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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 20230280468).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches:
A pattern projector comprising (#740 of Fig. 7, Depth camera assembly):
a laser source configured to emit a laser beam (#305 of Fig. 3, emitter array);
a metasurface disposed on a path of the laser beam (#320 of Fig. 3, beam shaping optics ) and configured to diffract the laser beam onto a projected surface [56], so as to form a pattern on the projected surface (#520 of Fig. 5B, projection pattern); and
a light sensor disposed beside the metasurface and configured to sense the pattern (#743 of Fig. 7, imaging device).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, wherein the metasurface is configured to diffract the laser beam to form a plurality of pattern tiles arranged on the projected surface (#420 of Fig. 4B, tiled illumination), and adjacent pattern tiles overlap each other [63].
Regarding claim 4, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, wherein the laser source comprising a plurality of emitting sections (#515A-D of Fig. 5B, [69]), the metasurface is configured to diffract laser sub-beams from the emitting sections to from a plurality of sets of pattern tiles ([61] states that the tiled illumination of 4B can be achieved using projector 300), and the sets of pattern tiles overlap each other [63].
Regarding claim 5, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 4, wherein the emitting sections are independently driven [61], so that the pattern on the projected surface comprises at least one set of pattern tiles (#420 of Fig. 4B Tiled Illumination).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, wherein the pattern on the projected surface comprises a plurality of dots [73].
Regarding claim 8, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, wherein the laser source, the metasurface, and the light sensor form a structured light sensor [91] or a time-of-flight sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, wherein the laser source is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser or a photonic crystal surface-emitting laser [56].
Regarding claim 10, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, the light sensor is a camera (#743 of Fig. 7, imaging device, [45]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Devlin et al. (US 20220385042).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1, wherein the metasurface is configured to diffract the laser beam to form a plurality of pattern tiles arranged on the projected surface (#420 of Fig. 4B, tiled illumination)
Zhu does not teach, but Devlin does teach:
a plurality of pattern tiles arranged on the projected surface without overlapping each other (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the projector of Zhu to use non overlapping patterns similar to Devlin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the FOV of the system without requiring more lasers.
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1,
Zhu does not teach, but Devlin does teach:
wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of nanopillars standing up on and distributed over a surface [69].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the metasurface of Zhu with pillars similar to Devlin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the metasurface to manipulate the direction, amplitude, and phase of the emitted light. Zhu opens the door for a metasurface to be used, but does not specify how it is implemented. Devlin merely fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 13, Zhu, as modified above, teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 12,
Zhu does not teach, but Devlin does teach:
wherein a height of the nanopillars is less than 800 nanometers [69].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the metasurface of Zhu with pillars similar to Devlin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the metasurface to manipulate the direction, amplitude, and phase of the emitted light. Zhu opens the door for a metasurface to be used, but does not specify how it is implemented. Devlin merely fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 14, Zhu, as modified above, teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 12,
Zhu does not teach, but Devlin does teach:
wherein a pitch of the nanopillars ranges from 300 nanometers to 800 nanometers (Fig. 9, [75]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the metasurface of Zhu with pillars similar to Devlin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the metasurface to manipulate the direction, amplitude, and phase of the emitted light. Zhu opens the door for a metasurface to be used, but does not specify how it is implemented. Devlin merely fills in the gaps.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Zhou et al. (US 20180286063).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1,
Zhu does not teach, but Zhou does teach:
wherein the pattern on the projected surface comprises a plurality of lines (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute modify the depth camera assembly with a fringe pattern similar to Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the system for curved surfaces.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Della Pergola et al. (US 20240393551).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu teaches:
The pattern projector according to claim 1
Zhu does not teach, but Della does teach:
further comprising a lens disposed on a path of the laser beam and between the laser source and the metasurface (#422 of Fig. 4A, microlens array).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emitter array of Zhu with a microlens array similar to Della with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of simplifying design by decoupling design of the emitter array from the design of the MOE (Della: [36]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights