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 .
Acknowledgment
This Office action is responsive to amendment filed on 09/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powers et al. (US 2017/0194768).
Regarding claim 1, Powers teaches an optical pattern generating system (fig. 2) comprising: a light source (10) configured to provide light along an optical axis, the light source including a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser ([0096]); an optical substrate (a single diffractive optical element that collimates and diffracts) disposed along the optical axis configured to receive the light from the light source, the optical substrate having (i) a first surface having a first flat optical element thereon, the first flat optical element being an element that collimates the light (15, [0086] and [0087]); (ii) a second surface having a second flat optical element thereon, the second flat optical element configured to diffract the light to form an optical pattern (17, [0086] and [0087]); and (iii) a thickness defined by the distance between the first surface and second surface (distance between the collimate surface 15 and the diffractive surface 17).
Regarding claim 3, Powers further teaches wherein the second flat optical element comprises a flat diffractive optical element (17, [0087]).
Regarding claim 4, Powers further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element diffracts the light to form an optical aiming pattern ([0086]).
Regarding claim 5, Powers further teaches wherein the diffractive optical element diffracts the light to form a point cloud pattern (the limitation of “point cloud pattern” is not specifically defined so any pattern will meet the claimed limitation, [0086]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 6, Powers further teaches a photodiode (11) disposed to detect a portion of the light and configured to generate a signal indicative of the detected portion of light ([0088]).
Regarding claim 10, Powers further teaches a printed circuit board having the light source disposed thereon, the light source being electrically coupled to the printed circuit board ([0086] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Powers further teaches wherein the light source comprises a surface mount device and the light source mounted to the printed circuit board (fig. 2 and [0094]).
Regarding claim 12, Powers further teaches a lead frame (305) having mount solder pads, wherein the light source is physically and electrically coupled to the lead frame; a photodiode (302) physically and electrically coupled to the lead frame; and a printed circuit board (304) with the lead frame physically and electrically coupled to the printed circuit board ([0096] and [0102]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 14, Powers further teaches an optical pattern generating system (figs. 2 and 3) comprising: a housing structure (14) having one or more side walls, (ii) a bottom wall, and (iii) a front aperture disposed along an optical axis, the front aperture configured to allow light to propagate through the front aperture; a printed circuit board (13) disposed in the housing structure and supported in position by the housing structure; a light source (10) physically and electrically coupled to the printed circuit board, the light source being a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser configured to provide light along the optical axis; an optical substrate (a single diffractive optical element that collimates and diffracts) disposed in the housing, the optical substrate having (i) a first surface toward the light source, the first surface having a first flat optical element thereon the first flat optical element configured to collimate the light (15, [0086] and [0087]); (ii) a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface having a second flat optical element thereon, the second flat optical element configured to diffract the light to form an optical pattern (17, [0086] and [0087]); and (iii) a thickness defined by the distance between the first surface and second surface (distance between the collimate surface 15 and the diffractive surface 17).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers in view of Miller et al. (US 2023/0072500).
Regarding claim 2, Powers teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the first flat optical element comprises a metalens, Fresnel lens, or kinoform lens ([0018]).
However, Miller further projector comprising a light source (102); optical substrates (104 and 106); wherein one of the optical substrates comprises a metalens, Fresnel lens, or kinoform lens ([0018]).
In view of Miller’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Powers by incorporating the teaching as taught by Miller in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would not involve any inventive feature since it is just a matter of using an alternative type of lens for the optical element.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers in view of Akagi (US 2013/0287418).
Regarding claim 7, Powers teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Powers further teaches the photodiode configured to capture light emitted from the light source ([0088] and [0089]) but silent to the first surface comprises a reflective element as claimed.
However, Akagi teaches laser scanning system including a reflective element (212) on the surface of the optical substrate (201-203) (fig. 2 and [0044]-[0045]).
In view of Akagi’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Powers by incorporating the teaching as taught by Akagi in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Powers as modified by Akagi teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Akagi further teaches wherein the reflective element comprises a mirror ([0044]).
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers in view of Terui et al. (US2002/0008876).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Powers teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for an optical baffle as claimed.
However, Terui teaches stray light barrier structure for scanning system having an optical baffle as claimed (the abstract, [0009] and [0013]).
In view of Terui’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Powers by incorporating the teaching as taught by Terui so as to minimize reflections of the stray light from exiting the system, thus improving image quality and measurement accuracy (see Terui: abstract and [0002]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers in view of Yoshiki et al. (US 2022/0244557).
Regarding claim 13, Powers teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Power further teaches, as shown in figure 3, a metal cap (16) which having the diffractive optical element (17) but silent to the diffractive optical element is replaceable with another flat optical element having a different diffractive pattern.
However, Yoshiki teaches light pattern generation having a diffractive optical element is removable and replaceable with another flat optical element having a different diffractive pattern (fig. 1 and [0134]).
In view of Yoshiki’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Powers by incorporating the teaching as taught by Yoshiki so as light patterns can be displayed depending on a situation or an application (see Yoshiki: [0134]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers.
Regarding claim 16, Powers teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Powers further teaches the housing (14) comprises side walls, bottom wall and front wall with an aperture disposed thereon (fig. 3 and [0086]) but silent to a width and height as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Powers for the housing to have the width and height as claimed since it is just a matter of design option for the width and height of the housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traversed to the rejection by mainly arguing that Powers teaches “the collimator 15 and DOE 17 are two separate elements, and thus cannot be said to form an optical substrate with two flat surfaces” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in paragraph [0087], Powers teaches the apparatus 200 may include a single diffractive optical element (substrate) that collimates and diffracts, and thus meets the limitation as claimed.
Based on above rationale, it is believed that the claims are met by Powers, Miller, Akagi, Terui and Yoshiki and therefore, the rejections are still maintained.
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 Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876