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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed December 4, 2025. Claim 1 and 3-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the argument that the objective technical problem to be solved is providing a detector allowing for high power of the laser source and eye safety and one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to introduce eye safety into the active depth sensing systems alternating emissions of different distributions (Applicant’s Arguments, page 7), Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., detector allowing high power of a laser source and eye safety) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Since, this feature is not in the claim and Nash reads on the limitations of claim sans the newly added limitation of claim 2 in the amendment filed on December 4, 2025, then Nash reads on the claim language (see Office Action dated October 2, 2025). Second, Nash in paragraph 91 notes the laser sources are within the guidelines for eye safety, allowing for other opportunities to reduce intensity when dealing with depth measurement in order to ensure the system falls within eye safety regulations without hindering the technical effect of Nash. From these arguments the rejections in view of Nash remain proper.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments that the combination of Nash and Miki lack sufficient motivation to be combinable (Applicant’s Arguments, page 7), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Nash teaches a detector that determines a position of an object including (fig. 1-4, paragraph 52) at least one projector (102) for illuminating the object (106A and 106B) with at least one illumination pattern (104) (paragraph 53, distribution of light points), wherein the illumination pattern (104) comprises a plurality of illumination features (106A and 106B) (paragraph 52-54), wherein the projector (102) comprises at least one array of pulsed light emitters (paragraph 54, 93, 97, 99 and 101), wherein each of the pulsed light emitters is configured for emitting at least one light beam (paragraph 54, 93, 97, 99 and 101, see fig. 1, 2 and 4) and Miki teaches wherein an illumination pattern (fig. 11) comprises at least two areas having different densities of the illumination features (see fig. 11, there is the more concentrated pattern/high density and the uniform pattern/low density), wherein one of the areas has a lower density of the illumination features than the other one (see fig. 11, there is the more concentrated pattern/high density and the uniform pattern/low density) in a detector and method for determining a position of at least one object and recognizing the object (fig. 11, paragraphs 4, 130 and 232-240). One of ordinary skill in the art would have included two different regions with different densities similar to Miki (identifying/recognizing objects) with the pattern of Nash (identifying/recognizing objects) in order to more accurately track an object at different distances/depths providing for higher quality position/depth measurements. There is no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine these references to form a detector to more accurately identify an object while measuring the distance/depth/position of the object using two different light patterns.
From these above arguments the combination of Nash and Miki remain proper and rejection stands for claims 1 and 3-17.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (US 20210201519) in view of Miki et al. (US 20190195991).
Re claims 1 and 14: Nash teaches a detector and method for determining a position of at least one object (fig. 1-4, paragraph 52), the detector and method comprising: at least one projector (102) for illuminating the object (106A and 106B) with at least one illumination pattern (104) (paragraph 53, distribution of light points), wherein the illumination pattern (104) comprises a plurality of illumination features (106A and 106B) (paragraph 52-54), wherein the projector (102) comprises at least one array of pulsed light emitters (paragraph 54, 93, 97, 99 and 101), wherein each of the pulsed light emitters is configured for emitting at least one light beam (paragraph 54, 93, 97, 99 and 101, see fig. 1, 2 and 4); at least one camera (108, paragraph 57 and 58), wherein the camera (108) comprises at least one sensor element (132) having a matrix of optical sensors (paragraph 57 and 58), the optical sensors (paragraph 57 and 58) each having a light-sensitive area (paragraph 57 and 58, photodiodes have a light sensitive area), wherein each optical sensor (paragraph 57 and 58) is designed to generate at least one sensor signal in response to an illumination of its respective light-sensitive area by a reflection light beam propagating from the object (106A and 106B) to the camera (108) (paragraph 57, fig. 1 and 2), wherein the camera (108) is configured for imaging at least one reflection image comprising a plurality of reflection features (106A and 106B) (paragraph 56-64, fig. 1 and 2); at least one control unit (310) configured for controlling emission of each of the pulsed light emitters (paragraph 54, 93, 97, 99 and 101), wherein the controlling of the emission comprises controlling at least one pulse parameter (paragraph 54, 81 93, 97, 99 and 101, fig. 1-3); and at least one evaluation device (312/304) configured for determining the position of the object (106A and 106B) by evaluating the reflection image (see fig. 1-4, paragraph 52 and 86), but does not specifically teach wherein the illumination pattern comprises at least two areas having different densities of the illumination features, wherein one of the areas has a lower density of the illumination features than the other one. Miki teaches wherein an illumination pattern (fig. 11) comprises at least two areas having different densities of the illumination features (see fig. 11, there is the more concentrated pattern/high density and the uniform pattern/low density), wherein one of the areas has a lower density of the illumination features than the other one (see fig. 11, there is the more concentrated pattern/high density and the uniform pattern/low density). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have two different regions with different densities similar to Miki with the pattern of Nash in order to more accurately track an object providing for higher quality position/depth measurements.
Re claim 5: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the pulse parameter comprises at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of: pulse width, pulse shape, beginning of pulse, end of pulse, pulse period, repetition rate, energy per pulse, radiant flux, radiant exposure, and radiant intensity (Nash, paragraph 93 and 97).
Re claim 6: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the control unit is configured for controlling exposure times of the light emitters such that the light emitters emit their light beams with high intensity of emission and long break times, wherein the exposure times have microsecond timescales (Nash, paragraph 82, 92 and 93, laser is at rest reducing overheating).
Re claim 7: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the control unit is configured for synchronizing the imaging of the camera and the emission of the pulsed light emitters (Nash, paragraph 81 and 97).
Re claim 8: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the evaluation device is configured for determining the position of the object by one or more of a beam profile analysis technique, at least one triangulation method (Nash, paragraph 61).
Re claim 10: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein each of the emitter is and/or comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of at least one laser source, at least one double heterostructure laser, at least one external cavity laser, at least one separate confinement heterostructure laser, at least one quantum cascade laser, at least one distributed Bragg reflector laser, at least one polariton laser, at least one hybrid silicon laser, at least one extended cavity diode laser, at least one quantum dot laser, at least one volume Bragg grating laser, at least one Indium Arsenide laser, at least one Gallium Arsenide laser, at least one transistor laser, at least one diode pumped laser, at least one distributed feedback lasers, at least one quantum well laser, at least one interband cascade laser, at least one semiconductor ring laser, at least one vertical cavity surface-emitting laser; and at least one non-laser light source (paragraph 54, VCSEL).
Re claim 11: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the camera comprises at least one pixelated camera chip, wherein the camera comprises at least one CCD chip and/or at least one CMOS chip (Nash, paragraph 59).
Re claim 12: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the camera is or comprises at least one near infrared camera (Nash, paragraph 55).
Re claim 13: Nash as modified by Miki teaches a mobile device configured for determining a position of at least one object, wherein the mobile device comprises at least one detector claim 1, wherein the mobile device is one or more of a mobile communication device, a tablet computer, or a portable computer (Nash, paragraph 78).
Re claim 15: Nash as modified by Miki teaches a method of using the detector according to claim 1, the method comprising using the detector for a purpose; selected from the group consisting of a position measurement in traffic technology; an entertainment application; a security application; a surveillance application; a safety application; a human-machine interface application; a logistics application; a tracking application; an outdoor application; a mobile application; a communication application; a photography application; a machine vision application; a robotics application; a quality control application; a manufacturing application; and an automotive application (Nash, paragraph 52 and 78).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (US 20210201519) in view of Miki et al. (US 20190195991) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bresch et al. (US 20140253709).
Re claim 3: Nash as modified by Miki teaches wherein an illumination pattern (Miki, fig. 11) comprises at least two areas having different densities of the illumination features (Miki, see fig. 11, there is the more concentrated pattern/high density and the uniform pattern/low density), wherein one of the areas has a lower density of the illumination features than the other one (Miki, see fig. 11, there is the more concentrated pattern/high density and the uniform pattern/low density), but does not specifically teach wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the projector such that the area with the lower density of the illumination features is projected to a predefined area of the object. Bresch teaches wherein a control unit is configured for controlling a projector such that an area with a lower density of illumination features is projected to a predefined area of an object (paragraph 91, fig. 8, the projector is guided toward the cheek with higher intensity/high density/concentration, so the eye area has low density/concentration/intensity of light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to illuminate the eye with a lower resolution of Nash as modified by Niki similar to Bresch in order to reduce the illumination in the eye region providing for less damage to the eye with stronger illumination while maintaining proper illumination for tracking, depth/distance and other measurements.
Re claim 4: Nash as modified by Miki and Bresch teaches the detector, wherein the object is a human face (Bresch, see fig. 8, paragraph 91), wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the projector such that the area with the lower density is projected to an eye area of the human face (Bresch, paragraph 91, fig. 8, the projector is guided toward the cheek with higher intensity/high density/concentration, so the eye area has low density/concentration/intensity of light).
Claim(s) 9, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (US 20210201519) in view of Miki et al. (US 20190195991) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonsignore et al. (WO 2020169727).
Re claim 9: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein the evaluation device is configured for determining the position of the object by one or more of a beam profile analysis technique, at least one triangulation method (Nash, paragraph 61), but does not specifically teach wherein the evaluation device is configured for determining a longitudinal coordinate for each of the reflection features by using a beam profile analysis technique comprising analysis of a beam profile of the reflection feature, wherein the analysis of the beam profile comprises determining at least one first area and at least one second area of the beam profile, wherein the evaluation device is configured for deriving a combined signal Q by one or more of dividing the first area and the second area, dividing multiples of the first area and the second area, dividing linear combinations of the first area and the second area, wherein the evaluation device is configured for using at least one predetermined relationship between the combined signal Q and the longitudinal coordinate for determining the longitudinal coordinate. Bonsignore teaches wherein the evaluation device is configured for determining a longitudinal coordinate for each of the reflection features by using a beam profile analysis technique comprising analysis of a beam profile of the reflection feature, wherein the analysis of the beam profile comprises determining at least one first area and at least one second area of the beam profile, wherein the evaluation device is configured for deriving a combined signal Q by one or more of dividing the first area and the second area, dividing multiples of the first area and the second area, dividing linear combinations of the first area and the second area, wherein the evaluation device is configured for using at least one predetermined relationship between the combined signal Q and the longitudinal coordinate for determining the longitudinal coordinate (abstract, page 2, lines 17-33, page 16, line 31-39, page 17, lines 1-40 and page 18, lines 1-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine the longitudinal coordinate similar to Bonsignore with the device of Nash as modified by Miki in order to accurately determine the position of the object in a depth range providing for higher quality positional information on the object.
Re claims 16 and 17: Nash as modified by Miki teaches the detector, wherein at least one laser source is at least VCSEL (Nash, paragraph 54, VCSEL), but does not specifically teach wherein at least one laser source is at least one semi-conductor laser and wherein at least one non-laser light source is at least one LED or at least one light bulb. Bonsignore teaches wherein at least one laser source is at least one semi-conductor laser or wherein at least one non-laser light source is at least one LED or at least one light bulb (page 6, lines 20-43, page 36, lines 31-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the laser source be a semiconductor laser or the non-laser source be a bulb or LED similar to Bonsignore in order to illuminate the region in a desired way without diverting from the function of the device in Nash as modified by Miki providing for a light source that outputs a pattern.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878