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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first optical member” and “second optical member” in claims 7 and 17, and “third optical member” in claim 16. However, the first optical member is specified as a collimator lens in claim 11, and the second optical member is specified as a microlens array in claim 12 or as a diffractive optical element in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7 and 17, and claims 8-16 dependent on them, 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.
The clause “a first optical member that forms a plurality of pieces of first light and a plurality of pieces of second light into pieces of substantially parallel light” is unclear. First the phrase “pieces of light” is not a term standard in the art of optics and does not make clear whether the light is divided spatially (into beams or beamlets) or temporally (into pulses). Further, the term “parallel” here is a relative term to some axis or other object, so the orientation of possible beams would not be understood to one skilled in the art. Clarification and correction are required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LG Innotek Co., LTD (KR 102915218 B1, effective filing date May 15, 2020).
With regard to claim 1, LG Innotek Co. discloses, an illumination apparatus, comprising (see Figs. 6 and 9):
a light-emitting element that includes
a plurality of first light emitters (E1),
a plurality of second light emitters (E2),
a lower electrode (“common electrode” 215) that is connected to the plurality of first light emitters and the plurality of second light emitters,
a first upper electrode (“first electrode” 280) that is connected to each of the plurality of first light emitters (via first pad (101) and connecting portions 282 and 284) and
a second upper electrode (“first electrode” 280) that is connected to each of the plurality of second light emitters (via second pad (102) and connecting portions 282 and 284); and
a drive circuit (140) that determines a first current that flows between the lower electrode and the first upper electrode, and a second current that flows between the lower electrode and the second upper electrode (control signals to individual areas connected to pads).
With regard to claims 2-3, the drive circuit inherently includes first and second drive sections electrically connected to the first and second upper electrodes respectively, for driving the plurality of first light emitters and second light emitters respectively.
With regard to claims 4-5, the light-emitting element includes (see Fig. 13) a first-light emitter group that includes a plurality of first-light emitter columns each formed by first light emitters (E1) being connected to each other using first wiring (pads 101) in contact with the first upper electrodes, and a second-light emitter group includes a plurality of second-light emitter columns each formed by second light emitters (E2) of the plurality of second light emitters being connected to each other using second wiring (pads 102) that is in contact with the second uppers electrodes. Because the columns are parallel and the columns of the first group are connected at the top of the page and the alternating columns of the second group are connected at the bottom of the page, the currents respectively flowing through first-light emitter columns of the and the second-light emitter columns are opposite (compare Fig. 13 LG Innotek Co. with Fig. 5 of the instant application).
With regard to claim 6, the light-emitting elements are VCSELs.
With regard to claim 18, LG Innotek Co. discloses a ranging apparatus to detect three-dimensional information (Fig. 1), comprising
An illumination apparatus (light emitting unit 100) that emits light to an object
A light-receiving section (200) that detects reception of light reflected off the object; and
a ranging section that measures a distance to the object (control unit 300 calculates distance based on the time or phase difference of light reflected from the object and returned); the illumination apparatus includes a light-emitting element and a drive circuit,
a plurality of first light emitters (E1),
a plurality of second light emitters (E2),
a lower electrode (“common electrode” 215) that is connected to the plurality of first light emitters and the plurality of second light emitters,
a first upper electrode (“first electrode” 280) that is connected to each of the plurality of first light emitters (via first pad (101) and connecting portions 282 and 284) and
a second upper electrode (“first electrode” 280) that is connected to each of the plurality of second light emitters (via second pad (102) and connecting portions 282 and 284);
a drive circuit (140) that determines a first current that flows between the lower electrode and the first upper electrode, and a second current that flows between the lower electrode and the second upper electrode (control signals to individual areas connected to pads).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on Nov. 3, 2024 and May 9, 2023 have been considered by the Examiner. Claims 8-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: diSopra et al., Pan et al., and Hellmig et al. disclose control of arrays of light emitters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645