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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 4/12/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6, 7 , 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0228764) in view of Chang et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0252725).
With respect to claim 1, Chen et al disclose: An illumination module for a three dimensional depth-sensing device [ taught by figure 1, figure 3B, paragraph [0047] ], comprising: a light source configured to emit light [ taught by light source (110) ]; a diffuser, configured to receive the light emitted from the light source and emit diffused light [ taught by diffractive optical element (130) ]; a tunable lens, positioned after the diffuser and configured to receive the diffused light and emit tuned light [ taught by liquid crystal lens (122) ], and having at least three statuses [ paragraph [0008] states, “… The invention provides a tunable light projector which uses a tunable liquid crystal panel to switch the light beam between a structured light and a flood light…” ]; thus defining two statuses ] and a control unit, configured to set the tunable lens to one of the at least three statuses, wherein the at least three statuses of the tunable lens correspond to at least three configurations of the tuned light between a dot light and a flood light [ paragraph [0011] states, “…The liquid crystal layer is disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate. At least one of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer is a patterned layer. The first electrode layer and the second electrode are both disposed on one of the first substrate and the second substrate, or are respectively disposed on the first substrate and the second substrate. The driver is electrically connected to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer and configured to change a voltage difference between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, so as to switch the light beam between the structured light and the flood light…” and paragraph [047] states, “…The structured light may include, but are not limited to, multiple light beams that project a light pattern such as a series of lines, circles, dots or the like, to an object 12, wherein the lines, circles, dots or the like may or may not be arranged in an ordered manner…” ; thus, teaching a control unit that creates a first flood light configuration and a second dot light configuration ].
Chen et al does not teach a third configuration.
Figures 3A, 3B and paragraph [0024] of Chang et al teach it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have transmitted two unique dot patterns wherein the first has a higher detection range and the second had higher resolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Chen et al to have generated two unique dot patterns when wanting to either detect a longer range or have higher resolution, as shown by Chang et al – modifying the device of Chen et al to include two dot patterns would have produced a third configuration.
Claim 2 is met by the combination of Chen et al and Chang et al, as applied to claim 1, because Chen et al discloses a collimating lens [ (124); paragraph [0054 ] between the light source (110) and diffractive optical element (130).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, paragraph [0069] of Chen et al states, “…The voltage distribution applied to the electrodes of the liquid crystal lens module, liquid crystal lens cell and to the liquid crystal cell as described above may be controlled by a controller coupled to the electrodes. In some embodiments, the controller is, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a programmable controller, a programmable logic device (PLD), or other similar devices, or a combination of the said devices, which are not particularly limited by the invention…”].
Therefore, the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan in that manual or automatic control were known to a capability of the control elements set forth by paragraph [0069] of Chen et al.
The subject matter of claim 6 is taught by paragraph [0056] of Chen et al, thus rendering claim 6 met by the combination of Chen et al and Chang et al, as applied to claim 1.
In Chen et al: paragraphs [0056], [0065] and [0081] teach the use of polymers and electric actuation (228) in the construction and operation of the liquid crystal lens; thus, rendering claim 7 met by the combination of Chen et al and Chang et al, as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 9, figures 3A and 3B of Chang et al teach dot patterns with different illumination ratios wherein using them is based on a desired range or resolution.
Therefore, the subject matter of claim 9 would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to reasonably expect when applying the teaching of Chant et al to the device of Chen et al.
Paragraph [0048] of Chen et al states, “…The sensor 104 senses the deformation of the light pattern on the object 12 so as to calculate the depths of the surface of the object 12, i.e. distances from points on the object 12 to the sensors 104. Sensor 104 may be connected to a processor (not shown) to calculate the 3-dimensional feature of the object 12…”; thus, rendering claim 10 met by the combination of Chen et al and Chang et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0228764) in view of Chang et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0252725), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gernoth et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0042833).
Gernoth et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used machine learning [ paragraph [0039] ] to have trained [ paragraph [0041] the operating system of an optical device using patterned light [ paragraph [0030] ].
Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying machine learning to a component of a device projecting patterned light, such as the liquid crystal lens of Chen et al, in that the machine learning taught by Gernoth et al improved setting up the device for optimal operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0228764) in view of Chang et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0252725), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Galstian et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0140044).
Figure 12 of Galstian et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used piezoelectric elements to provide control signals to a liquid crystal device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using piezoelectric elements to drive the liquid crystal lens of Chen et al because Galstian et al taught these element were a known means to drive liquid crystal devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights