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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 24 June 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 20 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 6-8 and 15-16 are withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “spatial modulation pattern that includes an array of illumination points generated by the optical element from the first light signal, the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 24 June 2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Downing addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Downing and Xu in the present Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11460551 in view of Xu US 20200387004 A1.
Regarding claim 1, 11460551 claim 1 teaches a system, comprising:
a light source (light source, claim 1);
an optical element configurable to receive a first light signal from the light source and project a second light signal having a spatial modulation pattern that includes an array of illumination points generated by the optical element from the first light signal (optical element, claim 1);
a pixel array configurable to receive a third light signal resulted from reflection of the second light signal (pixel array, claim 1); and
a processing element coupled to the pixel array, and configurable to generate a map of a scene responsive to information from the pixel array (processing element, claim 1).
11460551 claim 1 does not explicitly teach the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal
Xu teaches sub-speckle patterns 503 created by individual light sources and DOE 304 with illumination pattern having a combination of all of the light sources 502 (Fig. 5, [0051-52], Figs. 11-13, [0059-72])
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 11460551 claim 1 such that the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal similar to Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of covering a larger field of view without needing a larger DOE or more complex pattern, and improves density distribution of light patterns (Xu: [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, 11460551 claim 5 (which depends on claim 1) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes a diffractive optical element configured to diffract the first light signal into the second light signal having a virtual array pattern (claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, 11460551 claim 7 (which depends on claim 1) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes a phased array (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, 11460551 claim 6 (which depends on claim 1) teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes an optical microelectromechanical system (MEMS) (claim 6)
Regarding claim 9, 11460551 claim 8 (which depends on claim 1)teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing element is programmed with a multipath resolution algorithm (claim 8).
Regarding claim 19, 11460551 claim 1 teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an imaging lens configurable to receive the third light signal and project the third light signal onto the pixel array (imaging lens, claim 1)
Regarding claim 20, 11460551 claim 1 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pixel array has a smaller dimension than the spatial modulation pattern (MxN pixel array with M an N less than respective corresponding dimension of the virtual array pattern, claim 1).
11460551 claim 1 does not explicitly teach the array of illumination points of the spatial modulation pattern has fewer illumination points than a number of illumination points for illuminating the scene,
Xu teaches sub-speckle patterns 503 created by individual light sources and DOE 304 with illumination pattern having a combination of all of the light sources 502 (Fig. 5, [0051-52], Figs. 11-13, [0059-72])
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 11460551 claim 1 such that the array of illumination points of the spatial modulation pattern has fewer illumination points than a number of illumination points for illuminating the scene similar to Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of covering a larger field of view without needing a larger DOE or more complex pattern, and improves density distribution of light patterns (Xu: [0021]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11460551 in view of Xu US 20200387004 A1 and further in view of Downing US 20190037136 A1.
Regarding claim 2, 11460551 claim 1 teaches the system of claim 1,
11460551 claim 1 as modified above does not explicitly teach but Downing teaches further comprising an array of light sources including the light source, wherein each of the light sources is configurable to independently transmit the first light signal at the same wavelength (102-1 to 102-NN, [0019-20]).
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 11460551 claim 1 to include an array of light sources including the light source, wherein each of the light sources is configurable to independently transmit the first light signal at the same wavelength similar to Downing with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing additional control over the creation of the spatial light patterns.
Regarding claim 3, 11460551 claim 1 as modified above teaches the system of claim 2,
11460551 does not explicitly teach but Downing teaches wherein the wavelength is in the infrared range ([0019]).
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 11460551 claim 1 such that the wavelength is in the infrared range similar to Downing with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye safety
Regarding claim 4, 11460551 claim 1 as modified above teaches the system of claim 2,
11460551 does not explicitly teach but Downing teaches wherein the array of light sources is configurable to generate light pulse sequences, each respective light pulse sequence generated at a different time ([0029, 36-44]).
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 11460551 claim 1 such that the array of light sources is configurable to generate light pulse sequences, each respective light pulse sequence generated at a different time similar to Downing with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of enabling compressive sensing.
Regarding claim 5, 11460551 claim 1 teaches the system of claim 4,
11460551 does not explicitly teach wherein the array of light sources includes lasers (VCSELs and other options, [0019]).
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 11460551 claim 1 such that the array of light sources includes lasers similar to Downing with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of enabling control of light emission using emitters with well-known characteristics.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing US 20190037136 A1 in view of Xu US 20200387004 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Downing teaches a system, comprising:
a light source (102 in Fig. 3B, [0036-37]);
an optical element configurable to receive a first light signal from the light source and project a second light signal having a spatial modulation pattern that includes an array of illumination points generated by the optical element from the first light signal (304 can be diffractive optical element, digital mirror device, spatial light modulator, [0037]);
a pixel array configurable to receive a third light signal resulted from reflection of the second light signal (104 in Fig. 3B, [0025, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 43]); and
a processing element coupled to the pixel array, and configurable to generate a map of a scene responsive to information from the pixel array (126 in Fig. 3B, [0026-27, 40-45]).
Downing does not explicitly teach the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal
Xu teaches sub-speckle patterns 503 created by individual light sources and DOE 304 with illumination pattern having a combination of all of the light sources 502 (Fig. 5, [0051-52], Figs. 11-13, [0059-72])
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 Downing such that the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal similar to Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of covering a larger field of view without needing a larger DOE or more complex pattern, and improves density distribution of light patterns (Xu: [0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Downing teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an array of light sources including the light source, wherein each of the light sources is configurable to independently transmit the first light signal at the same wavelength (102-1 to 102-NN, [0019-20]).
Regarding claim 3, Downing teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the wavelength is in the infrared range ([0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Downing teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the array of light sources is configurable to generate light pulse sequences, each respective light pulse sequence generated at a different time ([0029, 36-44]).
Regarding claim 5, Downing teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the array of light sources includes lasers (VCSELs and other options, [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Downing teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes a diffractive optical element configured to diffract the first light signal into the second light signal having a virtual array pattern (304 in Fig. 3B, [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Downing teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes an optical microelectromechanical system (MEMS) (digital mirror device (DMD) is a type of MEMS, [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Downing teaches a method comprising:
transmitting a first light signal from a light source (102 in Fig. 3B, [0036-37]);
receiving, by an optical element, the first light signal; projecting a second light signal having a spatial modulation pattern the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal (304 can be diffractive optical element, digital mirror device, spatial light modulator, [0037]);
projecting a third light signal resulted from a reflection of the second light signal onto a pixel array (104 in Fig. 3B, [0025, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 43]); and
generating, by a processing element, a map of a scene using information received from the pixel array (126 in Fig. 3B, [0026-27, 40-45]).
an optical element configurable to receive a first light signal from the light source and project a second light signal having a spatial modulation pattern that includes an array of illumination points generated by the optical element from the first light signal (304 can be diffractive optical element, digital mirror device, spatial light modulator, [0037]);
a pixel array configurable to receive a third light signal resulted from reflection of the second light signal (104 in Fig. 3B, [0025, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 43]); and
a processing element coupled to the pixel array, and configurable to generate a map of a scene responsive to information from the pixel array (126 in Fig. 3B, [0026-27, 40-45]).
Downing does not explicitly teach the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal
Xu teaches sub-speckle patterns 503 created by individual light sources and DOE 304 with illumination pattern having a combination of all of the light sources 502 (Fig. 5, [0051-52], Figs. 11-13, [0059-72])
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 Downing such that the array of illumination points having more illumination points than the first light signal similar to Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of covering a larger field of view without needing a larger DOE or more complex pattern, , and improves density distribution of light patterns (Xu: [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, see rejection to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection to claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection to claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection to claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection to claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Downing teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an imaging lens configurable to receive the third light signal and project the third light signal onto the pixel array (306 may be one or more return lenses, [0043]).
Regarding claim 20, Downing teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the pixel array has a smaller dimension than the spatial modulation pattern (Spatial modulation patterns of size LxL are larger than the size of the pixel array (K^2<L^2), [0032,35]; additionally, the size of illumination pattern 302 is larger than the size of detector array 104 in Fig. 3B).
Downing does not explicitly teach the array of illumination points of the spatial modulation pattern has fewer illumination points than a number of illumination points for illuminating the scene,
Xu teaches sub-speckle patterns 503 created by individual light sources and DOE 304 with illumination pattern having a combination of all of the light sources 502 (Fig. 5, [0051-52], Figs. 11-13, [0059-72])
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 Downing such that the array of illumination points of the spatial modulation pattern has fewer illumination points than a number of illumination points for illuminating the scene similar to Xu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of covering a larger field of view without needing a larger DOE or more complex pattern, and improves density distribution of light patterns (Xu: [0021]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing US 20190037136 A1 in view of Xu US 20200387004 A1 and further in view of Dussan US 20190086550 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Downing teaches the system of claim 1,
Downing does not explicitly teach wherein the optical element includes a phased array.
Dussan teaches beam steering device 104 may be a phased array ([0080])
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 Downing such that the optical element includes a phased array similar to Dussan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a well-known method of controlling light emission patterns.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection to claim 7.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing US 20190037136 A1 in view of Xu US 20200387004 A1 and further in view of East-Lavoie US 20200166616 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Downing teaches the system of claim 1,
Downing does not explicitly teach wherein the processing element is programmed with a multipath resolution algorithm.
East-Lavoie teaches use of MUSIC, a multipath resolution algorithm used for distance measuring applications ([0049, 110])
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 Downing such that the processing element is programmed with a multipath resolution algorithm similar to East-Lavoie with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a well-known method to process data to create distance measurements.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection to claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights