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 following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 29 May 2026.
Claims 32 and 59 were amended. No claims were cancelled. New claims 60-62 were added. Therefore, claims 32-62 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14 of the Remarks, filed 29 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 32 and 59 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakai et al., EP 3165946 A1 in view of Roger et al., US 20190101628 A1.
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.
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.
Claims 32, 35, 38, 40, 42-44, 47-49, 51-55, and 59-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al., EP 3165946 A1, (“Sakai”) in view of Roger et al., US 20190101628 A1 (“Roger”).
Regarding claim 32, Sakai discloses an electrooptical system, comprising:
at least one light source (Fig. 3, light emission system 201, Paragraph [0018]); and
at least one processor programmed to:
control the at least one light source to enable light flux to vary over a scan of a field of view (Fig. 3, object information acquisition unit 203, Paragraph [0018]),
wherein the field of view is divided into a plurality of non-overlapping segments (Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12, Paragraph [0056]), each of the segments has a size sufficiently covering the size of a unit light directed to the field of view (Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12, Paragraph [0056]), wherein the plurality of segments includes a first set of non-contiguous segments and a second set of non-contiguous segments different from the non-contiguous segments of the first set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]), wherein each of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set is separated from other non-contiguous segments in the first set by at least one segment and each of the non-contiguous segments included in the second set is separated from other non-contiguous segments in the second set by at least one segment (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]),
[…], and
wherein scanning of the field of view comprises:
sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments, wherein sequential illumination of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments proceeds such that, during illumination of a particular non-contiguous segment in the first set of non-contiguous segments, other segments in the plurality of segments not included in the first set of non-contiguous segments are not illuminated (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]), and
wherein, other segments in the plurality of segments not included in the first set of non-contiguous segments are not illuminated between the illuminations of the non-contiguous segments in the first set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); and
after the sequential illumination of the first set of non-contiguous segments, sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments (Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai does not teach: wherein an angular distance between each non- contiguous segment in the first set of non-contiguous segments and a nearest non-contiguous segment in the second set of non-contiguous segments is greater than an angular size corresponding to a diameter of a human pupil at a predetermined minimal safety distance from the electrooptical system.
However, Roger teaches a LIDAR apparatus that emits light into a field of view according to a beam a first emission sequence and a second emission sequence. The angular distance between an illuminated segment from the first sequence and an illuminated segment from the sequence is greater than the angular size of a human pupil such that only one beam enters the eye (Fig. 6, first subsets 610, 620, 630, 640, second subsets 650, 660, 670, 680, Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angular distance between illuminated segments in the first and second scan disclosed by Sakai by spacing the illuminated segments such that only a single segment can overlap a pupil, which is disclosed by Roger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve laser safety, as suggested by Roger (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 35, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of Claim 32, wherein: the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments comprises a segment adjacent to a first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 38, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35, wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have the same size (Sakai, Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12; Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 40, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35, wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have the same shape (Sakai, Fig. 33, twelve detection fields G1 – G12; Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 42, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35, wherein: the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non- contiguous segments is illuminated during a first scanning cycle (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments is illuminated during a second scanning cycle (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 43, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein: the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments are illuminated during a first scanning cycle (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); and the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments are illuminated during a second scanning cycle (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 44, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to detect an object within the field of view based on reflections from the field of view received by at least one sensor (Sakai, Fig. 2, light detection system 202, Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 47, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 1, further comprising a light deflector configured to deflect the light from the at least one light source to the field of view (Sakai, Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 48, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the light deflector includes a Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) mirror.
However, Roger teaches a reflective surface that emits beams into the environment. The reflective surface may be implemented as a MEMS mirror (Fig 1, reflective surface 110, Paragraphs [0018], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s rotating mirror with Roger’s MEMS mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known deflector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 49, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47, wherein the light deflector includes a spinning polygon (Sakai, Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 51, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47, wherein the light deflector includes a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) array controller (Sakai, Fig. 4, light source 21, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 52, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 57, wherein the light deflector includes a scanning mirror (Sakai, Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 53, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, further comprising a light emission assembly including the at least one light source (Sakai, Fig. 4, light source 21, Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 54, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 53, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to cause the light emission assembly to scan the field of view a plurality of times during a frame (Sakai, Fig. 41A, detection sequence c-1-1, light is sequentially emitted to detection field G-1 a plurality of times during time period, Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 55, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 54, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to cause the light emission assembly to scan the field of view more than 10 times during a frame (Sakai, Fig. 41A, detection sequence c-1-1, light is sequentially emitted to detection field G-1 a plurality of times during time period, Paragraph [0077]).
Claim 59 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 32 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 60, Sakai discloses An electrooptical system, comprising:
at least one light source configured to emit light (Fig. 3, light emission system 201, Paragraph [0018]);
a scanner configured to scan the light flux over a field of view (Fig. 4, rotating mirror 24, Paragraph [0019]); and
at least one processor programmed to:
control the at least one light source and the scanner to enable light flux to vary over a scan of the field of view using the light from the at least one light source (Fig. 3, object information acquisition unit 203, Paragraph [0018]), wherein:
the field of view comprises a first portion and a second portion different from the first portion (Figs. 41A-B, first portion = Columns G1-G3, second portion = Columns G4-G6, Paragraph [0076]);
the first portion comprises a first part and a second part different from and not overlapping the first part (Figs. 41A-B, first portion = Columns G1-G3, first part = column G1, second part = column G2, Paragraph [0077]);
the second portion comprises a third part and a fourth part different from and not overlapping the third part, wherein the third part and the fourth part do not overlap with the first part or the second part (Figs. 41A-B, second portion = Columns G4-G6, third part = column G4, fourth part = column G5, Paragraph [0077]), and wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth parts has a size greater than or equal to a size of a light beam used to illuminate each of the first, second, third, and fourth parts (Figs. 41A-B, G1, G2, G4, G5, Paragraph [0077]);
[…];
wherein the scanning of the field of view comprises illuminating the first part, the second part, the third part, and the fourth part in an order of:
illuminating the first part, but not the second part, the third part, and the fourth part (Fig. 41A, first scan, G1, Paragraph [0077]);
illuminating the third part, but not the first part, the second part, and the fourth part (Fig. 41A, first scan, G4, Paragraph [0077]);
illuminating the second part, but not the first part, the third part, and the fourth part (Fig. 41B, second scan, G2, Paragraph [0077]); and
illuminating the fourth part, but not the first part, the second part, and the third part (Fig. 41B, second scan, G5, Paragraph [0077]);
[…].
Sakai does not teach: an angular distance between the first portion and the second portion is greater than an angular size corresponding to a diameter of a human pupil at a predetermined minimal safety distance from the electrooptical system;
wherein an illumination level of the illumination delivered to each of the first part, the second part, the third part, and the fourth part is lower than a threshold; and
wherein a total illumination level of the illuminations delivered to each of the first portion and the second portion exceeds the threshold.
However, Roger teaches a LIDAR apparatus that emits light into a field of view according to a beam a first emission sequence and a second emission sequence. The angular distance between an illuminated segment from the first sequence and an illuminated segment from the sequence is greater than the angular size of a human pupil such that only one beam enters the eye (Fig. 6, first subsets 610, 620, 630, 640, second subsets 650, 660, 670, 680, Paragraph [0077]). Roger also teaches the emitting light beams such that the optical power reaching the human eye is within a safe range (Fig. 6, 630, Paragraph [0045],[0076]). At the same time, the total emitted light beam pattern has an increased power for the photodetector may detect far objects, yielding a total power higher than the eye safety range (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angular distance between illuminated segments in the first and second scan disclosed by Sakai by spacing the illuminated segments such that only a single segment can overlap a pupil with a safe laser emission power, which is disclosed by Roger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve laser safety, as suggested by Roger (Paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 61, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses The electrooptical system of Claim 60,wherein the first part of the first portion and the third part of the second portion are illuminated during a first scanning cycle (Sakai, Fig. 41A, first scan, G1, G4 Paragraph [0077]), and the second part of the first portion and the fourth part of the second portion are illuminated during a second scanning cycle (Sakai, Fig. 41B, second scan, G2, G5, Paragraph [0077]).
Claim 62 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 60 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 33-34, 36-37, 50, and 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Roger in further view of Goodwill, WO 2018176115 A1 ("Goodwill").
Regarding claim 33, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein: sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of noncontiguous segments comprises sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments in each of a plurality of scans (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: and the at least one processor is further programmed to construct a point cloud output based, in part, on reflections summed from the plurality of scans of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments.
However, Goodwill teaches a digital signal processor that can determine the time of flight and construct a point cloud from that information (Fig. 1A, Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 126, Paragraph [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sakai’s object information acquisition unit by adding point cloud construction, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to infer more characteristics about the illuminated objects, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 34, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein: sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments comprises sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments in each of a plurality of scans (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, first scan, Paragraph [0056]); sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments comprises repeatedly sequentially illuminating the non-contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments in each of a plurality of scans (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: and the at least one processor is further programmed to construct a point cloud output based, in part, on reflections summed from the plurality of scans of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and reflections summed from the plurality of scans of the non- contiguous segments included in the second set of non-contiguous segments.
However, Goodwill teaches a digital signal processor that can determine the time of flight and construct a point cloud from that information (Fig. 1A, Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 126, Paragraph [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sakai’s object information acquisition unit by adding point cloud construction, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to infer more characteristics about the illuminated objects, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 36, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein each of the illuminations directed to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments is less than an illumination level associated with a predetermined threshold.
However, Goodwill teaches calculating the energy of each pulse according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds. (Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 37, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger and Goodwill, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 36, wherein a total illumination of the illuminations directed to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments is greater than the illumination level associated with the predetermined threshold (Goodwill, Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 50, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 47.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the light deflector includes an optical phased array controller.
However, Goodwill teaches a steering device that may include an Optical Waveguide Phased Array (Fig. 1C, Optical Waveguide Phased Array steering device, optical phase shifter 136, Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s rotating mirror with Goodwill’s optical phased array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known deflector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 56, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 53.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the light emission assembly includes a spatial light modulator configured to modulate the light flux to vary over the scan of the field of view.
However, Goodwill teaches a system that may include a spatial light modulator(Fig. 1A, beam steerer 114 can include spatial light modulator, Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s light source with Goodwill’s laser and spatial light modulator. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known deflector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 57, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 32, wherein the scanning of the field of view further comprises: illuminating at least one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments during a plurality of scanning cycles in a frame (Sakai, Fig. 34B, detection sequence B, second scan, Paragraph [0056]).
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the illumination directed to the at least one of the non- contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments during each of the plurality of scanning cycles is less than an illumination level associated with a predetermined threshold.
However, Goodwill teaches calculating the energy of each pulse according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds. (Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 58, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger and Goodwill, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 57, wherein a total illumination of the illuminations directed to the at least one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments during each of the plurality of scanning cycles is greater than the illumination level associated with the predetermined threshold (Goodwill, Paragraph [0037], [0040]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Sakai’s light emission system by setting the pulse energy according to ANSI Class 1 AEL thresholds, which is disclosed by Goodwill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adhere to eye safety regulations, as suggested by Goodwill (Paragraph [0037]).
Claims 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Roger in further view of Wyrwas et al., US 20180348344 A1 ("Wyrwas ").
Regarding claim 39, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have different sizes.
However, Wyrwas teaches separating an entire field of view into many small fields of view which may correspond to the field of view of detector elements in an array. Each field of view may be illuminated sequentially with a scanning beam. Fig. 2 illustrates each small FOV as being a different size and shape. (Fig. 2, FOV 1 (230-1) – FOV N (230-N), scanning beams 210, Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakai’s detection fields by adding varying the size of some fields, which is disclosed by Wyrwas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve a scan speed and/or possibly reduce a cost of the optical scanning system, possibly without compromising resolution of the system” as suggested by Wyrwas (Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 41, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 35.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments and the segment adjacent to the first one of the non-contiguous segments included in the first set of non-contiguous segments have different shapes.
However, Wyrwas teaches separating an entire field of view into many small fields of view which may correspond to the field of view of detector elements in an array. Each field of view may be illuminated sequentially with a scanning beam. Fig. 2 illustrates each small FOV as being a different size and shape. (Fig. 2, FOV 1 (230-1) – FOV N (230-N), scanning beams 210, Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sakai’s detection fields by varying the size of some segments, which is disclosed by Wyrwas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve a scan speed and/or possibly reduce a cost of the optical scanning system, possibly without compromising resolution of the system” as suggested by Wyrwas (Paragraph [0036]).
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Roger in further view of Campbell et al., US 20170131388 A1 ("Campbell").
Regarding claim 45, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 44.
Sakai, as modified in view of Roger, does not teach: wherein the at least one sensor includes a detector array.
However, Campbell teaches a lidar system where the return light is collected by a detector focal plane array (Fig. 1, detector focal plane array 128, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s detector with Campbell’s detector focal plane array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 46, Sakai, as modified in view of Roger and Campbell, discloses the electrooptical system of claim 45, wherein the detector array includes a focal plane detector array (Campbell, Fig. 1, detector focal plane array 128, Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sakai’s detector with Campbell’s detector focal plane array. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known detector for the other, and the results would have been predictable.
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights