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 Amendment
The following addresses Applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 29 June 2026.
Claim 1 was amended; no new claims were added; no claims were cancelled; therefore, Claims 1-9 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Warren fails to disclose amended Claim 1 and cites Warren Fig. 2, 5A, and 5B. However, Warren discloses each and every element of amended Claim 1. The analysis mapping each and every element of amended Claim 1 to Warren is provided in the body of the application below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warren (US 2016/0164261 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Warren discloses an illumination device ([0090] the illumination device described herein) comprising:
a light emitting element including a plurality of first light emission units and a plurality of second light emission units ([0065] The system 200 depicted in FIG. 2 has four independent illumination zones 240-355, each zone independently driven by the driver electronics 230 to control the intensity of illumination in each zone);
a first optical member that emits a plurality of first light emitted from the plurality of first light emission units and a plurality of second light emitted from the plurality of second light emission units in substantially parallel to each other ([0007] (VCSEL) arrays that use integrated micro-lenses for beam shaping… [0078] the micro-lens can decrease the divergence of the light emitted from a single emitter by acting as a collimating lens… [0081] the array will emit a relatively narrow beam… in a direction perpendicular to the device surface);
a second optical member, wherein the plurality of first light and the plurality of second light pass through differing components thereof, and the second optical member shapes a beam shape of at least one of the plurality of first light or the plurality of second light, and emits the plurality of first light and the plurality of second light as light having different beam shapes ([0010] Illuminating arrays can be designed to produce illumination zones covering arbitrary areas of different shapes or aspect ratios… In some cases, a holographic diffuser can be added for additional smoothing of the beam profile [0094] Further eye safety improvements can be made for higher power operation for longer ranges by adding a diffuser 1005 in front of the illuminator/laser 1200 as shown in FIG. 12. The diffuser 1205 also makes the apparent size of the source 1210 larger by the amount the beam has expanded at the location where it intersects the diffuser. Holographic diffusers have the property that they can be used to add a limited amount of increased divergence to the beams without changing the beam direction, so that the capability of the illuminator 1200 to address different regions within the detector field of view is not diminished Examiner Note: As shown in Fig. 12, reproduced below, plurality of the first light and plurality of the second light pass through differing components of the micro lens array 540 and different portions of the same component of the Diffuser 1205); and
a third optical member ([0097] An external optic 1305),
wherein the third optical member is disposed on optical paths of the plurality of first light and the plurality of second light, and an action on the plurality of first light by the third optical member is different from an action on the plurality of second light by the third optical member ([0010] Larger fields of view can be addressed more efficiently by addition of an external optic to increase the angular spread provided by the micro-lenses… [0097] An external optic 1305, which may be a larger aperture device that can change the beam direction and divergence properties for all of the beams at once, may be placed after the micro-lenses 540).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Warren discloses that the plurality of first light emitted from the plurality of first light emission units is light emitted to an irradiation target object in a spot shape independent from each other ([0009] a “smart illumination” system that… can be actively controlled to “track” an area or object of interest… The overall illumination pattern is defined by subdividing the laser array into a number of subarrays that each have one or a combination of micro-lenses with offsets calculated to provide spatially separated (but, in some cases, overlapping) illumination fields from the emitters in the subarray… Each subarray may be independently addressable through the sub-mount so that it can be switched on and off, and the intensity controlled by the system processor), and
the plurality of second light emitted from the plurality of second light emission units is light with which the irradiation target object is irradiated in a substantially uniform manner in a predetermined range by a part of the second light being overlapped on the second light emitted from the second light emission units adjacent ([0012] Some aspects may utilize a “smart illuminator,’ where sub arrays can be controlled via software that incorporates the image processing needed for the sensor application. The software can detect areas of over illumination (resulting in saturation of the imaging sensor) and under illumination (resulting in little signal in the imaging sensor) and adjust the individual zones in the sensor field of view to provide a more uniform signal level across the whole image).
Regarding Claim 4, Warren discloses that the third optical member is an optical member that increases an overlapping range in which the plurality of second light partially overlaps each other ([0097] An external optic 1305, which may be a larger aperture device that can change the beam direction and divergence properties… A negative power optic… can increase the divergence of the beams and increase their off-axis angular direction to cover a larger field of view. [0084] The overlap shown is intentional to give a uniform illumination pattern across the whole field).
Regarding Claim 9, Warren discloses a distance measuring device ([0062] the image processor may obtain information from the image sensor… such as… distance) comprising:
a control unit that controls the illumination device ([0060] The laser array 235 may be controlled through laser driver electronics 230, which may separately communicate with each of multiple sub arrays of laser array 235… The laser driver electronics 230 may determine and provide a level of current to each of the sub arrays of array 235 to control an illumination intensity provided by each sub array);
a light receiving unit that receives reflected light reflected from an irradiation target object ([0061] Imaging sensor 210 may include a lens 215 that may capture image data corresponding to a camera field of view 225); and
a distance measuring unit that calculates a distance from image data obtained by the light receiving unit ([0062] the image processor may obtain information from the image sensor 210, including information defining or specifying the field of view 225 of the image sensor 210, such as by angle, distance, area, or other metrics. In some cases, the information may include a subset of the total field of view 225 that is of particular interest, such as including one or more objects 220, defined by a distance from the image sensor 210, a certain angle range of the field of view 225, etc. In some cases, this information may change and be periodically or constantly sent to the image processor 205, such as in cases of tracking one or more objects 220).
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.
Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (US 2016/0164261 A1) in view of Peng (US 2022/0179147 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Warren is not relied upon as teaching that the third optical member does not act on the plurality of first light and refracts or diffracts the plurality of second light in a predetermined direction
However, Peng teaches that the third optical member does not act on the first plurality of light and refracts or diffracts the second plurality of light ([0037] Gratings of the array of gratings may be configured to diffract light of a first polarization and substantially not to diffract light of a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization) in a predetermined direction ([0032] an array of gratings optically coupled to the lightguide for redirecting portions of the light in the lightguide to propagate perpendicular to the first plane and through pixels of the array of pixels).
Warren and Peng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of visual display and illumination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external optical member 1305 of Warren to include polarization-selective gratings of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to achieve selective light redirection based on polarization to improve optical efficiency. By integrating Peng’s teaching of polarization selective out-coupling gratings into Warren’s multi-zone illumination system, the system can independently control the first and second pluralities such that the optical member remains passive toward light of one polarization while redirecting light of another. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring different illumination zones with orthogonal polarizations would yield the predictable result of providing wide-angle steering for peripheral zones without causing unnecessary diffraction or intensity loss in optimized central zones.
Regarding Claim 5, Warren is not relied upon as teaching that the plurality of first light emitted from the plurality of first light emission units and the plurality of second light emitted from the plurality of second light emission units have different polarization characteristics.
However, Peng teaches that teaching that the plurality of first light emitted from the plurality of first light emission units and the plurality of second light emitted from the plurality of second light emission units have different polarization characteristics ([0031] the polarization of the emitted light may be matched to the polarization transmitted by the pixels of the display panel. In other words, matching the spatial distribution, transmission wavelength, and the transmitted polarization characteristics of the pixels of the display panel enables one to considerably improve the portion of light that is not absorbed or reflected by the display panel on its way to the eyes of the viewer [0059] The active pixelated LC waveplate 534 is configured to switch or tune polarization of the light 508 in a spatially-selective manner).
Warren and Peng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of visual display and illumination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination units of Warren to include the spatially-selective polarization characteristics of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable independent optical control and improve the efficiency of a multi-zone illumination system. By integrating Peng’s teaching of matching “transmitted polarization characteristics” and using “LC polarization rotators” to tune light in a “spatially selective manner” into Warren’s multi array system, the system can assign different polarizations to different light pluralities. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the first light and second light with different polarization characteristics would yield the predictable result of allowing the light pluralities to be independently filtered, redirected, or modulated by downstream optical elements, thereby reducing optical losses and increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the system.
Regarding Claim 6, Warren is not relied upon as teaching that the third optical member is a polarization diffraction element.
However, Peng teaches that the third optical member is a polarization diffraction element ([0037] Gratings of the array of gratings may be configured to diffract light of a first polarization and substantially not to diffract light of a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization).
Warren and Peng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of visual display and illumination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external optical member of Warren to be the polarization diffraction element of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize polarization selective diffraction to steer light pluralities independently for improved optical efficiency. By integrating Peng’s teaching of polarization selective gratings into Warren’s multizone illumination device, the system can utilize a single optical member to perform different functions on different light beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that employing a polarization diffraction element would yield the predictable result of redirecting a second plurality of light (of a first polarization) while allowing a first plurality of light (of a second polarization) to pass through unaffected, thereby achieving the wide field illumination required by Warren while maintaining the integrity of the optimized central light beams.
Regarding Claim 7, Warren is not relied upon as teaching that the third optical member is a liquid crystal element.
However, Peng teaches that the third optical member is a liquid crystal element ([0059] The backlight 504B of FIG. 5B includes a pixelated active liquid crystal (LC) waveplate 534 comprising individually tunable LC polarization rotators 564… The active pixelated LC waveplate 534 is configured to switch or tune polarization of the light 508 in a spatially-selective manner.).
Warren and Peng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of visual display and illumination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external optical member of Warren to include a liquid crystal element as taught by Peng with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide dynamic , spatially selective control over the illumination zones. By integrating Peng’s teaching of an active pixelated LC waveplate or liquid crystal layer into the device, the system can electronically tune or switch the light portions emitted from the various subarrays. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that including a liquid crystal element as the third optical member would yield the predictable result of allowing the device to selectively modulate the intensity or direction of light for specific field of view zones, thereby increasing the functional flexibility and power efficiency of the illumination system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (US 2016/0164261 A1) in view of Mazed (US 11,320,588 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Warren is not relied upon as teaching that the third optical member is metamaterial.
However, Mazed teaches that the third optical member is metamaterial ([Col. 25, ll. 42-44] Furthermore, prisms can be replaced by flat mirrors or a metamaterial surface for beam deflection with minimum loss of output power from the array of pulsed lasers.).
Warren and Mazed are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical illumination and laser beam steering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the external optical member 1305 of Warren to include the metamaterial surface of Mazed with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maximize output power. By integrating Mazed’s teaching of using “metamaterial surface for beam deflection” to replace the prisms, the system can achieve high-angle steering with “minimum loss of output power.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a metamaterial for the diffraction element would yield the predictable result of enabling a more compact, high efficiency illumination device suitable for the power sensitive requirements of distance measuring systems.
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 EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights