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 .
Claims 1, 10, and 14 have been amended as per Applicant’s amendment filed on June 24, 2026. Claims 8, 9, 12, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
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 1-7, 10, 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Braune (US 2003/0075675 A1, Published April 24, 2003) in view of Romano (US 2016/0286202 A1, Published September 29, 2016).
As to claim 1, Braune discloses an illumination source adapted to generate a regular pattern (Braune at Fig. 2; ¶ [0036] discloses “In this connection, the respectively associated diffractive optical element 39 or 41 has the effect that the transmitted light is structured in accordance with a light pattern.” ¶ [0013], [0038]) integrated into a portable device (Braune at Fig. 1, optoelectronic sensor 33; ¶ [0034]-[0035]. In the event that it is found that Braune does not disclose the device is portable, then MPEP 2144.04(V) establishes that making portable is obvious)…
the illumination source comprising a. an array of… laser light sources (Braune at Fig. 1, optoelectronic sensor 33 including transmission devices 35, 37; ¶ [0034] discloses “The transmission devices 35, 37 are formed, for example, by laser diodes.”) and
b. a diffractive optical element (Braune at Fig. 1, diffractive optical element 39, 41; ¶ [0034] discloses “The optoelectronic sensor 33 shown in FIG. 1 has two transmission devices 35, 37, with which a respective diffractive optical element 39 or 41 respectively is associated as an optical transmission system.”).
Braune does not disclose the illumination source are semiconductor laser light sources.
Braune does not disclose that the portable device is a mobile phone or tablet computer.
However, Romano does disclose the illumination source are semiconductor laser light sources (Romano at Figs. 1, 6, in particular, VCSEL array 10, 60; ¶ [0079], [0086]).
Romano also discloses that the portable device is a mobile phone or tablet computer (Romano at ¶ [0014], [0072], [0095] discloses “The structured pattern based tracking arrangement may be incorporated into a computer, including a laptop computer, or a tablet or pod device or a mobile communication device such as a mobile telephone, or a game console, or a movement capture device, such as the kind of device used by animators to capture movements by actors, or any kind of device where tracking in three dimensions may provide a useful input”)
Braune discloses a base Illumination device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Romano discloses a comparable illumination device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Braune the teachings of Romano for the predictable result of modulating lasers individually or in groups statically or dynamically to provide and alter a structured light pattern as needed (Romano at ¶ [0017]).
As to claim 2, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 1, wherein the illumination source generates a regular pattern containing at least one point, at least one line, or at least one edge (Braune at Figs. 2, 4, 5, in particular; ¶ [0013], [0038]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 1, wherein the illumination source generates a regular point illumination (Braune at Figs. 1-2; ¶ [0053]).1
As to claim 4, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 3, wherein the illumination source generates light with a wavelength of 780 nm to 3.0 micrometers (Braune at ¶ [0011]).
As to claim 5, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 1, wherein the illumination source generates at least one monochromatic light beam (Braune at ¶ [0036]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 1, wherein the illumination source generates light with a wavelength of 940 nm (Braune at ¶ [0011]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 1, wherein the array of semiconductor laser light sources are arranged behind the diffractive optical element (Braune at Fig. 1).2
As to claim 11, the combination of Braun and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 10, wherein the illumination source generates light with a wavelength of 940 nm (Braune ¶ [0010]. Examiner takes an official notice that near infrared light is well-known in the art).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braune and Romano as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hudman (US 2015/0097947 A1, Published April 9, 2015).
As to claim 7, the combination of Braune and Romano discloses the illumination source according to claim 1.
Braune does not disclose that the illumination source generates a collimated light beam.
However, Hudman does disclose that the illumination source generates a collimated light beam (Hudman at Figs. 7-9, in particular; ¶ [0008] discloses “In accordance with an embodiment, the illumination module includes a VCSEL array, and first and second DOEs. The first DOE collimates each beam of light output by each of the plurality of VCSELs of the VCSEL array. The second DOE receives the collimated beams produced by the first DOE and outputs the structured light.” ¶ [0083]).
The combination of Braune and Romano discloses a base Illumination device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Hudman discloses a comparable illumination device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Braune and Romano the teachings of Hudman for the predictable result of outputting structured light that illuminates a capture area (Hudman at ¶ [0003]-[0004]).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braune (US 2003/0075675 A1, Published April 24, 2003) in view of Niclass (US 2017/0176579 A1, filed December 8, 2016).
As to claim 13, Braune discloses the illumination source according to claim 1.
Braune does not expressly disclose that the illumination source is adapted to generate pulsed illumination.
However, Niclass does disclose that the illumination source is adapted to generate pulsed illumination (Niclass at Figs. 10-11; ¶ [0038], [0074]).
Braune discloses a base Illumination device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Niclass discloses a comparable illumination device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Braune the teachings of Niclass for the predictable result of measuring scene depths over a wide range of FoVs and distances while keeping the optical design and construction simple (Niclass at ¶ [0043]).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Braune (US 2003/0075675 A1, Published April 24, 2003) in view of Romano (US 2016/0286202 A1, Published September 29, 2016) and Send (US 2017/0074652 A1, Published as WO 2015162528 on October 29, 2015).
As to claim 14, Braune discloses a detector comprising
a. an illumination source adapted to generate a regular pattern comprising an array of… laser light sources (Braune at Figs. 1-2, transmission devices 35, 37; ¶ [0013], [0034], [0036], [0038])) and
a diffractive optical element (Braune at Fig. 1, diffractive optical element 39, 41; ¶ [0034]),
b. an array of optical sensors, wherein each optical sensor is configured to generate a sensor signal in response to an illumination of its respective light-sensitive area (Braune at Fig. 1, reception device 45; ¶ [0035] discloses “The sensor 33 further has, separated from the transmission devices 35, 37 by a partition wall 43, a reception device 45 which is formed, for example, by a CCD camera.” In the event that it is found that a CCD device is not an array, then Examiner takes an official notice that CMOS image sensors are well-known in the art to be composed of an array of sensors. Hence, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to simply substitute the CMOS image sensor for the CCD sensor with the known and predictable result of detecting light)…
c. an evaluation device adapted to evaluate the sensor signal (Braune at Fig. 1, control and evaluation device 47; ¶ [0040]).
Braune does not disclose the illumination source are semiconductor laser light sources.
However, Romano does disclose the illumination source are semiconductor laser light sources (Romano at Figs. 1, 6, in particular, VCSEL array 10, 60; ¶ [0079], [0086]).
Braune discloses a base Illumination device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Romano discloses a comparable illumination device which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to Braune the teachings of Romano for the predictable result of modulating lasers individually or in groups statically or dynamically to provide and alter a structured light pattern as needed (Romano at ¶ [0017]).
The combination does not expressly disclose that the distance between the illumination source and the array of optical sensors is less than 0.025 meters.
However, Send does contemplate that the distance between the illumination source and the array of optical sensors is less than 0.025 meters (Send at Fig. 5; ¶ [0152], [0174] discloses “The illumination source can be integrated in particular into the detector, for example a housing of the detector.” MPEP 2144.05(II) establishes that optimization of ranges is obvious).
The combination of Braun and Romano discloses a base optical depth detecting device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Send discloses a comparable optical depth detecting device (Valouch at ¶ [0001], [0010]) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Braun and Romano the teachings of Send for the predictable result of optically detecting a position (Send at ¶ [0022]).
Claims 15, 16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braune, Romano, and Send as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of f Valouch (US 2018/0136319 A1, Published as WO 2016/169871 on October 27, 2016).
As to claim 15, the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses the detector according to claim 14.
Braune does not disclose that the evaluation device is configured to determine at least one longitudinal coordinate from the sensor signal.
However, Valouch does disclose that the evaluation device is configured to determine at least one longitudinal coordinate from the sensor signal (Valouch at ¶ [0035], [0134], [0150])
The combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses a base optical depth detecting device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Valouch discloses a comparable optical depth detecting device (Valouch at ¶ [0001], [0010]) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send the teachings of Valouch for the predictable result of providing an improved spatial detector (Valouch at ¶ [0007]).
As to claim 16, the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses the detector according to claim 15.
Braune does not disclose that the longitudinal coordinate is determined from a quotient signal obtained by dividing two or more sensor signals.
However, Valouch does disclose that the longitudinal coordinate is determined from a quotient signal obtained by dividing two or more sensor signals (Valouch at ¶ [0035], [0134], [0150]).
The combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses a base optical depth detecting device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Valouch discloses a comparable optical depth detecting device (Valouch at ¶ [0001], [0010]) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send the teachings of Valouch for the predictable result of providing an improved spatial detector (Valouch at ¶ [0007]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses the detector according to claim 14.
Braune does not expressly disclose that the detector is applied in a security application.
However, Valouch does disclose that the detector is applied in a security application (Valouch at ¶ [0127]).
The combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses a base optical depth detecting device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Valouch discloses a comparable optical depth detecting device (Valouch at ¶ [0001], [0010]) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send the teachings of Valouch for the predictable result of providing an improved spatial detector (Valouch at ¶ [0007]).
As to claim 20, the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses the detector according to claim 14.
Braune does not disclose that the detector is used to control a mobile phone.
However, Valouch does disclose that the detector is used to control a mobile phone (Valouch at ¶ [0130]).
The combination of Braune, Romano, and Send discloses a base optical depth detecting device upon which the claimed invention is an improvement. Valouch discloses a comparable optical depth detecting device (Valouch at ¶ [0001], [0010]) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify or add to the combination of Braune, Romano, and Send the teachings of Valouch for the predictable result of providing an improved spatial detector (Valouch at ¶ [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 have been considered but they are believed to be addressed above, and therefore, moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 Sanjiv D Patel whose telephone number is (571)270-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Sanjiv D. Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
07/03/2026
1 See also Hudman at Figs. 7-9; ¶ [0006].
2 See also Hudman at Figs. 7B, 8, in particular; ¶ [0083].
Prosecution Insights