Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
SUMMARY
2. The patent application amendment filed on July 24, 2026, has been received and recorded. In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 24, 2026, claims 1-2, 6-9, and 14 have been maintained of which claim 1 is independent claim. Applicant amended dependent claims 3-5 and 10-13 and cancelled claim 15. Claims 16-20 have been added as new claims of which claims 16 and 19 are independent claims after the Non-Final Office Action. Therefore, claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments in remarks filed July 24, 2026, regarding independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to withdraw the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1) and McCord et al. (US 2020/0309910 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
414
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
421
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs.4-6
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, examiner would like to mention that the features upon which applicant relies(i.e., specific fixed spatial relationship between the plurality of light sources and the same first optical member) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim does not define relationship/functionality of the specific height rather it only recites plurality of light sources are placed at different height from the first optical member. McCord clearly shows the plurality of light sources are placed at different height from the lens 410 as shown in the figures mentioned above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
In response to applicant's argument that “Because the physical implementation of McCord's structure would inherently subvert and render inoperable the primary optical mechanics of Droz, the prior art counter-indicates from the proposed modification”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that “Applicant respectfully brings to the Examiner's attention that the counterpart application containing the similar claim language of Claim 1 has been thoroughly examined and duly prepared to be allowed to register by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO)”, examiner would like to mention that rules, regulation, examining procedure, and claim interpretation of USPTO are different from KAIPO. Each examiner examines each US patent application according to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) of USPTO. Therefore, there is no obligation to accept the office action, either it is an allowance or rejection, of a counterpart office. According to MPEP, the independent claim presented in the current application are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1) and McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1).
Because of the above-mentioned reason, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1) and McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1)(herein after Droz) in view of McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1)(herein after McCord).
Regarding claim 1, Droz teaches a distance measurement camera module(light detection and ranging(LIDAR)sensors, Para-1; system 100, fig.1, Para-35), comprising:
a light emitting unit(transmitter 120, fig.1, Para 42-44); and
a light receiving unit(receiver 122, fig.1, Para-42, 45-46) including an image sensor(camera 108, image sensor 126, fig.1, Para-39, 52-53, 56),
wherein the light emitting unit(120) comprises:
a substrate(Para-81);
a plurality of light sources(light sources 342a-342c, fig.3B) disposed on the substrate(Para-81); and
a first optical member(optical mirror 350, lens 324, fig.3B, Para-80) disposed on the plurality of light sources(342a-342c),
wherein the plurality of light sources(342a-342c) comprises:
a first light source(342a or 342b or 342c) spaced apart from the first optical member(350, 324) on the substrate(Para-81) [at a first height]; and
a second light source(342c or 342a or 342b) spaced apart from the first optical member(350, 324) on the substrate(Para-81) [at a second height different from the first height],
[wherein the first light source is fixedly disposed on the substrate at a position spaced apart from the first optical member at the first height, and
wherein the second light source is fixedly disposed on the substrate at a position spaced apart from the first optical member at the second height].
Nevertheless, Droz is not found to teach expressly the distance measurement camera module, wherein the first light source is fixedly disposed on the substrate at a position spaced apart from the first optical member at the first height, and wherein the second light source is fixedly disposed on the substrate at a position spaced apart from the first optical member at the second height.
However, McCord teaches a mounting configuration for optoelectronic components in LIDAR system, wherein
the first light source(any one of light sources 430, figs.4-6) is fixedly disposed on the substrate(platform 440, 540, 640, figs.4-6) at a position spaced apart from the first optical member(lens 410, figs.4-6) at the first height(figs.5-6), and
wherein the second light source(other one of the light sources 430, figs.4-6)is fixedly disposed on the substrate(platform 440, 540, 640, figs.4-6) at a position spaced apart from the first optical member(lens 410, figs.4-6) at the second height(fig.6).
The prior art, as embodied in the teachings of Droz and McCord, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in that combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Such a combination is desirable as it provides LIDAR system where intensity of a return laser pulse is measured and used to adjust power of subsequent laser pulses from a same emission point, in order to prevent saturation of the detector, improve eye-safety, and/or reduce overall power consumption.
Regarding claim 2, Droz as modified by McCord teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 1, wherein the first height is smaller than the second height(figs.4-6, McCord).
Regarding claim 14, Droz as modified by McCord teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 2, wherein
an output light emitted from the first light source is focused at a first position(fig.3B, Droz), and
wherein an output light emitted from the second light source is focused at a second position different from the first position(fig.3B, Droz).
8. Claims 3-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1) in view of McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1)and further in view of Bonsignore et al. (US 2022/0146250 A1)(herein after Bonsignore).
Regarding claim 3, Droz as modified by McCord teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 2, wherein a first output light emitted from the first light source and transmitted through the first optical member forms light (figs.3A-4, Droz; figs.4-6, McCord) at a position spaced apart from the light emitting unit by a first distance(figs.4-6, McCord), and wherein a second output light transmitted from the second light source and transmitted through the first optical member forms light(figs.3A-4, Droz; figs.4-6, McCord) at a position spaced apart by a second distance(figs.4-6, McCord).
Neither Droz nor McCord teaches expressly the distance measurement camera module, wherein a first output light emitted from the first light source forms a point pattern of light, and wherein a second output light emitted from the second light source a surface pattern of light.
However, Bonsignore teaches a detector with projector for illuminating at least one object, where different kinds of light patterns are formed on an object using laser lights (Para-18: The projector may be configured to project two, three, four, five or more illumination patterns each comprising a plurality of illumination features. The illumination patterns may differ, specifically in one or more of number of illumination features, arrangement of illumination features, shape of illumination features, wavelength of illumination features, intensity of illumination features, opening angle and the like; also Para 19-21).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to use the teaching of Bonsignore into Droz’s disclosure to form point pattern from the first light source and to form surface pattern at a position spaced apart by a second distance from the second light source. Such modification is desirable as it provides an electronic device that reliably determines a position of an object in space, with a low technical effort and with low requirements in terms of technical resources and cost.
Regarding claim 4, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 3, wherein the second distance is shorter than the first distance (figs.4-6, McCord).
Regarding claim 5, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 1, wherein the first optical member includes diffractive optical elements(Para-21, Bonsignore: the projector comprises the at least one tunable laser source and the at least one diffractive optical element(DOE)), and
wherein a number of the diffractive optical elements is less than or equal to a number of the plurality of light sources (Para-21, Bonsignore: the projector may comprise an equal number of tunable laser sources and diffractive optical elements)(for motivation, see the rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 5, wherein the diffractive optical elements include:
a first diffractive optical element disposed on the first light source(Para-21, Bonsignore: the projector comprises the at least one tunable laser source and the at least one diffractive optical element(DOE)); and
a second diffractive optical element disposed on the second light source and spaced apart from the first diffractive optical element(Para-21, Bonsignore: the projector comprises the at least one tunable laser source and the at least one diffractive optical element(DOE))(examiner interprets in a way that Bonsignore teaches equal number of diffractive optical elements and laser light sources, both Droz and McCord teaches plurality of light sources, it is, therefore, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use respective diffractive elements in each of the first light source and the second light source).
Regarding claim 7, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 5, wherein the first optical member includes a first lens (focusing optics 134, fig.1, Para-256, Bonsignore) unit disposed on the diffractive optical elements(DOE 128, fig.1, Para-252, 255, Bonsignore) and includes at least one lens(134, fig.1, Bonsignore).
Regarding claim 8, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore teaches the distance measurement camera module of claim 5, wherein the first optical member includes a first lens unit (focusing optics 134, fig.1, Para-256, Bonsignore) disposed between the plurality of light sources(tunable laser source 126, fig.1, Para-257, Bonsignore) and the diffractive optical elements(DOE 128, fig.1, Para-252, 255-256, Bonsignore) including at least one lens(134, fig.1, Bonsignore)(Para-21, 25, 112, 120, 163, Bonsignore).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claims 1-6, since claim 16 recites all limitations combinedly cited in claims 1-6 with minor change in words and terminology.
9. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1), McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1), Bonsignore et al.(US 2022/0146250 A1)and further in view of KURASHIGE(US 2019/0361395 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore is not found to teach expressly the distance measurement camera module of claim 7, wherein the first lens unit includes: a first-first lens unit disposed at a region corresponding to the first light source; and a first-second lens unit disposed at a region corresponding to the second light source and spaced apart from the first-first lens unit.
However, KURASHIGE teaches an illumination device, wherein the first lens unit includes:
a first-first lens unit(collimation lens 130R or 130G or 130B, fig.4, Para-135) disposed at a region corresponding to the first light source(light sources 110R or 110G or 110B, fig.4, Para-136); and
a first-second lens unit(collimation lens 130B or 130R or 130G, fig.4, Para-135) disposed at a region corresponding to the second light source(light sources 110B or 110R or 110G, fig.4, Para-136) and spaced apart from the first-first lens unit (fig.6).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Droz further with the teaching of KURASHIGE to include the feature in order to provide an illumination device which is capable of projecting a predetermined lighting pattern on a surface to be illuminated, and is capable of displacing the lighting pattern on the surface to be illuminated.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claims 6 and 9, since claim 17 recites all limitations combinedly cited in claims 6 and 9 with minor change in word and terminology.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1), McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1), Bonsignore et al. (US 2022/0146250 A1) and further in view of SAITOH et al.(US 2022/032 6565 A1)(herein after SAITOH).
Regarding claim 10, Droz as modified by McCord and Bonsignore is not found to teach expressly the distance measurement camera module of claim 5, wherein the first optical member includes a liquid crystal layer disposed between the plurality of light sources and the diffractive optical elements.
However, SAITOH teaches an optical scanning device, wherein the first optical member(support 131, liquid crystal diffraction element 121, diffraction element 161, fig.1, Para-32, 34) includes a liquid crystal layer(liquid crystal diffraction element 121 disposed between the plurality of light sources(light source 151, fig.1, Para-32) and the diffractive optical elements (diffraction element 161, fig.1, Para-32, 36).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Droz further with the teaching of SAITOH to include the feature in order to provide an optical scanning device with stable scanning direction by providing predetermined liquid-crystal diffraction element using characteristic of linear expansion coefficient of support unit of liquid-crystal diffraction element.
11. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1) in view of McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1) and further in view of Fukuhisa et al. (US 2006/0023765 A1)(herein after Fukuhisa).
Droz as modified by McCord is not found to teach expressly the distance measurement camera module of claim 2, wherein
Claim 11: a difference between the first height and the second height is in a range of 250µm to 500µm.
Claim 12: a difference between the first height and the second height is in a range of 5% to 40% of the first height.
Claim 13: a difference between the first height and the second height is in a range of 5% to 30% of the second height.
However, Fukuhisa teaches a semiconductor laser having two or more lase diode, wherein
Claim 11: a difference between the first height and the second height is in a range of 250µm to 500µm(Para-89, 129)(it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum range in order to balance the trade-off between sensitivity, resolution, cost, and power consumption. By optimizing for a specific distance/range, system ensure enough signal return (reflectivity) to detect objects reliably without unnecessary power, cost, or hardware complexity. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.(MPEP 2144.05)).
Claim 12: a difference between the first height and the second height is in a range of 5% to 40% of the first height(Para-89, 129).
Claim 13: a difference between the first height and the second height is in a range of 5% to 30% of the second height(Para-89, 129).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified Droz further with the teaching of Fukuhisa to include the feature in order to provide a semiconductor laser which allows reduction of manufacturing costs while degrees of freedom in designing being preserved, even when the semiconductor laser includes two or more laser diode portions formed on a single shared substrate and those laser diode portions have different heights from each other.
12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al.(US 2019/0052844 A1), McCord et al.(US 2020/0309910 A1), Bonsignore et al.(US 2022/0146250 A1) and further in view of Fukuhisa et al. (US 2006/0023765 A1)(herein after Fukuhisa).
For mapping and motivation see the rejection of claim 11 above. Since claim 18 recites identical claim limitations as recited in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 19-20 are allowed.
14. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 19: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, “wherein the first light source is fixedly disposed on the substrate and is spaced apart from the liquid crystal layer by a first height, wherein the second light source is fixedly disposed on the substrate and is spaced apart from the liquid crystal layer by a second height greater than the first height, wherein the liquid crystal layer is configured to control light transmittance by changing an arrangement of liquid crystal molecules in response to applied power, wherein a first output light emitted from the first light source and passing through the liquid crystal layer and the diffractive optical element forms a point pattern of light at a position spaced apart from the light emitting unit by a first distance, and wherein a second output light emitted from the second light source and passing through the liquid crystal layer and the diffractive optical element forms a surface pattern of light at a position spaced apart from the light emitting unit by a second distance shorter than the first distance(figs.14-15 and related texts of the specification submitted on November 13, 2023)” with all other limitations cited in independent claim 19.
Claim 20 is also allowed because of its dependency on the allowed base claim.
Conclusion
15. 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.
Examiner Note
16. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (5712723017. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights