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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated September 10th, 2024 and January 29th, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim(s) in United States Patent No. US 12,092,836 B2 in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0058257 A1). At the time applicant made the design, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a light source for the optical element as taught by Lin, for the purpose of having more utility in the device (Note having a light source in the system having a high brightness and light utilization efficiency allows for more applications of the device (See, e.g., paragraph [0004] of Lin)).
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, as modified above claim 1 or 5 of US 12,092,836 B2, in view of Lin, includes all of the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application, as modified above the combination of claims 1 and 2 of US 12,092,836 B2, in view of Lin, include all of the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the instant application, as modified above claim 1 of US 12,092,836 B2, in view of Lin, includes all of the limitations of these claims.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant application, as modified above claim 5 of US 12,092,836 B2, in view of Lin, include all of the limitations of this claim.
Claims 1, 8, 11-15, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of the claims in United States Patent No. US 12,092,836 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because these claims include all of the limitation of various claims and combinations of claims from the cited US Patent above. See the rejections below.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of claim 7, 13, or 18 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of the combination of claims 7 and 11 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of claim 7 or claim 13 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of the combination of claims 13 and 14 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of the combination of claims 13 and 15 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of the combination of claims 13 and 16 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of the combination of claims 13 and 17 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, this claim includes all of the limitations of the combination of claims 7 and 9 of US 12,092,836 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a pincushion shape” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, this claim depends on claim 5 which requires the microstructures to have a polygon shape, which only includes straight lines by definition. Thus the pincushion shape would not be a polygon. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a shape”.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a rectangle shape with four outer boundaries, wherein each of the four outer boundaries inwardly curves toward a center of the microstructure so that the microstructure has a pincushion shape” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, this claim requires both a rectangle shape and a pincushion shape, which is unclear as these are different geometric configurations where one has straight lines and one has curved lines. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a shape”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2007/0223249 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an optical system comprising:
a light source (See, e.g., light sources 14 in Fig. 1); and
an optical element including a body of optical material (See, e.g., light guide 12 in Fig. 1); and a plurality of microstructures along a surface of the body, wherein each microstructure of the plurality of microstructures has a sag profile (See, e.g., features 26 in Fig. 1 and note that a sag profile is an inherent property of a surface of an optical element and no specific value/range is claimed here).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures is randomly distributed along the surface (See, e.g., Fig. 15 which shows an embodiment where the features 26 are randomly distributed).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Teng et al. (US 2010/0033989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teng teaches an optical system comprising:
a light source (See, e.g., light source 24 in Fig. 2); and
an optical element including a body of optical material (See, e.g., light guide plate 22 in Fig. 3) and a plurality of microstructures along a surface of the body, wherein each microstructure of the plurality of microstructures has a sag profile (See, e.g., microstructure assemblies 224 in Fig. 3 and note this limitation is met as a body of optical material necessarily has a sag profile and a range/value has not been claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the sag profile is s(x) = x2/(R+√(R2-(k+1)*x2)), and R is a radius of curvature and k is a conic constant (See, e.g., Fig. 3 and note that this limitation is met insofar as there are no actual values in this equation and thus one could describe the inherent sag profile of the optical element this way).
Regarding claim 4, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein each microstructure has a geometric shape (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows the microstructures to be rectangular in cross section, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the geometric shape is a polygon (Note that a rectangle is a polygon so this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 6, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein each of microstructure of the plurality of microstructures has a pincushion shape (See, e.g., Fig. 3, and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because they have a shape).
Regarding claim 7, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein each microstructure is a rectangle shape with four outer boundaries, wherein each of the four outer boundaries inwardly curves toward a center of the microstructure so that the microstructure has a pincushion shape (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows the cross sectional shape of the microstructures 224 to be a rectangle and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because they have a shape).
Regarding claim 8, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures is periodically distributed (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 9, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the body has two surfaces which are oriented opposite one another (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 10, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein each of the two surfaces includes a plurality of microstructures (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 11, Teng teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein each microstructure of the plurality of microstructures generates a super-cosine intensity profile that provides an irradiance over a field of view (See, e.g., Fig. 4 which shows the lenses focusing light down onto microstructures 224 and then providing irradiance back up through to illuminate a scene or screen, and note that there is necessarily an intensity profile associated with this illumination and it provides irradiation to the scene or screen).
Regarding claim 12, Teng teaches the system set forth above and further teaches wherein the super-cosine intensity profile is expressed by: I(θ) = {(1/(cospθ)’0, |θ| ≤ θ0 |θ| > θ0 where p is a real number representing power (See, e.g., Fig. 3 and note that the microstructures provide irradiance having an intensity profile as shown via light rays in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Teng teaches the system set forth above and further teaches wherein the light source is a diverging light source (See, e.g., paragraph [0030] which explains this).
Regarding claim 17, Teng teaches the system set forth above and further teaches wherein the diverging light source is chosen from a vertical cavity surface emitting laser, a side-emitting laser, and a light emitting diode (See, e.g., paragraph [0030] which explains this).
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 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 2010/0033989 A1) in view of Mathew et al. (US 2013/0329460 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Teng teaches the system set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure of a lens and a sensor.
However, in an analogous optical field of endeavor Mathew teaches the use of a backlight module similar to the backlight module of Teng in an electronic display having a sensor and a lens (See, e.g., Fig. 12 which shows the backlight unit 126, and Fig. 22 which shows a sensor 244 and lens 242).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Teng to be utilized in an electronic display as taught by Mathew for the purpose of providing the device with more functionality (Note that giving the backlight module something to illuminate necessarily results in more functionality than a backlight module without something to illuminate).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 2010/0033989 A1) in view of Grossinger et al. (US 2015/0042680 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Teng teaches an optical system comprising:
a diverging light source (See, e.g., paragraph [0030] which explains this); and
an optical element including a body of optical material (See, e.g., light guide 12 in Fig. 1); and a plurality of microstructures along a surface of the body, wherein each microstructure of the plurality of microstructures has a sag profile (See, e.g., features 26 in Fig. 1 and note that a sag profile is an inherent property of a surface of an optical element and no specific value/range is claimed here).
Teng lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the optical system is a 3D sensing system.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Grossinger teaches the use of an optical element such as Teng’s in a 3D sensing system (See, e.g., paragraph [0043] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the device of Teng in a 3D sensing device, as taught by Grossinger, for the purpose of increasing the usefulness of the device (Note that on its own the device of Teng has a limited scope of use, which would be increased if included in a larger optical system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the irradiance over the field of view is uniform when p = 3.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the value of p is a positive number to provide a higher level of illumination along an outer edge of the field of view relative to a center of the field of view.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the value of p is a negative number to provide a lower level of illumination along an outer edge of the field of view relative to a center of the field of view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights