.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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim states that “wherein, among the polarization components of light emitted… capable of causing interference of emitted light…” it is unclear what is actually being claimed as a structural set of limitations., Claim 1 appears to be merely is an array, that comprises a plurality of light emitting elements, and the elements are “capable” of transmitting different intensities for different polarization directions. Further structural details are needed, as this appears to be a single means claim. Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim states that “light emitting elements arranged in the second direction emit light at different timings”. Does this mean the elements in the second direction emit different timings relative to other elements in the same direction? Or merely different than the timing in the first direction? This is unclear. A similar problem exists in Claim 5, for the “different wavelengths” limitation., and in Claim 6 for the “different drive frequencies” limitation. Correction is required.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 7-20 fail to remedy the issues present in Claims 1 and 4-6. Applicant is advised to thoroughly review each and every claim for necessary structure, structural relationships, detail and clarity when submitting claim amendments.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (EP 3,809,157) in view of Gong (CN 109,164,456) and Yatagai (US 2014/0192364).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmitz teaches a light emitting element array [#12 of Fig 1; 0031] comprising: a plurality of light emitting elements [#12 of Fig 1; 0033]. Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Gong does teach polarization components of light emitted by the light emitting element capable of causing interference of emitted light [0088; 0090; 0099-0100], light intensity of a polarization component of light in a second direction intersecting with a first direction in which light emitting elements capable of causing the interference of the light [0088; 0091; 0102]. Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Yatagai does teach (components) are arranged is smaller than light intensity of a polarization component in the first direction [0039; 0042; 0055]. It would have been obvious to modify the array of Schmitz to include interfering polarization components in order to solve the problem of mutual interference between depth camera module of different mobile terminals, thereby improving accuracy of collecting depth information.
Regarding Claim 2, Schmitz also teaches wherein a distance between light emitting elements capable of causing the interference of the emitted light is shorter than a distance between light emitting elements other than the light emitting elements capable of causing the interference of the emitted light [#12 of Fig 1; 0033].
Regarding Claim 3, Schmitz also teaches wherein the light emitting element capable of causing the interference of the emitted light is other than a light emitting element being a control target in which the interference of the emitted light is to be suppressed [0060]. Gong additionally teaches this limitation in [0091; 0104].
Regarding Claim 7, Schmitz also teaches wherein the light emitting element capable of causing the interference of the emitted light is a control target in which the interference of the emitted light is to be suppressed [0060]. Gong additionally teaches this limitation in [0091; 0104].
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Gong does teach among a plurality of light emitting elements arranged in the first direction and the second direction, the light emitting elements arranged in the first direction emit light at the same light emission timing, and the light emitting elements arranged in the second direction emit light at different timings, and the light emitting element capable of causing the interference of the emitted light is arranged in the first direction [0033; 0091; 0104]. It would have been obvious to modify the array of Schmitz to include controlled timing of transmission elements with interfering polarization components in order to solve the problem of mutual interference between depth camera module of different mobile terminals, thereby improving accuracy of collecting depth information.
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Yatagai does teach among a plurality of light emitting elements arranged in the first direction and the second direction, the light emitting elements arranged in the first direction emit light of the same wavelength, and the light emitting elements arranged in the second direction emit light of different wavelengths, and the light emitting element capable of causing the interference of the emitted light is arranged in the first direction [0039; 0042; 0055-57]. It would have been obvious to modify the array of Schmitz to include interfering polarization components in order to solve the problem of mutual interference between depth camera module of different mobile terminals, thereby improving accuracy of collecting depth information.
Regarding Claims 6 and 10, Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Gong does teach among a plurality of light emitting elements arranged in the first direction and the second direction, the light emitting elements arranged in the first direction are driven at the same drive frequency, and the light emitting elements arranged in the second direction are driven at different drive frequencies, and the light emitting element capable of causing the interference of the emitted light is arranged in the first direction [0043; 0053; 0057; 0071]. Yatagai also teaches this limitation in [0045]. It would have been obvious to modify the array of Schmitz to include different drive frequencies in order to solve the problem of mutual interference between depth camera module of different mobile terminals, thereby improving accuracy of collecting depth information.
Regarding Claim 11, Schmitz, as modified, also teaches wherein, among a plurality of light emitting elements arranged in the first direction and the second direction, light emitting elements provided in the same light emission section emit light at the same light emission timing, and light emitting elements capable of causing the interference of the emitted light are provided in different light emission sections [#12 of Fig 1; 0033].
Regarding Claims 12-17, Schmitz also teaches a drive unit that drives the light emitting element array such that interference of light is suppressed [0060]. Gong additionally teaches this limitation in [0091; 0104].
Regarding Claim 18, Schmitz also teaches detection apparatus comprising: the light emitting element array according to claim 1 [0031; 0033]; a light receiving element array including a plurality of light receiving elements that receive reflected light of light emitted to a detection target object from the light emitting element array [#26 of Fig 1; 0032-33]; a drive unit that drives the light emitting elements [0006; 0023; 0031]; and a detection unit that detects the detection target object from an amount of light received by the plurality of light receiving elements [0035; 0046]. Yatagai also teaches a plurality of light receiving elements that receive reflected light of light emitted to a detection target object [0068-70] and a detection unit that detects the detection target object from an amount of light received by the plurality of light receiving elements [0068-70]. Gong also teaches a drive unit that drives the light emitting elements [0086; 0091; 0104].
Regarding Claim 19, Schmitz also teaches wherein light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements is received by the corresponding light receiving element [#26 of Fig 1; 0032-33; 0035; 0046]. Yatagai also teaches wherein light emitted from the plurality of light emitting elements is received by the corresponding light receiving element [0068-70].
Regarding Claim 20, Schmitz also teaches wherein the detection unit detects a distance to the detection target object by time of flight [0033; 0035; 0046]. Yatagai also teaches detection unit detects a distance to the detection target object by time of flight [0068-70].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645