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
Applicant’s IDS submitted on 5/12/24, 12/02/23, 6/7/23, and 2/6/23 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement have been considered by the examiner and made of record.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter US 20230316988 A1, hereafter Hofrichter in view of Tan et al., US 20210003385 A1, hereafter Tan.
Regarding claim 1, Hofrichter discloses the following limitations:
A programmable active optical sensor (Hofrichter, Figure 1), comprising:
an array of pixels (Hofrichter, Figure 1, display area DA) each pixel in the array of pixels including:
a respective vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) diode (Hofrichter, Figure 5A IR subpixel, and [0060] discloses the display area containing vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSEL) subpixels); and
a respective photodiode (PD) (Hofrichter, Figure 5A, red subpixel, and [0063] discloses display subpixels can be operated as light detector or emitter); and
a controller electrically connected to each respective VCSEL diode and each respective PD (Hofrichter, Figure 2A-2C, showing the control of a subpixel as light emitting or light detecting and [0081]-[0083] which discloses that the pixels are controlled by driver circuitry); wherein:
the controller is operable to apply a first electrical bias at a first time to configure a first pixel as a light transmitter only (Hofrichter, Figure 4A, left hand side, emission regions, show controller is operable to configure for emission, and [0076] which discloses these graphs represent VCSELs subpixels), and to apply a second electrical bias at a second time to configure the first pixel as a light receiver only (Hofrichter, Figure 4A, right hand side detection regions, show controller is operable to configure for detection, and [0076] which discloses these graphs represent VCSELs subpixels).
Hofrichter fails to disclose the following limitations:
formed in a common set of epitaxial layers
Tan discloses the following limitations:
formed in a common set of epitaxial layers (Tan, [0083] discloses that the VCSEL diodes 402 and RCPD 406 can be part of an array and Figure 4, and [0080] discloses that VCSEL diode 402 and RCPD 406 may be formed from a common set of semiconductor layers)
Hofrichter discloses an active display device where a at least two subpixels are controlled and can be independently forward or reverse biased depending on the desired device function [0084]. Hofrichter fails to disclose a subpixel with a combined VCSEL and photodiode formed from a common set of epitaxial layers. Tan discloses a VCSEL and a photodiode formed from a common set of epitaxial layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have used the device of Tan as a subpixel in the active display of Hofrichter doing so would result in more pixels for detecting and therefore increase the resolution of the detector, it would further allow the display device to perform functions that require the VCSEL and the photodiode to operate as an emitter and a detector at the same time.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hofrichter and Tan discloses:
The programmable active optical sensor of claim 1, wherein:
the PD of the first pixel (Tan, Figure 4, RCPD) is formed in a first subset of epitaxial layers of the common set of epitaxial layers (Tan, Figure 4, 406 is formed of the lower, first set of layers) adjacent to a light input-output (LIO) layer of the programmable active optical sensor (Tan, Figure 4, the RCPD is adjacent to the light output layer); and
the VCSEL diode of the first pixel is formed in a second subset of epitaxial layers of the common set of epitaxial layers (Tan, Figure 4, 402 is formed using the upper, second set of layers) opposite to the LIO layer of the programmable active optical sensor (Tan, Figure 4, the VCSEL is below the light output layer).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hofrichter and Tan discloses:
The programmable active optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the controller is operable to:
apply the first electrical bias to a first subset of pixels of the array of pixels at the first time:
apply the second electrical bias to a second subset of pixels of the array of pixels at the first time:
apply the first electrical bias to a third subset of pixels of the array of pixels at the second time; and
apply the second electrical bias to a fourth subset of pixels of the array of pixels at the second time (Hofrichter, Figure 4A-4D show that the controller is operable to apply electrical bias (changing a pixel from emission or detection) independently to a subset of pixels.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter and Tan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwarzenbach et al., US 20250015122 A1, hereafter Schwarzenbach.
Regarding claim 6, Tan and Bae fail to disclose:
The programmable active optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the pixels are electrically separated by insulating material deposited into regions etched into the common set of epitaxial layers.
Schwarzenbach discloses the following limitations:
The programmable active optical sensor of claim 1, wherein the pixels are electrically separated by insulating material deposited into regions etched (Figure 6, trenches 5, and [0069] discloses etching trenches between pixels and filling the trench with a dielectric material).
Tan teaches to etch between the VCSEL and the RCPD to electrically separate the devices, Tan does not teach to fill the trench with an insulating material. Schwarzenbach teach to fill trenches between pixels with insulating material to electrically isolate the pixels (Schwarzenbach, [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the teachings of Schwarzenbach to the device of Hofrichter and Tan and to therefore have filled the trenches with an insulating material, doing so is taught by Schwarzenbach to desirably electrically isolate the pixels from each other.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter US 20230316988 A1, hereafter Hofrichter in view of Tan et al., US 20210003385 A1, hereafter Tan in view and Xu, US 8541728 B1, hereafter Xu.
Regarding claim 8, Hofrichter discloses the following limitations:
An electronic device, comprising:
a display component positioned adjacent to a light transmissive surface of the electronic device (Figure 5B, showing pixels A and B adjacent to glass plate);
a respective vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) diode (Hofrichter, Figure 5A IR subpixel, and [0060] discloses the display area containing vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSEL) subpixels); and
a respective photodiode (PD) (Hofrichter, Figure 5A, red subpixel, and [0063] discloses display subpixels can be operated as light detector or emitter); and
a controller operably linked to the respective VCSEL diode and the respective PD of each pixel of the array of pixels (Hofrichter, Figure 2A-2C, showing the control of a subpixel as light emitting or light detecting and [0081]-[0083] which discloses that the pixels are controlled by driver circuitry); wherein:
the array of pixels is positioned proximate to the display component, opposite to the light transmissive surface (Hofrichter, [0081]-[0083] discloses pixels located in the display, which would be proximate, or near to, the display);
Hofrichter fails to discloses the following limitations:
an array of pixels formed in a common set of epitaxial layers, each pixel in the array of pixels including:
when a first electrical bias is applied to a first pixel, the respective VCSEL diode of the first pixel is operable to emit light and the respective PD of the first pixel is unbiased (Hofrichter, Figure 4D, right hand side show a bias applied to Pixel A causing emission and no bias applied to pixel B, which shows only a photocurrent);
when a second electrical bias is applied to the first pixel, the respective PD of the first pixel is biased to detect light and the respective VCSEL diode of the first pixel is unbiased; and
the controller is operable to:
determine signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of at least some VCSEL diodes and at least some PDs; and
configure different pixels to operate as VCSEL diodes or PDs at least partly in response to the determined SNRs.
Tan discloses the following limitations:
an array of pixels formed in a common set of epitaxial layers, each pixel in the array of pixels including (Tan, [0083] discloses that the VCSEL diodes 402 and RCPD 406 can be part of an array and Figure 4, and [0080] discloses that VCSEL diode 402 and RCPD 406 may be formed from a common set of semiconductor layers):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have applied the teachings of Tan to the device of Hofrichter and to therefore have used the VCSEL and photodiode as a subpixel in the device of Hofrichter. Doing so would increase the number of detectors in the device thereby improving the resolution of the detector.
Regarding the limitations:
when a first electrical bias is applied to a first pixel, the respective VCSEL diode of the first pixel is operable to emit light and the respective PD of the first pixel is unbiased
when a second electrical bias is applied to the first pixel, the respective PD of the first pixel is biased to detect light and the respective VCSEL diode of the first pixel is unbiased; and
In a combination of Hofrichter and Tan using the subpixel as emitter would be independent of the detector, unlike the device of Hofrichter where the subpixel flips from detector to emitter, and therefore when the pixel of Tan is used in the device of Hofrichter as a detector, the VCSEL will be unbiased, and when the subpixel is operated as an detector the photodetector will be unbiased.
Hofrichter and Tan fail to disclose the following limitations:
the controller is operable to:
determine signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of at least some VCSEL diodes and at least some PDs; and
at least partly in response to the determined SNRs.
Xu discloses the following limitations:
the controller is operable to:
determine signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of at least some VCSEL diodes (Xu, col. 5, lines 22-32, determines the SNR of VCSEL); and
configure different pixels to operate as VCSEL diodes or PDs at least partly in response to the determined SNRs (Xu, col. 5, lines 22-32, teaches to change operating parameter of a VCSEL to maintain a desired SNR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have calculated the SNR and then modified the operation of the VCSEL to keep the SNR within desired parameters. Doing so is taught by Xu to keep the SNR in an acceptable range, and Hofrichter teaches that the pixels can be controllably switched from detector to emitter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter and Tan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwarzenbach et al., US 20250015122 A1, hereafter Schwarzenbach.
Regarding claim 9, Hofrichter and Tan disclose the following limitations:
The electronic device of claim 8, wherein:
respective PDs of each pixel of the array of pixels are formed in a first subset of epitaxial layers of the common set of epitaxial layers (Tan, [0083] discloses that the VCSEL diodes 402 and RCPD 406 can be part of an array and Figure 4, and [0080] discloses that VCSEL diode 402 and RCPD 406 may be formed from a common set of semiconductor layers);
respective VCSEL diodes of each pixel of the array of pixels are formed in a second subset of epitaxial layers of the common set of epitaxial layers (Tan, [0083] discloses that the VCSEL diodes 402 and RCPD 406 can be part of an array and Figure 4, and [0080] discloses that VCSEL diode 402 and RCPD 406 may be formed from a common set of semiconductor layers);
the first subset of epitaxial layers of the array of pixels is positioned facing the display component (Hofrichter, Figure 5B, showing pixels A and B adjacent to glass plate).
Hofrichter and Tan fail to disclose the following limitations:
the pixels are electrically separated by insulating material deposited into regions etched into the common set of epitaxial layers(Figure 6, trenches 5, and [0069] discloses etching trenches between pixels and filling the trench with a dielectric material);
Tan teaches to etch between the VCSEL and the RCPD to electrically separate the devices, Tan does not teach to fill the trench with an insulating material. Schwarzenbach teach to fill trenches between pixels with insulating material to electrically isolate the pixels (Schwarzenbach, [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the teachings of Schwarzenbach to the device of Hofrichter and Tan and to therefore have filled the trenches with an insulating material, doing so is taught by Schwarzenbach to desirably electrically isolate the pixels from each other.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofrichter US 20230316988 A1, hereafter Hofrichter in view of Tan et al., US 20210003385 A1, hereafter Tan and Bae et al., US 20120182394 A1, hereafter Bae.
Regarding claim 16 Hofrichter discloses the following limitations:
An electronic device (Hofrichter, Figure 1) comprising:
an array of pixels (Hofrichter, Figure 1, display area DA);
positioned adjacent to a light transmissive surface of the electronic device (Figure 5B, showing pixels A and B adjacent to glass plate)
the controller is electrically connected to each respective VCSEL diode and each respective PD of each pixel of the array of pixels (Hofrichter, Figure 2A-2C, showing the control of a subpixel as light emitting or light detecting and [0081]-[0083] which discloses that the pixels are controlled by driver circuitry); and
the controller is operable to apply a first electrical bias at a first time to configure the respective VCSEL diode of a first pixel to emit light, and to apply a second electrical bias at a second time to configure the respective PD of the first pixel to detect light (Hofrichter, Figure 2A-2C, showing the control of a subpixel as light emitting or light detecting and [0081]-[0083] which discloses that the pixels are controlled by driver circuitry).
Hofrichter fails to disclose the following limitations:
a camera;
the array of pixels is formed in a common set of epitaxial layers, each pixel in the array of pixels including:
a respective vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) diode; and
a respective photodiode (PD);
Tan discloses:
the array of pixels ([0083] discloses that the VCSEL diodes 402 and RCPD 406 can be part of an array); is formed in a common set of epitaxial layers (Figure 4, and [0080] discloses that VCSEL diode 402 and RCPD 406 may be formed from a common set of semiconductor layers), each pixel in the array of pixels including:
a respective vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) diode (Figure 8, VCSEL 802); and
a respective photodiode (PD) (Figure 4, RCPD 406);
It would have been obvious to ne oof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have applied the teachings of Tan to the device of Hofrichter. Doing so would increase the number of detector in the device thereby increasing the resolution of the detector.
Hofrichter and Tan fail to disclose:
a camera;
Bae teaches the following limitations:
a camera (Bae, [0075] discloses that the system can be used in a camera);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the teachings of Bae to the device of Hofrichter and Tan and to therefore have used the device in a camera because Bae teaches that doing so can be used to sense distance among the pixels in the array (Bae, [0031]) and such sensing can be used to improve picture quality.
Regarding claim 17, Hofrichter, Tan and Bae disclose:
The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the controller is operable to associate a selected subset of pixels of the array of pixels with a section of a field of view of the camera (Bae, Figure 1, control unit 30, and [0029]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Hofrichter, Tan and Bae disclose:
The electronic device of claim 17, wherein the controller is operable to configure pixels of the selected subset of pixels as light emitters for depth sensing to an object in the field of view (Bae, Figure 1, control unit 30, and [0029]-[0033], and abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Hofrichter, Tan and Bae disclose:
The electronic device of claim 18, wherein the camera is operable to apply the depth sensing to the object in the field of view for autofocus (Bae, Figure 1, control unit 30, and [0029]-[0033], and abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6-9, and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argument that Bae fails to disclose a controller that individually controls the light emitting is moot in view of the new rejection using Hofrichter. This action is non-final due to the change in the rejection based on this omission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, which depends form claim 2, the prior art of record along with the limitations of claim 2 does not teach a structure with a p++ contact layer, a p-type DBR, a PD absorption layer, a first n-type DBR, a second n-type BDR, a quantum well, a second p-type DBR, a second p++ contact and a n-type intra cavity contact layer. The closest prior art of record is Tan et al., US 20210003385 A1. Tan discloses a device where a VCSEL and photodetector are formed using the same epitaxial layer, Tan fails to disclose the layers as specified above. The other prior art of record fails to remedy this deficiency.
Claims 4-5, which depend from claim 2 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 2 and are allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 8: The prior art of record fails to teach, along with the limitations of claim 8, a controller that causes a first electrical bias to be applied to the first pixel and causes a second electrical bias to be applied to a set of pixels neighboring the first pixel and selects the first pixel to be configured to emit light when reflections of emitted light from the first pixel and detected at the set of pixels neighboring pixels meet a criterion. The closest prior art of record is Hofrichter, US 20230316988 A1. Hofrichter discloses a controller that can apply independent biases to the pixels, but fails to disclose selecting a pixel biased on the operation of the pixels so biased.
Clams 11-15 have been included because they depend from and therefore included all the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20: The prior art does not teach, along with the limitations of claim 17, a first camera, a selected subset of pixels that is a first selected subset of pixels, the device contains a second camera, and the controller is operable to associate a second selected subset of pixels to a telephoto camera. The closest prior art of record is Bae et al., US 20120182394 A1. Bae discloses a single camera with a controller, Bai fails to disclose a second telephoto camera.
The claims of the application at hand that depend from allowable claims are allowable because they respectively depend, directly or indirectly, from the allowable claims of the application at hand. Therefore, the dependent claims in question incorporate the allowable limitations of the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furukawa, US 20020130329 A1, discloses an optical sensor device with a surface light emitting device and receiver.
Mutlu et al., US 20210072833 A1, discloses controller on VCSEL and Photodiode.
Konrad et al., US 20220236796 A1, discloses the use of gaze sensor in glasses with a camera.
Morgan US 5978401, discloses a VCSEL and RCPD formed using the same layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA J FLECK whose telephone number is (703)756-1253. The examiner can normally be reached 10-2 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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/LINDA J. FLECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights