Paragraph [0018]), […].
Donovan does not explicitly teach: a refraction portion that has a curved region that refracts the light of the irradiation from the light source and wherein the refraction portion is arranged such that an optical axis of the refraction portion is offset from and parallel to an optical axis of the light source.
However, Kuwata teaches a ball lens held in the output of a window that has an optical axis that is offset and parallel to the optical axis of the VCSEL chip (Fig. 2, ball lens 134, VCSEL chip 140, center S, reference line Q, light axis K, Paragraph [0042]-[0043]). The light from the VCSEL is partially reflected by the ball lens into the light receiving element (Fig. 1B, ball lens 134, light receiving element 150, Paragraph [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Donovan’s first lens and directing element with Kuwata’s ball lens as well as placing the lens off axis from the VCSEL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase a received light amount of reflected light and improve the detection more accurately, as suggested by Kuwata (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 21, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, discloses the irradiation device according to claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of light sources are arranged at positions offset from and parallel to the optical axis of the refraction portion (Kuwata, Fig. 2, ball lens 134, VCSEL chip 140, center S, reference line Q, light axis K, Paragraph [0042]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Donovan’s first lens and directing element with Kuwata’s ball lens as well as placing the lens off axis from the VCSEL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase a received light amount of reflected light and improve the detection more accurately, as suggested by Kuwata (Paragraph [0048]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, in further view of Yates et al, US 20200341126 A1 (“Yates”).
Regarding claim 15, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 11.
Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata does not teach: wherein a circuit substrate of the light source and the light reception portion is arranged on a short side of the region on which the light reception portion is not arranged.
However, Yates teaches an illumination source with three laser sources, a monitor photodiode placed on the long side of the laser array, and a sense system and driver chip placed on the short sides of the laser array. (Fig. 6, laser sources 602, monitor photodiode (PD) 614, sense system 610, driver chip 604, Paragraph [0069]-[0070], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter taught by Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, by including a sense system and driver chip on the short side of the VCSEL array, which is taught by Yates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “adjust the amplitude or width of the current pulses through the laser sources to compensate for this deviation”, as suggested by Yates (Paragraph [0070]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, in further view of McColloch et al., US 20120002284 A1 (“McColloch”).
Regarding claim 16, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1.
Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, does not teach: wherein the light reception portion is arranged at a plurality of positions adjacent to the light source.
However, McColloch teaches an array of monitor photodiodes placed adjacent to a laser diode array. (Fig. 2, array of monitor photodiodes 161, LDs 100, Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the monitor photodiode taught by Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata by an array of monitor photodiodes, which is taught by McColloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to monitor the optical output power levels of the laser diodes, as suggested by McColloch (Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, in further view of Hotta, US 20170268925 A1 (“Hotta”).
Regarding claim 17, Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, disclose the irradiation device according to claim 1.
Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata, does not teach: wherein the light source is arranged closer to the refraction portion than to a focal position of the refraction portion.
However, Hotta teaches an optical system with a light emitting unit placed closer a first lens than the lens’ focal length (Fig. 1, light emitting unit 14, first lens 32, distance d, focal length f1, Paragraph [0044], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter taught by Donovan, as modified in view of Kuwata by placing the VCSEL array a distance closer to the objective lens than the lens’ focal length, which is taught by Hotta. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the VCSEL array and objective lens with Hotta’s placement of the optical elements, and the results of the placement would have been predictable.
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645