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 1-7, 9-13 and 16-17 are presented for examination. Claims 8 and 14-15 were canceled in a preliminary amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3250882 (hereinafter Rossi) in view of US PG PUB 20150092258 (hereinafter Herschbach).
Regarding Claim 1, Rossi teaches an illumination apparatus comprising:
a micro lens array (MLA) (FIG. 15 shows L1 and L2 analogous to an MLA with three or more periodically arranged emitters) comprising periodically arranged micro lenses;
an array of periodically arranged first radiation-emitting elements (FIG. 15, LSA S1) disposed at a first distance (FIG. 15, see D2) from the MLA and configured to generate, in cooperation with the MLA, a structured light pattern; and
a plurality of second radiation-emitting elements (FIG. 15, LSA S2) disposed at a second distance (FIG. 15, see D1) from the MLA and arranged to avoid matching any periodicity (FIG. 5 & [0242] show/describe an exemplary pitch distance in which the pitches between microlenses of the MLA are not the same as any of the pitches between light sources of a corresponding light source array {LSA}) of the periodically arranged micro lenses and configured to generate, in cooperation with the MLA, a beam
the first distance being greater than the second distance (FIG. 15 shows D2 being greater than D1), and
wherein the array of periodically arranged first radiation-emitting elements comprises radiation-emitting elements having a first pitch corresponding to an integer N multiple or a 1/N multiple of a second pitch of the MLA (FIG. 5 & [0242] provides an exemplary pitch correspondence outputting high contrast structured light where the MLA pitch P1 is twice that of the emitter pitch Q1).
As shown above, Rossi teaches almost all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically describe a configuration in which the second radiation-emitting elements generate flood illumination.
However, Herschbach at [0021] teaches how a switchable diffuser can be added in front of a VCSEL array in order to switch from outputting structured light to outputting flat illumination outputs (analogous to flood illumination).
Rossi and Herschbach both describe utilizing VCSEL arrays to output structured light. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Rossi to incorporate the switchable diffuser from Herschbach to allow for greater flexibility in light output by allowing for engagement and disengagement of the diffuser. [0028] describes how doing so advantageously allows for the illumination apparatus to be adapted for use in poor atmospheric conditions.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rossi and Herschbach teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second radiation-emitting elements periodically arranged with a third and/or fourth pitch different to a/the second pitch of the MLA in at least a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (FIG. 5 of Rossi teach radiation emitting elements having different pitch distances in orthogonal first and second directions than a corresponding MLA).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Rossi and Herschbach teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 1, wherein the array of periodically arranged first radiation-emitting elements disposed at the first distance are configured to generate a structured light pattern comprising an array of dots or lines on a target ([0311] of Rossi describes the intensity features produced as taking the form of dots).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Rossi and Herschbach teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 1, wherein each radiation-emitting element is a Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Laser (VCSEL) ([0075]-[0076] of Rossi teaches the use of an array of VCSELs).
Regarding Claim 13, The illumination apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second radiation emitting elements are provided as a monolithic device (FIG. 15 shows the plurality of second radiation emitting elements, LSA S2 mounted on a monolithic substrate {[0133] of instant specification describes monolithic device as being elements mounted on a common die / substrate}).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi and Herschbach in view of US PG PUB 20130163627 (hereinafter Seurin).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Rossi and Herschbach teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 1, but is silent as to how the VCSELs would be packaged.
However, Seurin teaches wherein the illumination apparatus comprises a thermally conductive spacer wherein the plurality of second radiation-emitting elements are disposed in heat-transfer relation to the spacer, the spacer defining the second distance (the instant specification teaches the use of both a first spacer 345/445 and a second spacer 365/480 that would contribute in defining the second distance. Examiner’s understanding is that FIG. 5 of the instant application illustrates how first spacer 445 and spacer 480 both contribute to defining the second distance between second radiation element 445 and MLA 435. Multiple elements shown in FIG. 11 of Seurin independently teach the spacer as claimed. In particular, walls of enclosure 1110 are analogous to first spacer 345 and electronic device 1118 are analogous to the second spacer 480).
Seurin and the combination of Rossi and Herschbach both describe operation of VCSEL arrays to generate structured light. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Rossi and Herschbach to include packaging for the illumination apparatus since this combination is silent as to packaging for the apparatus. In particular, the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have applied [0081] of Seurin that suggests the incorporation of multiple VCSEL arrays for high power and/or large area illumination into the configuration depicted in FIG. 11 that shows a single VCEL array and available space atop electronic module 1118 allowing for the second VCSEL array to be closer to the MLA array 1117 than the depicted VCSEL array 1121, as shown in the cross-sectional view in FIG. 11 of Seurin. Placing the second VCSEL array atop the electronic module 1118 allows for short communication lines and high speed communication. Seurin at [0076] describes how attachment of the VCSELs to the same PCB as the electronic module reduces parasitic circuit elements.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Rossi, Herschbach and Seurin teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 2, wherein the spacer is formed from a ceramic material ([0011] of Seurin describes the incorporation of ceramic material into the VCSEL housing and [0043] of Seurin describes ceramic material in the submount, both of which teach or render obvious the incorporation of ceramic material into spacer/sidewalls of enclosure 1110 from FIG. 11 of Seurin)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Rossi, Herschbach and Seurin teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 2, wherein the spacer (1110 of Seurin) comprises an aperture disposed over the array of first radiation-emitting elements that radiation emitted by the first radiation-emitting elements propagates through the aperture towards the MLA.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Rossi, Herschbach and Seurin teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 2, wherein:
the spacer extends over an integrated circuit (IC), such that the plurality of second radiation-emitting elements are disposed over the IC; or the spacer is an IC ([0044] of Seurin teaches that electronic modules in the application, which would include electronic module 1118, being an integrated circuit).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Rossi, Herschbach and Seurin teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 5, wherein the IC is configured to drive the array of periodically arranged first radiation-emitting elements and/or the plurality of second radiation-emitting elements ([0044] & [0079] describe how the electronic module 1118 controls the optical module 1121 {i.e. VCSEL array}).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Rossi, Herschbach and Seurin teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 2 comprising
a substrate (PCB 1120 from FIG. 11 of Seurin),
wherein the spacer provides at least one electrical connection between at least one electrically conductive element formed on the substrate and the plurality of second radiation-emitting elements ([0079] describes spacer/electronic module 1118 as being bonded directly to PCB 1120 and also describes PCB 1120 as being responsible for providing a pathway between the VCSEL arrays and the 1118).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3250882 (hereinafter Rossi) in view of US PG PUB 20150092258 (hereinafter Herschbach) and further in view of US PG PUB 20130163627 (hereinafter Seurin).
Regarding Claim 16, Rossi teaches an arrangement comprising:
an illumination apparatus comprising:
a micro lens array (MLA) (FIG. 15 shows L1 and L2 analogous to an MLA with three or more periodically arranged emitters) comprising periodically arranged micro lenses;
an array of periodically arranged first radiation-emitting elements (FIG. 15, LSA S1) disposed at a first distance (FIG. 15, see D2) from the MLA and configured to generate, in cooperation with the MLA, a structured light pattern; and
a plurality of second radiation-emitting elements (FIG. 15, LSA S2) disposed at a second distance (FIG. 15, see D1) from the MLA and arranged to avoid matching any periodicity of the periodically arranged micro lenses and configured to generate, in cooperation with the MLA, a beam
the first distance being greater than the second distance, and
wherein the array of periodically arranged first radiation-emitting elements comprises radiation-emitting elements having a first pitch corresponding to an integer N multiple or a 1/N multiple of a second pitch of the MLA (FIG. 5 & [0242] provides an exemplary pitch correspondence outputting high contrast structured light where the MLA pitch P1 is twice that of the emitter pitch Q1);
As shown above, Rossi teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically describe a configuration in which the second radiation-emitting elements generate flood illumination.
However, Herschbach at [0021] teaches how a switchable diffuser can be added in front of a VCSEL array in order to switch from outputting structured light to outputting flat illumination outputs (analogous to flood illumination).
Rossi and Herschbach both describe utilizing VCSEL arrays to output structured light. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Rossi to incorporate the switchable diffuser from Herschbach to allow for greater flexibility in light output by allowing for engagement and disengagement of the diffuser. [0028] describes how doing so advantageously allows for the illumination apparatus to be adapted for use in poor atmospheric conditions.
The combination of Rossi and Herschbach is silent as to the packaging of the illumination assembly and so fails to teach:
a housing defining a device, wherein the housing encloses the illumination apparatus,
wherein the illumination apparatus is configured to emit the structured light pattern and the beam for flood illumination through a single aperture or window in the housing.
However, Seurin teaches:
a housing (enclosure 1110 from FIG. 11 of Seurin) defining a device, wherein the housing encloses the illumination apparatus,
wherein the illumination apparatus is configured to emit the structured light pattern and the beam for flood illumination through a single aperture or window in the housing (enclosure 1110 defines an aperture through which the structured light is emitted).
Seurin and the combination of Rossi and Herschbach both describe operation of VCSEL arrays to generate structured light. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of the combination of Rossi and Herschbach to include packaging for the illumination apparatus since this combination is silent as to packaging for the apparatus. In particular, the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have applied [0081] of Seurin that suggests the incorporation of multiple VCSEL arrays for high power and/or large area illumination into the configuration depicted in FIG. 11 that shows a single VCEL array and available space atop electronic module 1118 allowing for the second VCSEL array to be closer to the MLA array 1117 than the depicted VCSEL array 1121, as shown in the cross-sectional view in FIG. 11 of Seurin. Placing the second VCSEL array atop the electronic module 1118 allows for short communication lines and high speed communication.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Rossi, Herschbach and Seurin teaches the arrangement of claim 16, wherein the device is one of: a smartphone; a tablet device; a communications device; a personal computer; a wearable electronic device; an e-lock device; a security device; a biometric identification device; or a gaming device ([0004] of Seurin suggests that the advantages of the disclosed embodiments allow for incorporation of laser illumination sources into consumer electronics, which would at least render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing their incorporation into communications devices given the wide proliferation of communications components in consumer electronics).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi and Herschbach in view of US PG PUB 20190049097 (hereinafter Rossi2).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Rossi and Herschbach teaches the illumination apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second radiation-emitting elements are arranged in a regular periodic array that is rotated relative to the periodically arranged micro lenses of the MLA.
While FIG. 11 of Rossi teaches a rotational offset of a portion of an MLA and this would arguably teach the aforementioned limitations of Claim 10, FIG. 6B of Rossi2 shows more clearly how an illumination apparatus can be configured with a mode selector 10, configured to rotationally offset the MLA relative to the emitter array.
Rossi2 and the combination of Rossi and Herschbach both teach managing illumination patterns emitted by VCSEL arrays. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Rossi and Herschbach with the teachings of Rossi2 in order to add a mode selector allowing for dynamic changes to the structured light. Doing so would beneficially allow for more flexibility, which as described in [0242] of Rossi2, since the structured light can be modified to reduce the contrast of the emitted light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights