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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/23, has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 12/05/23. These drawings are acceptable.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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: “transfer device” in claims 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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“Transfer device” – each of the transfer devices comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of: at least one micro-lens; at least one transmissive window; at least one diffuser; and at least one diffractive optical element, (as disclosed in claims 8, 15).
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of Hamid Muhammed et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,920,920). Hereafter, “Hamid ‘920”.
As to claim 1, Hamid ‘920 claims:
A projector and illumination module configured for scene illumination and pattern projection, wherein the projector and illumination module comprises (claim 1, lines 1-3) at least one array of a plurality of individual emitters and at least one optical system (claim 1, lines 3-5), wherein each of the individual emitters is configured for generating at least one illumination light beam (claim 1, lines 5-6), wherein the at least one optical system comprises at least one array of a plurality of transfer devices (claim 1, lines 6-8), wherein the at least one array of the plurality of transfer devices comprises at least one transfer device for each of the individual emitters (claim 1, lines 8-10), wherein the at least one array of the plurality of transfer devices further comprises at least two groups of transfer devices (claim 1, lines 11-13), wherein the transfer devices of the two groups differ in one or more of their refractive power, their relative position to the respective emitter, their distance to the respective emitter, and their symmetry or a tilt of their symmetry axes with respect to optical axes of the respective emitter (claim 1, lines 13-14, claim 9), wherein the transfer devices of one of the groups are configured for generating at least one illumination pattern in response to illumination light beams im- pinging on said transfer devices, wherein the transfer devices of the other group are con- figured for generating diverging light beams in response to illumination light beams im- pinging on said transfer devices (claim 13, lines 14-19).
As to claim 2, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 2.
As to claim 3, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 2.
As to claim 4, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 4.
As to claim 5, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 5.
As to claim 6, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 1, lines 20-24.
As to claim 7, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 6.
As to claim 8, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 7.
As to claim 9, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 8.
As to claim 10, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 14.
As to claim 11, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 15.
As to claim 12, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 10.
As to claim 13, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 11.
As to claim 14, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 12.
As to claim 15, Hamid ‘920 claims in claim 13.
In regards to claims 16, 17, a method of using the projector and illumination module according to device of claim 1, with the method comprising using the projector and illumination module for a purpose of use, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0115497). Hereafter “Chen”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 2, 15, Chen teaches a projector and illumination module configured for scene illumination and pattern projection, (abstract, line 1; [0003]),
wherein the projector and illumination module comprises at least one array of a plurality of individual emitters and at least one optical system, (figure 3, surface emitting array 300 is not different from a plurality of individual emitters, microlens array 321 is not different from optical system. The following figure 9A-B, VCSEL array is not different from a plurality of individual emitters, lens 931 is not different from optical system), wherein each of the individual emitters is configured for generating at least one illumination light beam, (figure 3, each element of surface emitting array 300 is not different from each of the individual emitters for generating at least one illumination light beam 322. The following figures 9A-B, each element of VCSEL array is not different from each of the individual emitters for generating at least one illumination light beam C, C’),
wherein the at least one optical system comprises at least one array of a plurality of transfer devices, wherein the at least one array of the plurality of transfer devices comprises at least one transfer device for each of the individual emitters, (figure 3, microlens array 321 is not different from optical system, and each microlens element 320 of the microlens array 321 is not different from each transfer device. The following figures 9A-B, lens 931 is not different from optical system, and each element D, D’ of DOE is not different from each transfer device. Please see 112(f) in paragraphs 4-6 above),
wherein the at least one array of the plurality of transfer devices further comprises at least two groups of transfer devices, (the following figure 3, two groups of microlens element 320A and 320B are not different from two groups of transfer devices. The following figures 9A-B, two groups of element D, E, of DOE are not different from two groups of transfer devices),
wherein the transfer devices of the two groups differ in one or more of their refractive power, their relative position to the respective emitter, their distance to the respective emitter, and their symmetry or a tilt of their symmetry axes with respect to optical axes of the respective emitter, (figure 5, it is inherent that each element of diffractive optical element DOE 532 has different relative position and different distance to the respective single emitter element 530; figure 3, the microlens 320C has different symmetry with optical axis XX in compare with the symmetry of microlens 320A and 320B with optical axis XX; Figure 9A, elements D, D’ of DOE 932 differ in its symmetry with element E of DOE 932, compare with optical axis XX of lens 931 of the system),
wherein the transfer devices of one of the groups are configured for generating at least one illumination pattern in response to illumination light beams impinging on said transfer devices, (figures 9A-B, 10, two groups of element D, D’, of DOE 932 are not different from two groups of transfer devices. Because array of stripes 941 of the groups of elements D, D’of transfer devices DOE 932 are different; Therefore, it is inherent that the groups of elements D, E, of DOE 932 are configured for generating at least one illumination pattern),
wherein the transfer devices of the other group are configured for generating diverging light beams in response to illumination light beams impinging on said transfer devices, (abstract, lines 8-12; [0099], lines 6-9; [0100], lines 5-7; [0114], lines 13-25; claims 19, 39).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 5, Chen teaches emission wavelengths of the individual emitters are identical or different, individual emitters associated with the same group of transfer devices have a same specific emission wavelength, ([0052]).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Chen teaches the at least two groups of transfer devices are arranged in at least one pattern, wherein the at least one pattern is a line pattern or a checker-board pattern (figures 5, elements 534, 536; Figure 9A; Figure 10).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, 11, Chen teaches each of the transfer devices comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of: at least one micro-lens; at least one transmissive window; at least one diffuser; and at least one diffractive optical element, (figure 3, microlens 320; figure 5, DOE 532; Figure 7, DOE 732; Figure 9A, DOE 932; Figure 10, DOE 1032).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Chen teaches at least one camera module comprising at least one image sensor and at least one read-out and image processing device, ([0057, 0063]; [0107], lines 19-25).
[AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: textbox (320C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (320A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (320B)]
PNG
media_image1.png
407
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C’)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: textbox (D’)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
380
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Chen teaches at least one camera module is configured for imaging at least one 2D-image of at least one object illuminated by the diverging light beams, ([0057, 0063]; [0107], lines 19-25).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Chen teaches determining depth information by one or more of structured light, triangulation, Time of Flight (ToF), and beam profile analysis using the projected illumination pattern, ([0058]; [0107], lines 19-25).
In regards to claims 16, 17, a method of using the projector and illumination module according to device of claim 1, with the method comprising using the projector and illumination module for a purpose of use, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 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.
13. 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 of this title, 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.
14. Claim(s) 3, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0115497) in view of Munoz (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0157725). Hereafter “Chen”, “Munoz”.
Regarding Claim 3, 10, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for emitting light beams at a wavelength range from 800 to 1000 nm. Munoz teaches light beams at a wavelength range from 800 to 1000 nm, or wavelength of 940 nm. ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen by having wavelength range from 800 to 1000 nm in order to implement inspection system efficiently, ([0025]).
15. Claim(s) 6, 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0115497) in view of Chng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0116517). Hereafter “Chen”, “Chng”.
Regarding Claims 6, 7, Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for brightness of the diverging light beams and the at least one illumination pattern are individually controllable, wherein emission power of the individual emitters associated with the same group of transfer devices is controllable and adjustable separately. Munoz teaches brightness of the light beams and the at least one illumination pattern are individually controllable, wherein emission power of the individual emitters associated with the same group of transfer devices is controllable and adjustable separately, ([0124, 0125]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Chen by having brightness, illumination, emission power are controllable and adjustable separately in order to implement inspection system efficiently, ([0124, 0125]).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 15, 2024
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877