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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 5, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to 112b rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks page 9, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kolste does not teach the diverging beam because in FIG. 1A of Kolste, the incident light having a large divergence angle becomes smaller after the incident light passes through the first surface 25. Therefore, the incident light converges, and not diverges by transmitting through the first surface 25.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. A large divergence angle becoming smaller does not necessarily mean that the light is now converging. Fig. 1A clearly shows that light from surface 25 is still diverging even if the angle is smaller. The claim limitation as written does not require the divergence angle to become larger after being transmitted by the light-transmissive portion.
Further, the applicant points to Kolste Fig. 1b described in paragraph [0025] which recites that the beam 40 is converging after leaving first surface. However, this embodiment was not relied upon in the rejection. This is an alternate embodiment where element 20 is modified to element 22 in order to converge the beam 40 to perform a further optical function, similar to element 37 that converges beam 40 in Fig. 1a. Thus, it appears that the element 20 must be modified to converge the beam, so without modification, it would not converge the beam.
Even if Kolste is silent as to the light-transmissive portion to emit a diverging light beam to outside of the second surface, the light beam only begins to converge after being incident on additional optical element 37 which is used for “performing further optical functions on the application beam 40” ([0022]). It has been held that deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. IIA. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to remove the optical element 37 so that the light beam continues to diverge outside the second surface in order to effectively and accurately perform further optical functions that require diverging light.
Thus, the rejections of claims 1-13 have been maintained.
New claims 14-16 and 19 have been rejected and allowable subject matter has been identified in new claims 17 and 18.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the light-transmissive portion comprises a plurality of microlenses,” however, it is unclear to the examiner how the light-transmissive portion can include both a transmissive diffractive optical element (DOE) and comprise a plurality of microlenses. The applicant cites paragraph [0084] and Fig. 8A and 8D to support this new claim. It would appear from this portion of the specification and figures that the light transmissive portion includes either multiple microlenses in FIG. 8A and 8D or a diverging structure in Fig. 8B and 8E or a DOE in Fig. 8C and 8F. There does not appear to be and embodiment that includes both a DOE and a plurality of microlenses. The examiner does note that paragraph [0109] recites "light-transmissive portion 121 d according to the present embodiment includes the transmissive DOE, the light-transmissive portion may include any optical component other than the reflective DOE, such as microlenses…" which relates to Fig. 12A which does not appear to use microlenses like the 121d in Fig. 8D. However, it is unclear if the underlined portion was a typographical error from the similar paragraph [0100]. Further, it is unclear how the plurality of microlenses and transmissive DOE would function together as they appear to be alternatives that perform the same function. For the purposes of examination, a plurality of microlenses is considered to be an alternative to the transmissive diffractive optical element (DOE). Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-6, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20020150341A1 by Kolste (previously cited in conclusion of office action mailed 03/19/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kolste teaches An optical element comprising (at least Fig. 1A):
a first surface (first surface 25; [0021]) and
a second surface facing the first surface (second surface 35 appears to be mislabeled as 33 in Fig. 1A; [0022] "surface 35 opposite the diffractive element");
a light-transmissive portion to transmit and diverge a light beam incident on the light- transmissive portion from outside of the first surface to emit a light beam to outside of the second surface ([0022]"diffractive element 20 transmits a majority of the beam into the zeroth or undiffracted order to form an application beam 40"; Fig. 1A shows light transmitted through first surface 25 and emitted through surface 35; see annotated figure below),
a light-deflecting portion to deflect a light beam incident on the first surface from the outside of the first surface (Fig. 1b; [0022] "In some embodiments, up to 50% of the light may be deflected into higher orders to form the monitor beam"), in a direction different from a direction of specular reflection on the first surface outside the first surface (Fig. 1 shows beam 45 in a different direction than beam 40; see annotated figure below), and
the light-transmissive portion including a transmissive diffractive optical element (DOE) ([0022] part of diffractive element 20 transmits and is this a transmissive DOE), and the light-deflecting portion including a reflective DOE ([0022] part of diffractive element 20 reflects and is thus a reflective DOE), with the transmissive DOE and the reflective DOE being on a same plane (both are on the same plane since they are both part of diffractive element 20; also, the examiner notes that there are an infinite number of possible planes).
Kolste is silent as to the light-transmissive portion to emit a diverging light beam to outside of the second surface. However, the light beam transmitted through the first surface 25 is shown to diverge in Fig. 1A. The light beam only begins to converge after being incident on additional optical element 37 which is used for “performing further optical functions on the application beam 40” ([0022]). It has been held that deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. II A. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to remove the optical element 37 so that the light beam continues to diverge outside the second surface in order to effectively and accurately perform further optical functions that require diverging light.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the light-deflecting portion deflects a part of the light beam incident on the light-deflecting portion by at least one of diffraction (element 20 is a diffractive optical element [0022]), diffusion, and refraction.
Regarding claim 3, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion diverges a part of the light beam incident on the light-transmissive portion by at least one of diffraction (element 20 is a diffractive optical element [0022]), diffusion, and refraction.
Regarding claim 4, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion is included in at least one of the first surface (Fig. 1A shows light-transmissive portion of element 20 on first surface 25) and the second surface, and wherein the light-deflecting portion is included in at least one of the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 1A shows light-deflecting portion of element 20 on first surface 25; [0021] “The light beam 15 impinges upon a diffractive element 20, preferably on a first surface 25 of a substrate 30”).
Regarding claim 5, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, and further teaches an optical device comprising:
the optical element according to claim 1 (see above);
a light source to emit light to the optical element (light emitting device 10; [0021]); and
a photosensor to detect the light emitted from the light source and deflected by the light- deflecting portion (detector/monitor 50; [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical device according to claim 5, and further teaches wherein the light source is any one of a surface-emitting laser, an edge-emitting laser, and a light-emitting diode ([0021] “device 10, e.g., a VCSEL or a light emitting diode”).
Regarding claim 13, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the light-transmissive portion is disposed in: an area adjacent to the light-deflecting portion in a first direction (referring to the annotated Fig. 1A above; diffractive element 20 would be a 3D element and thus have a volume; therefore the first direction would be horizontal); and an area adjacent to the light-deflecting portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (the second direction would be vertical; see also annotated Kropp Fig. 2 below with reference to claim 8).
Regarding claim 15, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, and further teaches wherein: the reflective DOE includes a blazed structure having a stepped grating (the diffractive element is an eight level blazed grating which transmits 90% of light and reflects 2% to form the monitor beam; [0023]).
Claims 7-10, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolste as modified above in view of Kropp (US5997185A; previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical device according to claim 5, and Kolste is silent as to wherein the light source is a surface-emitting laser including multiple light-emitting elements, and wherein the multiple light-emitting elements include: a first light emitter to emit light to be transmitted through the light-transmissive portion; and a second light emitter to emit light to be deflected by the light-deflecting portion.
However, Kolste teaches in a separate embodiment wherein the light source is a surface-emitting laser including multiple light-emitting elements (Fig. 6; [0038] “a configuration for monitoring an array of VCSELs is shown in FIG. 6”), and that while typically the entire beam is to be used, if only part of the beam is used, the diffractive element may create the monitor beam only from the portion of the beam to be used in the application. For example, if coupling the light to a fiber, only the portion of the beam which will be delivered to the core region of the fiber may be monitored ([0040]).
Further, Kropp does address this limitation. Kolste and Kropp are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical monitoring systems.
Kropp teaches to wherein the light source is a surface-emitting laser including multiple light-emitting elements (Fig. 2; col 2 lines 23-32 “active surface has a plurality of lasers”; col 5 lines 37-40 “a laser diode array 21, preferably with a plurality of VCSEL diodes”) and
wherein the multiple light-emitting elements include:
a first light emitter to emit light to be transmitted through the light-transmissive portion (Fig. 2 laser diode 21b; col 5 lines 47- 50 “Radiation 25b to 25n emitted by the laser diodes 21b to 21n is collimated or focused by one lens 30b to 30n in each case” where the lens acts as the light-transmissive portion); and
a second light emitter to emit light to be deflected by the light-deflecting portion (Fig. 2 laser diode 21a emits radiation 25a which is deflected by depression walls 28; col 6 lines 3-6).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use individual light sources to create separate light paths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kolste to incorporate a surface-emitting laser including multiple light-emitting elements, and wherein the multiple light-emitting elements include: a first light emitter to emit light to be transmitted through the light-transmissive portion; and a second light emitter to emit light to be deflected by the light-deflecting portion as suggested by the second embodiment of Kolste and Kropp in order to allow the system to both inject light into multiple fibers vs one while being able to monitor all of said sources simultaneously for accuracy in injection (Kropp col. 5, ll. 47-51).
Regarding claim 8, Kolste modified by Kropp teach the optical device according to claim 7, and Kolste is silent as to further comprising: a first group of first light emitters including the first light emitter and a second group of second light emitters including the second light emitter, wherein the first group of first light emitters is disposed in: an area adjacent to the second group of second light emitters in a first direction and an area adjacent to the second group of second light emitters in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Kropp does address this limitation.
Kropp further teaches comprising (see annotated Kropp Fig. 2 below): a first group of first light emitters including the first light emitter (first group is transmissive; see below) and a second group of second light emitters including the second light emitter (second group is deflective; see below), wherein the first group of first light emitters is disposed in: an area adjacent to the second group of second light emitters in a first direction (horizontal direction) and an area adjacent to the second group of second light emitters in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (vertical direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, even though Kropp does not teach that the second group has multiple light emitters, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a multiple light sources to create a redundancy to reduce error.
Thus, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kolste to include a first group of first light emitters including the first light emitter and a second group of second light emitters including the second light emitter; wherein the first group of first light emitters is disposed in: an area adjacent to the second group of second light emitters in a first direction and an area adjacent to the second group of second light emitters in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as suggested by Kropp in order to efficiently arrange the light sources to decrease error.
Regarding claim 9, Kolste modified by Kropp teach the optical device according to claim 7, Kolste is silent as to wherein the second light emitter includes a second-first light emitter and a second- second light emitter,
wherein the light-deflecting portion includes a first light-deflecting portion and a second light-deflecting portion,
wherein the first light-deflecting portion deflects a part of incident light emitted from the second-first light emitter, and the second light-deflecting portion deflects a part of incident light emitted from the second-second light emitter, and
wherein the photosensor detects each of the light deflected by the first light- deflecting portion and the light deflected by the second light-deflecting portion.
However, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. The second-first light emitter and a second- second light emitter perform the same function. The first light-deflecting portion and second light-deflecting portion perform the same function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kolste to include wherein the second light emitter includes a second-first light emitter and a second- second light emitter, wherein the light-deflecting portion includes a first light-deflecting portion and a second light-deflecting portion, wherein the first light-deflecting portion deflects a part of incident light emitted from the second-first light emitter, and the second light-deflecting portion deflects a part of incident light emitted from the second-second light emitter, and wherein the photosensor detects each of the light deflected by the first light- deflecting portion and the light deflected by the second light-deflecting portion in order to improve measurement accuracy by creating redundancy.
Regarding claim 10, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical device according to claim 5, and Kolste is silent as to
a driver to drive the light source; and
circuitry to:
obtain an output from the photosensor; and
control the driver,
wherein the circuitry controls the driver to stop emitting light in a case that an output from the photosensor is below a threshold value.
However, Kolste does teach monitor 50, e.g., a photodetector, measures the power of the monitor beam 45 and the measured power is then used to control the operation of the light emitting device 10 in a known manner ([0022]).
Further, Kropp does address this limitation. Kolste and Kropp are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical monitoring systems.
Kropp teaches a driver to drive the light source (col 5 line 53 “driver current of all of the laser diodes 21a to 21n”); and
circuitry (col 4 lines 60-65) regulating electronics) to:
obtain an output from the photosensor (monitor diode 22); and
control the driver (driver current),
wherein the circuitry controls the driver to stop emitting light in a case that an output from the photosensor is below a threshold value (col 5 lines 53-57 the driver current of the lasers is regulated using the intensity of laser diode 21a which is monitored by monitor diode 22; regulating the laser current would include stopping the current if it was below a threshold value).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the output of a sensor relating to a threshold value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kolste to incorporate a driver to drive the light source; and circuitry to: obtain an output from the photosensor; and control the driver, wherein the circuitry controls the driver to stop emitting light in a case that an output from the photosensor is below a threshold value as suggested by Kropp in order to improve energy efficiency and decrease feedback from the light sources (Kropp col 1 lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 16, Kolste modified by Kropp teach the optical device according to claim 7, Kolste is silent as to wherein: the second light emitter is disposed within an area defined by the first light emitter.
However, Kropp does address this limitation.
Kropp teaches the second light emitter (21a) within an area defined by first light emitter (21b) since first light emitter (21b) defines at least one side of the area in which the second light emitter (21a) is located (see Fig. 2). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kolste to rearrange the second light emitter such that is it disposed within an area defined by the first light emitter as suggested by Kropp in order to efficiently arrange the light sources to decrease error.
Regarding claim 19, Kolste modified by Kropp teach the optical device according to claim 10, and although Kolste and Kropp does not explicitly teach wherein: the threshold value is between approximately 10% and 50% of a value corresponding to an output from the photosensor during a regular operation mode, Kolste does teach monitor 50, e.g., a photodetector, measures the power of the monitor beam 45 and the measured power is then used to control the operation of the light emitting device 10 in a known manner ([0022]) and Kropp further teaches that a photocurrent of the monitor element is used to regulate a driver current of the transmit element (col 4 lines 59-61). As the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kolste such that the threshold value is between approximately 10% and 50% of a value corresponding to an output from the photosensor during a regular operation mode in order to efficiently control the operation of the light emitting device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolste in view of Kubacki (US20200319321A1; previously cited)
Regarding claim 11, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical device according to claim 5, and Kolste is silent as to further a distance measurement apparatus comprising:
the optical device according to claim 5 to emit light to an object;
a photosensor to receive light reflected from the object; and
processing circuitry to obtain a distance to the object based on the light emitted to the object and the light received from the object.
However, Kubacki does address this limitation. Kolste and Kubacki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical monitoring.
Kubacki teaches a distance measurement apparatus (at least Fig. 9) comprising:
the optical device according to claim 5 to emit light to an object (Fig. 9; light is emitted to smudge 130 which is the object [0045]);
a photosensor to receive light reflected from the object (Fig. 9 TOF sensor 108; [0028]) and
processing circuitry to obtain a distance to the object based on the light emitted to the object and the light received from the object ([0026] “TOF sensor 108 are mounted on a first side of a printed circuit board “ [0029] “operable to resolve distance based on the known speed of light by measuring the time-of-flight of a light signal between the sensor and the subject for each point of an object”; “circuitry in the TOF sensor”).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a monitoring optical device as part of a distance measuring apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kolste to include a distance measurement apparatus comprising: the optical device according to claim 5 to emit light to an object; a photosensor to receive light reflected from the object; and processing circuitry to obtain a distance to the object based on the light emitted to the object and the light received from the object as suggested by Kubacki in order to detect a distance with increased accuracy from the monitoring of the light.
Regarding claim 12, Kolste modified by Kubacki teaches the distance measurement apparatus of claim 11, and Kolste is silent as to a mobile object comprising the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 11.
However, Kubacki further teaches a mobile object comprising the distance measurement apparatus according to claim 11 ([0003]-[0006] the distance measurement apparatus would be part of a handheld, mobile computing device such as a smart phone).
It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a distance measurement apparatus in a mobile device to improve accuracy of various measurements performed by the mobile device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolste in view of US20190296522 by Johnson (cited in IDS dated 06/23/2025).
Regarding claim 14, Kolste as modified above teaches the optical element of claim 1, but is silent as to wherein: the light-transmissive portion comprises a plurality of microlenses.
However, Johnson does address this limitation. Kolste and Johnson are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical monitoring.
Johnson teaches wherein: the light-transmissive portion comprises a plurality of microlenses (Fig. 25 microlenses 2512; [0098]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light-transmissive portion that comprises a plurality of microlenses to transmit and diffuse light to the outside of a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kolste to include wherein: the light-transmissive portion comprises a plurality of microlenses as suggested Johnson in order to increase transmission of light thus increasing efficiency (Johnson [0099] “Because light hits the lenses at a range of angles with respect to the lens surface, the light is scattered into a wide range of angles, and hence is transmitted at a higher angle laterally than would be achieved with a flat window surface”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 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 17, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious an optical device comprising among other essential elements wherein: the first light-deflecting portion and the second light-deflecting portion are disposed at diagonal positions relative to a center of the light-transmissive portion in combination with the entirety of elements from which the claim depends.
Both Kolste are Kropp are silent as to a first light-deflecting portion and the second light-deflecting portion and although it may be obvious to duplicate the light-deflecting portion in order to increase accuracy by redundancy, it would not have been obvious to rearrange the portions in this specific configuration. Therefore, in light of the current teachings of the prior art, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious an optical device comprising among other essential elements wherein: a line segment connecting the second-first light emitter and the photosensor is substantially orthogonal to a line segment connecting the second-second light emitter and the photosensor in combination with the entirety of elements from which the claim depends.
Both Kolste are Kropp are silent as to a second-first light emitter and the second-second light emitter and although it may be obvious to duplicate the light-emitters in order to increase accuracy by redundancy, it would not have been obvious to rearrange the emitters in this specific configuration. Therefore, in light of the current teachings of the prior art, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/HINA F AYUB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877