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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 3/30/2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 March 30 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has amended the claims to include a new limitation regarding an 1D lens. IN the remarks, on page 7, the applicant argues that Smith’s light sources are not aligned in the same direction and thus, do not coincide (as claimed). The applicant argues that “coincide” means the same direction and are parallel to each other.
The examiner disagrees. Although one of the definitions of the “coincide” could mean that the directions are the same direction and parallel, the examiner must take the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Dictionary.com defines “coincide” as “to occupy the same place in space, the same point or period in time, or the same relative position.” Clearly, the optical axes of Smith, of Fig. 8A, occupy the same place in the space of fig. 8A, at the same point of time. Therefore, this claim litmaiton is taught. If the applicant wishes for the optical axes to be interpreted as parallel, the applicant should provide the same language in the claims.
On page 8 of the remarks, the applicant argues that Smith does not teach the amended limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 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.
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.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20180124382 (Smith et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20110080566 (Lin).
Regarding claim 9, Smith et al discloses a light source device (fig. 8A) used in a three-dimensional shape measurement method, the light source device comprising: a plurality of first light source units (fig. A, item 804-1, 804-2) having optical axis directions coinciding with each other (fig. 8A, optical axes coinciding in the areas shown by 814- 1 and 814-2), the plurality of first light source units being arranged side by side in a direction intersecting the optical axis directions, a horizontal direction between the two projectors 804-1 and 804-2), optical lenses (fig. 8A, items 312-1, 812-2) to extend a pattern (fig. 1, item 810-1, 810-2) of the plurality of first light source units (fig. 1, item 804-1, 804-2) in a one-dimensional direction, the direction of the lines, to form a plurality of bright lines (fig. 8A, items 312-1, 812-2), wherein each of the plurality of first light source units projects light onto a common projection region (fig. 8A, region at the top of the figure with the object), the light including a first pattern having the plurality of bright lines (fig. 8C) that are lined up in a first direction intersecting an extending direction of the plurality of bright lines in the first pattern, the bright lines extending horizontally in fig. 8C and the first direction extending vertically in fig. 8C and represented by an axis that would be orthogonal to the plane of the page of the figures in fig. 8A, and the plurality of first light source units are lined up in a second direction, a horizontal direction between the projectors 804-1 and 804-2 in fig. 8A, orthogonal to the first direction, the direction of being orthogonal to the plane of the page that fig. 8A is on, and therefore orthogonal the line on the plane of the page of fig. 8A.
Smith et al does not disclose expressly an optical lens is a one-dimensional lens configured to extend a multi-point pattern into a line.
Lin discloses an optical lens is a one-dimensional lens (fig. 9, item 142) configured to extend a multi-point pattern, plurality of point light sources (fig. 9, item 141, page 2, paragraph 22) into a line (fig. 9, item 143).
Smith et al and Lin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. projecting lines of light.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a 1D lens.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust device by allowing the width to be appropriately adjusted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device of Smith et al with the optical lens of Lin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al discloses intervals between the plurality of bright lines are equal among the plurality of first lightsource units (fig. 8c and 8d), and positions of the plurality of bright lines of the first pattern in the first direction with reference to the optical axis of each of the plurality of first light source units are different among the plurality of first light source units, since each of the optical axes are different the positions of the pattern relatively will be different (fig. 8A, items 804-1 and 804-2).
Regarding claim 13, Smith et al discloses number of the first light source units is n =2 (fig. 8a, items 84-1 and 804-2), and a shift amount of the plurality of bright lines between the plurality of first light source units is 1/n of an interval between the plurality of bright lines (fig. 8D, lines are shifted up ½ of the distance from fig. 8C).
Regarding claim 14, Smith et al discloses a plurality of second light source units having optical axis directions coinciding with each other, i.e. the same set up of fig. 8A, item 804-1 and 804-2 with the same coinciding optical axis directions as described above, but the second light source units being that of another node of fig. 3 and 4 and as described by page 14, paragraph 103, the plurality of second light source units being arranged side by side in a direction intersecting the optical axis directions, a horizontal direction between the two projectors 804-1 and 804-2), wherein each of the plurality of second light source units projects light onto a common projection region (fig. 8A, region at the top of the figure with the object), the light including a second pattern having a plurality of bright lines (fig. 8C) that are lined up in a third direction intersecting an extending direction of the plurality of bright lines in the second pattern, the bright lines extending horizontally in fig. 8C and the first direction extending vertically in fig. 8C and represented by an axis that would be orthogonal to the plane of the page of the figures in fig. 8A, and the plurality of second light source units are lined up in a fourth direction orthogonal to the third direction, a horizontal direction between the projectors 804-1 and 804-2 in fig. 8A, orthogonal to the first direction, the direction of being orthogonal to the plane of the page that fig. 8A is on, and therefore orthogonal the line on the plane of the page of fig. 8A. Given the another node is placed in a different direction, as can be seen in fig. 3, the directions of the first light source units will differ from the direction of the second light source units.
Regarding claim 16, Smith et al discloses intervals between the plurality of bright lines of the second pattern are equal among the plurality of second light source units (fig. 8C and 8D), and positions of the plurality of bright lines of the second pattern in the third direction with reference to the optical axis of each of the plurality of second light source units are different among the plurality of second light source units, since each of the optical axes are different the positions of the pattern relatively will be different (fig. 8A, items 804-1 and 804-2).
Regarding claim 17, Smith et al discloses an interval between the plurality of bright lines of the second pattern is different from an interval between the plurality of bright lines of the first pattern, since they may have multiple segregated frequency bands, (page 14, paragraph 104 or page 12, paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 18, Smith et al discloses the third direction intersects the first direction because the directions are both vertical of fig. 8A, and thus share the same directional line and thus intersect.
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith et al in view of Lin, as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of “Principle of beam generation in on-chip 2D beam pattern projecting lasers” (Takiguchi et al)
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al (as modified by Lin) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and is incorporated herein by reference. Smith et al further discloses the plurality of first light source units comprise lasers (page 3, paragraph 30), oscillating at M-point, respectively i.e. the frequency of the light in the laser.
Smith et al (as modified by Lin) does not disclose expressly the lasers comprise S-iPMSELs .
Takiguchi et al discloses lasers that project beam patterns comprise S-iPMSELs (page 2, paragraph 2).
Smith et al (as modified by Lin) and Takiguchi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. projecting light patterns.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an S-iPMSEL.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more precise and flexible device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device of Smith et al (as modified by Lin) with use of S-iPMSELs to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Smith et al discloses the lasers are monolithically formed with each other in the structure of fig. 8A. Takiguchi et al discloses lasers that project beam patterns comprise S-iPMSELs (page 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 15, Smith et al discloses the plurality of second light source units comprise lasers (page 3, paragraph 30), oscillating at an M- point, respectively i.e. the frequency of the light in the laser. Takiguchi et al discloses lasers that project beam patterns comprise S-iPMSELs (page 2, paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 4/9/2026
Prosecution Insights