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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 02/05/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim 1. Claims 7 and 10-19 stand as withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Rossi does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of claim 1, specifically that Rossi has not disclosed that beams produced by a first array are more diffuse than beams produced by a second array, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0253] of Rossi discloses that in the second mode, the array is illuminated by [S2]. Paragraphs [0079 and 0242] disclose that light distribution in a second mode is more diffuse than light distribution in a first mode. With [S2] being disclosed as being the illumination of the second mode, and the second mode being described as more diffuse than light distribution of the first mode, Rossi is disclosing that the light [S2] shown in Fig. 8B is more diffuse than light [S1] of a first mode. (See also claim 11 and paragraphs [0014,0039,0061 and 0064] regarding Rossi disclosing more diffuse light illumination in the device structure)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 1-6,8,9 and 20 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rossi et al. (hereinafter Rossi) (US 20190049097 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rossi discloses in Fig. 8B,
An apparatus [Fig. 8B] comprising:
a light source [S1 and S2] (Paras. [122,0252]) including a first subset of light emitting elements [S2] (Para. [0250]) and a different second subset of light emitting elements [S1] (Para. [0252]), wherein each of the light emitting elements of the first subset [S2] (Para. [0252]) is operable to produce a respective light beam (Para. [0249]), and each of the light emitting elements of the second subset [S1] (Para. [0252]) is operable to produce a respective light beam that is less diffuse than the light beams produced by the first subset of light emitting elements [Fig. 8B larger emission area S2] (Paras. [0029,0061,0079]);
one or more optical elements [2 Fig. 9] (Paras. [0207,0260]) disposed so as to project the light beams produced by the first and second subsets of light emitting elements [light from S1 and S2] (Para. [0250]) onto a scene [Fig. 8B] (Para. [0252]); and
control circuitry [10] (Para. [0253]) operable to control respective durations for which the light emitting elements of the first [S2] and second [S1] subsets are on (Para. [0253]) so that a resulting overall illumination projected onto the scene is homogenous diffuse illumination [S1 between diffuse S2 Fig. 8B] (Paras. [0029,0061,0079,0252].
Regarding claim 2, Rossi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Fig. 8B,
wherein the light emitting elements of the first [S2] and second subsets [S1] (Para. [0250]), and the one or more optical elements [2 Fig. 9] (Paras. [0250,0260]), are disposed such that the light beams produced by the second subset [S1] are projected onto the scene [Fig. 8B] so as to at least partially fill gaps in illumination produced by the first subset of light emitting elements [S2] (S1 interposed between diffuse S2 Fig. 8B Para. [0253]).
Regarding claim 3, Rossi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Fig. 8B,
wherein the control circuitry [10] (Para. [0253]) is operable to turn on the light emitting elements of the first subset [S2] for a first duration, and to turn on the light emitting elements of the second subset [S1] for a second duration while the light emitting elements of the first subset [S2] are on, wherein the second duration [duration of S1] is shorter than the first duration [duration of S2] (Para. [0253]).
Paragraph [0253] states that the second mode light [S2] can be operated alone, and alternatively the first mode light [S1] can also be operated with the second mode light [S2]. When the second mode light [S2] is operated alone, and then the first mode light [S1] is operated with the second mode light [S2], the second mode light [S2] was turned on first, therefore meaning the first mode light [S1] would be on for a shorter duration than the second mode light [S2].
Regarding claim 4, Rossi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Fig. 8B,
wherein each of the first [S2] and second [S1] subsets of light emitting elements (Para. [0249]) is composed of VCSELs (Paras. [0122-0124, 0211]).
Regarding claim 9, Rossi as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Fig. 8B,
wherein the control circuitry [10] (Paras. [0208,0253]) is operable to turn on the second subset of light emitting elements [S1] in a second mode of operation to project a structured light pattern [light 5 from S1 see Figs. 1 and 2] (Paras. [0206]) onto the scene [Fig. 8B.
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.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi in view of Ahmed (US 20190107389 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Rossi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above and further discloses in Fig. 8B,
wherein the VCSELs (Paras. [0122-0124, 211]) of the first subset [S2 Fig. 8B] have a first aperture (Paras. [0161,0177,0217]), and the VCSELs (Paras. [0122-0124, 211]) of the second subset [S1 Fig. 8B] have a second aperture (Paras. [0161,0177,0217]),
Rossi fails to disclose,
wherein the first aperture is larger than the second aperture.
Ahmed discloses in Fig. 4,
a first subset of VCSELs [402] with a first aperture width [d1] differing from a second aperture width [d2] of a second subset of VCSELs [404] (Para. [0037,0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the differing aperture widths between respective subsets of VCSELs as shown in Ahmed with the VCSEL subsets of Rossi for the purpose of producing different speckle patterns and for mode selection. (Para. [0058])
Regarding claim 20, Rossi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above and further discloses in Fig. 8B,
wherein the control circuitry [10] (Para. [0253]) is operable to turn on the light emitting elements of the first subset [S2] for a first duration, and to turn on the light emitting elements of the second subset [S1] for a second duration while the light emitting elements of the first subset [S2] are on, wherein the second duration [duration of S1] is shorter than the first duration [duration of S2] (Para. [0253]),
each of the first [S2] and second [S1] subsets of light emitting elements (Para. [0249]) is composed of VCSELs (Paras. [0122-0124, 0211])
the VCSELs (Paras. [0122-0124, 211]) of the first subset [S2] have a first aperture (Paras. [0161,0177,0217]), and the VCSELs (Paras. [0122-0124, 211]) of the second subset [S1] have a second aperture (Paras. [0161,0177,0217]),
Paragraph [0253] states that the second mode light [S2] can be operated alone, and alternatively the first mode light [S1] can also be operated with the second mode light [S2]. When the second mode light [S2] is operated alone, and then the first mode light [S1] is operated with the second mode light [S2], the second mode light [S2] was turned on first, therefore meaning the first mode light [S1] would be on for a shorter duration than the second mode light [S2].
Rossi fails to disclose,
the first aperture is larger than the second aperture.
Ahmed discloses in Fig. 4,
a first subset of VCSELs [402] with a first aperture width [d1] differing from a second aperture width [d2] of a second subset of VCSELs [404] (Para. [0037,0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the differing aperture widths between respective subsets of VCSELs as shown in Ahmed with the VCSEL subsets of Rossi for the purpose of producing different speckle patterns and for mode selection. (Para. [0058])
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi in view of Boytard et al. (hereinafter Boytard) (US 20200064521 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Rossi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the VCSELs of the first subset have a rectangular aperture.
Boytard discloses in Fig. 1B,
a first subset of light sources [108] (Para. [0035]) with rectangular aperture shapes (Para. [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rectangular aperture shape of the light sources of Boytard into the light source apertures of Rossi of the purpose of changing the intensity profiles of the respective light sources. (Boytard Para. [0035])
Regarding claim 8, Rossi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the VCSELs of the first subset have an aperture shaped differently from a shape of an aperture of the VCSELs of the second subset.
Boytard discloses in Fig. 1B,
a first subset of light sources [106] (Para. [0036])with a differing aperture shape than a second subset of light sources [108] (Para. [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the differing aperture shapes as shown in Boytard with the aperture shapes of Rossi for the purpose of specifically influencing the intensity profiles of each respective subset of light sources. (Boytard Para. [0035,0036])
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights