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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the claims requires two structurally distinct illuminator components, each independently configured to provide its respective type of illumination, both arranged adjacent to the time-of-flight sensor. The examiner disagrees with the applicant. The examiner asserts that the claim limitation is broad and does not claim two structurally distinct illuminators. The examiner asserts that the two configurations where the switchable diffuser switches between a mode of scattering and a transparent mode to produce both a structured light and a flood light correspond to a first and second illuminator. The examiner asserts that the claim does not require the full-field illuminator and the spot illuminator to use different LED arrays to produce the light. Therefore, the rejection over the prior art is maintained.
In regards to the arguments related to Claim 4, the applicants arguments are persuasive and the grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
In regards to the arguments related to Claim 17, the examiner asserts that the claim as written is broad and only claims the three components need to be arranges in a line. However, does not require the line to be a strait line. Therefore, any three components can be arbitrarily connected by any curved line. Therefore, the rejection of claim 17 is maintained.
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.
1: Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 10,585,173 B1 Zhu et al.
2: As for Claim 1, Zhu et al teaches A time-of-flight module with switchable illumination for a scene (Column 1, Lines 25-35), comprising: a time-of-flight sensor configured to generate time-of-flight data representing a time-of-flight measurement of light reflected from the scene (Column 5, Lines 34-42 and Column 9, Lines 47-53); a full-field illuminator configured to provide a full-field illumination to the scene (Column 9, Lines 54-64); a spot illuminator configured to provide a spotted illumination to the scene (Column 9, Lines 54-64); and a control unit configured to switch between the full-field illumination and the spotted illumination provided to the scene (Column 9, Lines 54-64); wherein the full-field illuminator and the spot illuminator are arranged adjacent to the time- of-flight sensor (See Figures 1-3).
3: As for Claim 2, Zhu et al wherein the time-of-flight sensor, the full- field illuminator and the spot illuminator are arranged in a first line (See Figures 1-3).
4: As for Claim 3, Zhu et al depicts in Figure 3 elements 132 and 172 wherein each of the time-of-flight sensor, the full-field illuminator and the spot illuminator has a rectangular shape and a larger side of the time-of-flight sensor faces a larger side of each of the full-field illuminator and the spot illuminator.
5: As for Claim 13, Zhu et al depicts in Figures 1-3 wherein a distance between the time-of- flight sensor (172) and the full-field illuminator (132) and a distance between the time-of-flight sensor (172) and the spot illuminator (132 with light changed by 134) are substantially (broad term) equal (Column 8, Lines 30-49).
6: As for Claim 14, Zhu et al depicts in Figures 1-3 wherein a field-of-illumination of each of the full-field illuminator and the spot illuminator covers a field-of-view of the time-of-flight sensor (172).
7: As for Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claims 1-4.
8: As for Claim 16, Zhu et al teaches A time-of-flight module with switchable illumination for a scene (Column 1, Liens 25-35), comprising: a time-of-flight sensor configured to generate time-of-flight data representing a time-of-flight measurement of light reflected from the scene (Column 5, Lines 34-42 and Column 9, Lines 47-53); and a switchable illuminator configured to provide either a full-field illumination or a spotted illumination to the scene based on an illumination switch command obtained from a control unit (Column 9, Lines 54-64); wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the illumination switch command to the switchable illuminator for switching between the full-field illumination and the spotted illumination provided to the scene (Column 9, Lines 54-64); and the switchable illuminator is arranged adjacent to the time-of-flight sensor (See Figures 1-3).
9: As for Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected for reasons discussed related to Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights