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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the election/restriction requirement in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected products, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/10/2026.
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: luminescence element, light receiving element in claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “element” and “the light receiving element is disposed at a higher position than an element facing the thicker lens”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “element”. Further, the term “higher position” is not made clear by the claim language (i.e. higher as compared to what other element of the imaging system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Chen) (US 2020/0003870).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a distance measuring device (FIG. 11, 30B), comprising:
a luminescence element (21B) that irradiates an object with light ([0110], a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) or an LED light source illuminates an object);
a first optical element (22B) disposed on an optical axis of the luminescence element ([0110], the optical element 22B may be implemented as an optical diffraction element that functions to replicate and diffuse the laser generated by the projection unit 21B);
a light receiving element (31B) that receives light from the luminescence element reflected from the object ([0112], The photosensitive element 31B is configured to receive the reflected laser from the to-be-detected object and generate an inductive signal to implement acquisition of the depth information);
a second lens (33B) disposed on an optical axis of the light receiving element ([0112], The optical lens assembly 33B is configured to acquire reflected laser from the to-be-detected object); and
a substrate (11B) on which the luminescence element (21B) and the light receiving element (31B) are mounted (see fig.11),
wherein a thinner lens of the first optical element (22B) and the second lens (33B) is disposed farther from the substrate than a thicker lens (FIG. 11, optical element 22B is thinner than lens 33B and further away from substrate 11).
While Chen does not explicitly disclose the first optical element as being a lens, official notice is taken that the use of lenses in optical systems for controlling the spread of a transmitted or received light source is well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a lens into the light emitting system taught by Chen for controlling the spread of transmitted light (Chen, [0110], the optical element 22B may be implemented as an optical diffraction element that functions to replicate and diffuse the laser generated by the projection unit 21B).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein an element (FIG. 11, 21B) facing the thinner optical element (22B) of the luminescence element (21B) and the light receiving element (32B) is disposed at a higher position than an element (32B) facing the thicker lens (33B) (FIG. 11, element 21B is positioned higher than element 21B relative to substrate 11).
While Chen does not explicitly disclose the first optical element as being a lens, official notice is taken that the use of lenses in optical systems for controlling the spread of a transmitted or received light source is well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a lens into the light emitting system taught by Chen for controlling the spread of transmitted light (Chen, [0110], the optical element 22B may be implemented as an optical diffraction element that functions to replicate and diffuse the laser generated by the projection unit 21B).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses wherein a bonding wire (112B) electrically connecting the light receiving element (32B) and the substrate (11B) ([0112], the receiving assembly 30B is configured with a lead 112B for electrically connecting the photosensitive element 31B to of the circuit board 11B) is not disposed on an edge of the light receiving element (32B) on a side of the luminescence element (see FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses wherein the light receiving element has a chip size package (CSP) structure ([0179], the photosensitive element 31B is mounted to the circuit board 11B by a COB (Chip On Board) method).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seurin et al. (Seurin) (US 2021/0281049) (FIG. 7, Lidar system including an emitter 150 and a sensor 151).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights