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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya et al. (US 2021/0088657) in view of O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274176) and Okazaki et al. (US 6,490,309).
With regards to Claim 1, Nakaya et al. discloses an assembly for a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (the examiner notes that the assembly is “for” a light detection and ranging system is intended use and not a requirement of the claim) comprising: a light source [3] configured to provide a light beam (see paragraph 50 and Figure 1):a light collimator lens [13] configured to collimate the light beam (see paragraph 55 and Figure 1): an active thermal control element [12] having an upper surface (comprising a surface on which structure [11] is disposed, see paragraph 54 and Figure 1) and a lower surface (comprising a surface opposite the surface on which structure [11] is disposed, see Figure 1): a thermally conductive mechanical structure [11] fixed to the surface of the active thermal control element [12] the mechanical structure [11] being in thermal contact with the light source [3], the light collimator lens [13], and the active thermal control element [12] (see paragraphs 54 and 55 and Figure 1; due to the positioning of the structure [11] between the active thermal control element [12], which Is a Peltier effect device, and the light source [3], structure [11] will substantially be in thermal contact with the light source [3], collimator lens [13], and active thermal control element [12], and will substantially be thermally conductive to allow the active thermal control element [12] to impart a heat dissipation function to at least the light source [3]).
Nakaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the thermally conductive mechanical structure is fixed to the lower surface of the active thermal control element.
O’Shaughnessy et al. teaches a thermally conductive mechanical structure is fixed to the lower surface of the active thermal control element (see paragraph 34 and Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Nakaya et al. to include the thermally conductive mechanical structure is fixed to the lower surface of the active thermal control element, as taught by O’Shaughnessy et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to act as a heat sink for the active thermal control element which pumps heat from one side to another between the heat sink and elements of the assembly (see O’Shaughnessy et al. paragraph 34).
Nakaya et al. does not explicitly disclose a temperature sensor configured to detect the temperature of the light source: and a temperature controller configured to receive the detected temperature from the light source and in response control the temperature of the active thermal control element.
Okazaki et al. teaches a temperature sensor [215] configured to detect the temperature of the light source [211]; and a temperature controller configured to receive the detected temperature from the light source [211] and in response control the temperature of the active thermal control element [214] (see column 12 lines 23-32 and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Nakaya et al. to include a temperature sensor configured to detect the temperature of the light source: and a temperature controller configured to receive the detected temperature from the light source and in response control the temperature of the active thermal control element, as taught by Okazaki et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control the active thermal control element based on a temperature (see Okazaki et al. column 12 lines 23-32).
With regards to Claim 2, Nakaya et al., O’Shaughnessy et al., and Okazaki et al. disclose the assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Nakaya et al. does not disclose the temperature sensor is a thermistor.
Okazaki et al. teaches the temperature sensor [215] is a thermistor (see column 12 lines 23-32 and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Nakaya et al. to include a temperature sensor which is a thermistor, as taught by Okazaki et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to to control the active thermal control element to keep the light source and associated optics at a constant temperature (see Okazaki et al. column 12 lines 23-32).
With regards to Claim 3, Nakaya et al., and O’Shaughnessy et al. and Okazaki et al. disclose the assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 2.
Nakaya et al. further discloses the active thermal control element [12] comprises a thermoelectric cooler (TEC) (see paragraphs 54 and 55; the element [12] is a Peltier effect element, which is substantially a thermoelectric cooler).
With regards to Claim 5, Nakaya et al., O’Shaughnessy et al. and Okazaki et al. disclose the assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Nakaya et al. does not disclose the light source is fixed to an upper surface of the active thermal control element.
O’Shaughnessy et al. teaches the light source is fixed to an upper surface of the active thermal control element (see paragraph 34 and Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position of the light source of Nakaya et al. to be fixed to an upper surface of the active thermal control element as taught by O’Shaughnessy et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to regulate a temperature of the light source and flow heat from a side with the light source to a heat sink (see O’Shaughnessy et al. paragraph 34).
With regards to Claim 6, Nakaya et al., O’Shaughnessy et al., and Okazaki et al. disclose the assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Nakaya et al. further discloses the light collimator lens [13] is fixed to an upper surface of the thermally conductive mechanical structure [11] (see paragraph 55 and Figure 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya et al. (US 2021/0088657), as modified by O’Shaughnessy et al. (US 2009/0274176), and Okazaki et al. (US 6,490,309), further in view of Eichenholz et al. (US 2020/0076152).
With regards to Claim 4, Nakaya et al. and Okazaki et al. disclose the assembly as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Nakaya et al. does not explicitly disclose the light collimator lens is a fast-axis collimating lens.
Eichenholz et al. teaches the light collimator lens (comprising the cylindrical lens of portion [375], see paragraph 93) is a fast-axis collimating lens (see paragraph 93 and Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light collimator lens of Nakaya et al. to be a fast-axis collimating lens as taught by Eichenholz et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to collimate the light from the light source along the fast axis (see Eichenholz et al. paragraph 93).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Nakaya and Okazaki do not disclose a thermally conductive mechanical structure fixed to the lower surface of the active thermal control element of amended Claim 1, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Nakaya in view of Okazaki and O’Shaughnessy et al. Particularly, while Nakaya discloses the alternate arrangement of the thermally conductive mechanical structure fixed to the upper surface of the active thermal control element, O’Shaughnessy et al. discloses the thermally conductive mechanical structure (comprised by the heat sink shown as the Baseplate in Figures 2 and 3 and discussed in paragraph 34 of O’Shaughnessy et al.) fixed to the lower surface of the active thermal control element (comprised by the TEC shown as [252] in Figure 2 and corresponding to element [352] in Figure 3 and discussed in paragraph 34 of O’Shaughnessy et al.), and utilizing a thermal sensor to control the temperature of the light source using a temperature controller in conjunction with the TEC, and using a heat sink for the TEC in regulating the temperature (see O’Shaughnessy et al. paragraph 34). Therefore, the combination of Nakaya and O’Shaughnessy et al. does substantially disclose this limitation of amended Claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875