Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/937,219

DISTORTION REDUCING OPTICS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 30, 2022
Examiner
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Lumentum Operations LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
759 granted / 971 resolved
+26.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
1056
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 971 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 9, 16 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 10247547 B2 in view of D2 US 20170328989 A1 further in view of D3 US 20170094251 A1 . Regarding claims 1, 9 , 16 D1 teaches 1, 9, 16 An optical device, comprising: an emitter array(1) to emit light; a collimating element(2) to create an image of the light emitted by the emitter array; a diffractive optical element (DOE)(4) to generate a pattern from the image of the light; and but does not explicitly teach a distortion correction element to reduce distortion in the pattern on a screen or to shape the pattern on the screen. wherein the distortion correction element is configured to be after the DOE on an optical path of the optical device, and wherein the light travels through the distortion correction element. D2 teaches a distortion correction element to reduce distortion in the pattern on a screen or to shape the pattern on the screen.[0066] D3 teaches wherein the distortion correction element is configured to be after the DOE on an optical path of the optical device, and wherein the light travels through the distortion correction element.[0060-0061] It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to generate patterns which fall into the rectangular grid and further modify with teachings by D3 in order to correct aberrations of the diverging pattern. 4, 12 The optical device of claim 1, wherein the distortion correction element is a discrete element. (D2 [0066]) 5, 13 The optical device of claim 1, wherein the distortion correction element has a free-form shape(D2 [0066]), a radially symmetric shape, or a biconvex shape. 6, 14 The optical device of claim 1, wherein a phase profile of the distortion correction element is realized with meta-material surfaces, a continuous surface relief profile, a Fresnel profile, a binary surface relief profile, or a multi-level surface relief profile.(D2 [0066] DMD shape) 7. The optical device of claim 1, wherein the optical device is a dot projector.(fig. 1) 8. The optical device of claim 1, wherein the optical device is a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device.(D2[0002]) 15. The device of claim 9, wherein the DOE is a tiling DOE, a one-dimensional diffuser, or a two-dimensional diffuser(Fig. 1 D1). 17. The method of claim 16, wherein manipulating the pattern comprises reducing distortion in the pattern on the screen. (D2 [0066]) 18. The method of claim 16, wherein manipulating the pattern comprises shaping the pattern on the screen. (D2 [0066]) Claim(s) 2, 10, 19, 3, 11, 20 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 10247547 B2 in view of D2 US 20170328989 A1 further in view of D3 US 20180063390 A1. Regarding claims D1 does not teach 2, 10, 19 The optical device of claim 1, wherein the DOE is on a first surface of an optical substrate and the distortion correction element is on a second surface of the optical substrate. 3, 11, 20 The optical device of claim 1, wherein the DOE and the collimating element are on a first surface of an optical substrate and the distortion correction element is on a second surface of the optical substrate. D2 teaches stacking multiple optical elements on top of each other (fig. 7 701) D3 teaches correction element (such as frensel lens [0018, 0020] ) instead of DMD and therefore stacking elements it is just a matter of design choice in order to achieve predictable result of distortion correction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to correct distortion in completely predictable manner. 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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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 at 5712726970. 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. /HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 30, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 25, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591059
OPTICAL RANGING DEVICE AND OPTICAL RANGING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591047
OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585000
RECEIVING DEVICE FOR AN OPTICAL MEASUREMENT APPARATUS FOR CAPTURING OBJECTS, LIGHT SIGNAL REDIRECTION DEVICE, MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A RECEIVING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569880
CMOS ULTRASONIC TRANSDUCERS AND RELATED APPARATUS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560721
SPAD LIDAR SYSTEM WITH BINNED PIXELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 971 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month