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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 18, the cancellation of claim 16, and the addition of claims 21-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s Remarks that Setiawan spends the majority of the article discussing metal materials. Setiawan, however, does not appear to rule out applying the methods to materials other than metals, but instead chooses a metal in the “Experimental Methods” section as a proof of concept. In order to more fully make the case for combining Lee with Setiawan a new reference is introduced to further make obvious the application of photoacoustic monitoring of windows in laser systems.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0041372) in view of Setiawan et al. (“Surface crack detection with low-cost photoacoustic imaging system”; applicant submitted prior art) and Jeen et al. (“Two techniques for early detection of pulsed laser induced damage in optical materials”; applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches an apparatus (fig.1) for monitoring mechanical integrity ([0020, 65], fig.2) of an eye-safety component (fig.1 #130, [0056]) of an illuminator, the apparatus comprising: a sensor (fig.1 #160) operable to sense a change in pressure ([0054]) in the eye-safety component during operation of the illuminator and to output a signal representative of the sensed pressure effect ([0067] sensor reading used for feedback); and a processor (fig.1 #170) operable to: monitor the signal from the sensor ([0067]); determine if the signal comprises at least one parameter that falls outside of a pre-determined acceptable range ([0059]), the pre-determined acceptable range being indicative of mechanical integrity of the eye-safety component ([0067]); and initiate a safety action in response to a determination that the at least one parameter falls outside of the pre-determined acceptable range thereby indicating a loss of mechanical integrity ([0067, 99]), wherein the eye-safety component comprises a glass substrate and/or a diffuser configured to pass a light of the illuminator ([0056], note light exits through #130). Lee does not teach the sensor senses a photoacoustic effect in the eye-safety component, wherein the sensor is configured to sense a sound wave formed by the photoacoustic effect. Setiawan teaches that detection of cracks can be accomplished via shining a laser diode onto a surface and monitoring the photoacoustic effect on that surface using a photoacoustic sensor to sense a sound wave (abstract, fig.2b via microphone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the laser device of Lee, used to detect cracks in elements ([0067], fig.2), by making use of a photoacoustic sensor to sense a sound wave formed by the photoacoustic effect in the manner taught by Setiawan, and with the feedback control of Lee, in order to further ensure the integrity of the laser housing unit as desired by Lee ([0020]).
The Examiner notes that pressure sensors, as used by Lee, are often transducers which convert mechanical energy into an electrical signal, much the same way as a microphone within the photoacoustic sensor of Setiawan operates. Further, both references are directed to accomplishing the same problem which is one of crack detection.
Setiawan does not rule out, but does not particularly focus on the detection of damage in windows in laser systems by making use of the photoacoustic effect. Jeen teaches that monitoring photoacoustic effects in windows in laser systems is useful for detecting damage to those windows (abstract). Therefore, it would further have been obvious to combine the system of Lee with the photoacoustic effect monitoring techniques of Setiawan as demonstrated by Jeen in order to prevent serious failure of the window (Jeen, abstract).
With respect to claim 3, Lee, as modified, teaches a phononic structure configured to improve a signal-to-noise ratio of the sound wave (Lee fig.1, sealed container would reduce outside noises and thereby improve the signal-to-noise ratio).
With respect to claim 4, Lee, as modified, teaches the processor is further operable to detect a change in environmental conditions within the illuminator based on the signal from the sensor (Lee, fig.2, [0067]).
With respect to claim 5, Lee, as modified, teaches the processor is operable to initiate the safety action by transmitting an instruction to the illuminator to modify an intensity of illumination ([0099]).
With respect to claim 6, Lee, as modified, teaches the processor is operable to initiate the safety action by transmitting an instruction to the illuminator to cease illumination ([0099]).
With respect to claim 7, Lee, as modified, teaches the sensor comprises a microphone (Setiawan, fig.2b).
With respect to claim 8, Lee, as modified, teaches one or more of an amplifier; a filter; a lock-in detector; and an acceptable range detector ([0013], acceptable range detector, such as a comparator, necessarily present to accomplish the comparison of the measurement to the reference value).
With respect to claim 9, Lee, as modified, teaches an illuminator comprising: at least one emitter (fig.1 #110) ;an eye-safety component (fig.1 #130) providing a shield between the at least one emitter and a user (fig.1 #130 is a diffuser which shields via dispersing light); and the apparatus of claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, Lee, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a modulator configured to modulate a light output from at least one of the at least one emitter at a pre-determined frequency and wherein the processor is operable to use the pre-determined frequency in a lock-in detection method and/or a gated detection method when monitoring the signal from the sensor. Setiawan further teaches a modulator configured to modulate a light output from at least one of the at least one emitter at a pre-determined frequency and wherein the processor is operable to use the pre-determined frequency in a lock-in detection method and/or a gated detection method when monitoring the signal from the sensor (pg.160 para.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the further modulation with lock-in teachings of Setiawan in the device and control of Lee in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (Setiawan, pg.160 para.2).
With respect to claim 11, Lee, as modified, teaches the at least one emitter comprises an illumination emitter (fig.1 #110, emitter illuminates) and the sensor is operable to sense a photoacoustic effect resulting from operation of the illumination emitter (as modified above by Setiawan).
With respect to claim 12, Lee, as modified, teaches the at least one emitter comprises a monitoring emitter (fig.1 #110, emitter used for monitoring as modified) and the sensor is operable to sense a photoacoustic effect resulting from operation of the monitoring emitter (as modified above by Setiawan).
With respect to claim 14, Lee, as modified, teaches the sensor is arranged to sense the photoacoustic effect in the eye-safety component indirectly by receiving an input via a waveguide or other medium (Setiawan, fig.2b sensor spaced apart from surface via a “medium” – air).
With respect to claim 15, Lee, as modified, teaches the at least one emitter comprises a laser ([0053]).
With respect to claim 18, Lee teaches a method for monitoring mechanical integrity of an eye-safety component of an illuminator, the method comprising: obtaining, from a sensor, a signal representative of a sensed pressure effect in the eye-safety component during operation of the illuminator; monitoring the signal; determining if the signal comprises at least one parameter that falls outside of a pre-determined acceptable range, the pre-determined acceptable range being indicative of mechanical integrity of the eye-safety component; and initiating a safety action in response to a determination that the at least one parameter falls outside of the pre-determined acceptable range thereby indicating a loss of mechanical integrity ([0059, 67] fig.2), wherein the eye-safety component comprises a glass substrate and/or a diffuser configured to pass a light of the illuminator ([0056], note the light exits through #130). Lee does not teach the sensor senses a photoacoustic effect in the eye-safety component. Setiawan teaches that detection of cracks can be accomplished via shining a laser diode onto a surface and monitoring the photoacoustic effect on that surface using a photoacoustic sensor (abstract, fig.2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the laser device/method of Lee, used to detect cracks in elements ([0067], fig.2), by making use of a photoacoustic sensor in the manner taught by Setiawan, and with the feedback control of Lee, in order to further ensure the integrity of the laser housing unit as desired by Lee ([0020]).
The Examiner notes that pressure sensors, as used by Lee, are often transducers which convert mechanical energy into an electrical signal, much the same way as a microphone within the photoacoustic sensor of Setiawan operates. Further, both references are directed to accomplishing the same problem which is one of crack detection.
Setiawan does not rule out, but does not particularly focus on the detection of damage in windows in laser systems by making use of the photoacoustic effect. Jeen teaches that monitoring photoacoustic effects in windows in laser systems is useful for detecting damage to those windows (abstract). Therefore, it would further have been obvious to combine the system of Lee with the photoacoustic effect monitoring techniques of Setiawan as demonstrated by Jeen in order to prevent serious failure of the window (Jeen, abstract).
With respect to claim 20, Lee, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, including using a processor which necessarily contains instructions/firmware, but does not specify non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions for causing at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 18. The Examiner takes Official notice that use of non-transitory computer readable mediums for storing executable programs thereon are well-known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adapt the method of Lee and Setiawan to make use of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions for causing at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 18 as a means of making the method portable from one location to another.
With respect to claim 21, Lee, as modified, further teaches the emitter is not tuned to a resonant frequency of the eye-safety component (Lee, [0062], noting Lee makes no teaching of the emitter frequency to match a resonance of the diffuser, only relating the emitter frequency to eye-safety).
With respect to claim 23, Lee, as modified, teaches the photoacoustic effect is a crack extending completely through the eye-safety component (Lee, [0065]; also note the detection method of Setiawan can detect surface cracks, wherein a crack extending completely through would necessarily be located on the surface).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Setiawan and Jeen in view of Kenneth Mason Publications (“Research disclosure”; applicant submitted prior art; hereafter KMP).
With respect to claim 13, Lee, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the sensor is arranged to sense the photoacoustic effect in the eye-safety component directly. KMP teaches a related photoacoustic monitoring system with laser wherein the sensor can be directly on the optical element or adjacent (pg.3 para.1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Lee and Setiawan to place the sensor directly on the optical component as demonstrated by KMP in order to enable monitoring of shockwaves of small amplitude.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Setiawan and Jeen in view of Finn et al. (US 2019/0339234).
With respect to claim 19, Lee, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach establishing the pre-determined acceptable range using an artificial neural network. Finn teaches a related acoustic monitoring device (abstract) which includes establishing the pre-determined acceptable range using an artificial neural network ([0041, 43-45]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to modify the method of Lee and Setiawan to establish the pre-determined acceptable range using an artificial neural network as demonstrated by Finn in order to make use of more complex models to verify damage (Finn, [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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 prior art was not found to teach or make obvious adding a second emitter tuned to the resonant frequency of the eye-safety component in addition to the other outlined limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the previously included pto892 for a list of related art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828