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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 ln. 1: “plruality" appears instead of “plurality”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks US 20200018854 A1 in view of Kenyon US 4400764 A.
Regarding claim 1, Hicks teaches an optical apparatus comprising:
a light source (222 in Fig. 2, [0056]));
a dividing unit configured to divide the illumination light from the first optical system into a plurality of illumination lights in a plurality of areas (224A and 224B divide light from light source 222 into multiple paths, Fig. 2, [0056]);
a deflecting unit configured to scan an object by deflecting the plurality of illumination lights (rotating polygon mirror 204 in Fig. 2, [0056]); and
a light guide unit configured to guide the plurality of illumination lights from the dividing unit to the deflecting unit (mirrors 212A and 212B in Fig. 2, [0056])).
Hicks does not explicitly teach a first optical system configured to condense illumination light from a light source;
Kenyon teach lenses L1 and L2 (or 119) which condense light from source 100 toward splitting prism 105 (Figs. 8-10, 20; Col. 11 lns. 7-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks to include a first optical system configured to condense illumination light from a light source similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of shaping the outgoing light so that desired intensities were divided into each path.
Regarding claim 2, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second optical system configured to guide the plurality of lights from the dividing unit to the light guide unit (collimators 210A and 210 B in Fig. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second optical system converts each of the plurality of lights into parallel light (collimators 210A and 210B in Fig. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the deflecting unit deflects a plurality of reflected lights from the object, and the light guide unit guides the plurality of reflected lights from the deflecting unit to a light receiving unit (reflected light from object reflects off 204, 212A/B, and towards receivers 214A/B along paths 228A/B, Fig. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein the dividing unit includes a plurality of reflective surfaces, each of which reflects the illumination light from the first optical system.
Kenyon teaches a dividing unit with two mirrored surfaces (reflecting prism 105 coated with suitable dichroic material in Figs. 8-10, 20; see at least Col. 10 lns. 1 – Col. 11 ln. 55)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that the dividing unit includes a plurality of reflective surfaces, each of which reflects the illumination light from the first optical system similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing a way to split Hicks’s light along the multiple paths.
Regarding claim 7, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 6,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of reflective surfaces are integrated with each other.
Kenyon teaches a dividing unit with two mirrored surfaces (reflecting prism 105 coated with suitable dichroic material in Figs. 8-10, 20; see at least Col. 10 lns. 1 – Col. 11 ln. 55)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that the plurality of reflective surfaces are integrated with each other similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing a way to split Hicks’s light along the multiple paths while only needing to position a single dividing element.
Regarding claim 8, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 6,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein a boundary between the plurality of reflective surfaces constitutes an edge portion configured to divide the illumination light into areas.
Kenyon teaches a dividing unit with two mirrored surfaces with apex 104 (reflecting prism 105 coated with suitable dichroic material in Figs. 8-10, 20; see at least Col. 10 lns. 1 – Col. 11 ln. 55)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks to include a boundary between the plurality of reflective surfaces constitutes an edge portion configured to divide the illumination light into areas similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing a way to split Hicks’s light along the multiple paths while only needing to position a single dividing element.
Regarding claim 10, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 6,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein the dividing unit includes a prism that includes the plurality of reflective surfaces.
Kenyon teaches a dividing unit with two mirrored surfaces (reflecting prism 105 coated with suitable dichroic material in Figs. 8-10, 20; see at least Col. 10 lns. 1 – Col. 11 ln. 55)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that the dividing unit includes a prism that includes the plurality of reflective surfaces similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing a way to split Hicks’s light along the multiple paths while only needing to position a single dividing element.
Regarding claim 11, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 6,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein the dividing unit includes a plurality of mirrors that include the plurality of reflective surfaces.
Kenyon teaches a dividing unit with two mirrored surfaces (reflecting prism 105 coated with suitable dichroic material in Figs. 8-10, 20; see at least Col. 10 lns. 1 – Col. 11 ln. 55; examiner notes that separate surfaces of the prism are each a mirror)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that the dividing unit includes a plurality of mirrors that include the plurality of reflective surfaces similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing a way to split Hicks’s light along the multiple paths while only needing to position a single dividing element.
Regarding claim 12, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 11,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of mirrors includes an edge portion configured to divide the illumination light into areas.
Kenyon teaches a dividing unit with two mirrored surfaces and apex 104 (reflecting prism 105 coated with suitable dichroic material in Figs. 8-10, 20; see at least Col. 10 lns. 1 – Col. 11 ln. 55; examiner notes that separate surfaces of the prism are each a mirror)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that at least one of the plurality of mirrors includes an edge portion configured to divide the illumination light into areas similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing a way to split Hicks’s light along the multiple paths while only needing to position a single dividing element.
Regarding claim 13, Hicks teaches an in-vehicle system comprising an optical apparatus (used in vehicle, [0053, 62-64]), wherein the optical apparatus includes:
a light source (222 in Fig. 2, [0056]));
a dividing unit configured to divide the illumination light from the first optical system into a plurality of illumination lights in a plurality of areas (224A and 224B divide light from light source 222 into multiple paths, Fig. 2, [0056]);
a deflecting unit configured to scan an object by deflecting the plurality of illumination lights (rotating polygon mirror 204 in Fig. 2, [0056]); and
a light guide unit configured to guide the plurality of illumination lights from the dividing unit to the deflecting unit (mirrors 212A and 212B in Fig. 2, [0056]).
wherein the in-vehicle system determines whether a collision is likely to occur between a vehicle and the object based on distance information on the object acquired by the optical apparatus (collision avoidance, [0063]).
Hicks does not explicitly teach a first optical system configured to condense illumination light from a light source;
Kenyon teach lenses L1 and L2 (or 119) which condense light from source 100 toward splitting prism 105 (Figs. 8-10, 20; Col. 11 lns. 7-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks to include a first optical system configured to condense illumination light from a light source similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of shaping the outgoing light so that desired intensities were divided into each path.
Regarding claim 14, Hicks as modified above teaches the in-vehicle system according to claim 13, further comprising a control apparatus configured to output a control signal for generating a braking force in the vehicle in a case where the in-vehicle system determines that the collision is likely to occur between the vehicle and the object (collision avoidance and automated braking, [0063-64]).
Regarding claim 15, Hicks as modified above teaches the in-vehicle system according to claim 13, further comprising a warning apparatus configured to warn a user of the vehicle in a case where the in-vehicle system determines that the collision is likely to occur between the vehicle and the object (alerts the driver, [0063-64]).
Regarding claim 17, Hicks teaches a moving apparatus comprising an optical apparatus (used in vehicle, [0053 62-64]), wherein the optical apparatus includes:
a light source (222 in Fig. 2, [0056]));
a dividing unit configured to divide the illumination light from the first optical system into a plurality of illumination lights in a plurality of areas (224A and 224B divide light from light source 222 into multiple paths, Fig. 2, [0056]);
a deflecting unit configured to scan an object by deflecting the plurality of illumination lights (rotating polygon mirror 204 in Fig. 2, [0056]); and
a light guide unit configured to guide the plurality of illumination lights from the dividing unit to the deflecting unit (mirrors 212A and 212B in Fig. 2, [0056]).
wherein the moving apparatus can move while holding the optical apparatus (vehicle movement and control in [0062-64]).
Hicks does not explicitly teach a first optical system configured to condense illumination light from a light source;
Kenyon teach lenses L1 and L2 (or 119) which condense light from source 100 toward splitting prism 105 (Figs. 8-10, 20; Col. 11 lns. 7-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks to include a first optical system configured to condense illumination light from a light source similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of shaping the outgoing light so that desired intensities were divided into each path.
Regarding claim 18, Hicks as modified above teaches the moving apparatus according to claim 17, further comprising a determining unit configured to determine whether a collision with the object is likely to occur based on distance information on the object acquired by the optical apparatus (collision avoidance and automated braking, [0063-64]).
Regarding claim 19, Hicks as modified above teaches the moving apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising a control unit configured to output a control signal for controlling movement in a case where the determining unit determines that the collision with the object is likely to occur (collision avoidance and automated braking, [0063-64]).
Regarding claim 20, Hicks as modified above teaches the moving apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising a warning unit configured to warn a user of the moving apparatus in a case where the determining unit determines that the collision with the object is likely to occur (alerts the driver, [0063-64]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks US 20200018854 A1 in view of Kenyon US 4400764 A and further in view of Horn US 20250210941 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein a length of a light emitting surface of the light source in a first direction and a length of the light emitting surface of the light source in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction are different from each other, and wherein when viewed from the first direction, the dividing unit is located between a position in which a top line of light from a first end portion in the second direction of the light emitting surface and a bottom line of light from a second end portion in the second direction of the light emitting surface overlap each other, and a position in which a bottom line of the light from the first end portion and an top line of the light from the second end portion overlap each other.
Horn teaches edge emitting laser stacks with light emitting surfaces with rectangular cross sections and emitting overlapping elliptical beams (Fig. 4, [0055]).
Kenyon teaches all light is condensed onto the dividing unit (Figs. 8-15, Col. 11 lns. 7-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that a length of a light emitting surface of the light source in a first direction and a length of the light emitting surface of the light source in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction are different from each other, similar to Horn with a reasonable expectation of success, and wherein when viewed from the first direction, the dividing unit is located between a position in which a top line of light from a first end portion in the second direction of the light emitting surface and a bottom line of light from a second end portion in the second direction of the light emitting surface overlap each other, and a position in which a bottom line of the light from the first end portion and an top line of the light from the second end portion overlap each other similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of shaping the outgoing light so that all light is incident on the dividing unit and the produced elliptical cross-section beams would help scan a larger region than smaller circular cross-section beams.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks US 20200018854 A1 in view of Kenyon US 4400764 A and further in view of Kurashige US 20130169941 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Hicks as modified above teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 6,
Hicks does not explicitly teach wherein the plrualtiy of reflective surfaces include: first and second reflective surfaces spaced from each other; and a third reflective surface configured to reflect light that has passed a space between the first and second reflective surfaces.
Light division unit 62 with three surfaces (Figs. 1-2, [0165]; examiner notes that light reaching the third surface passes between the first and second reflective surfaces)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks such that the plrualtiy of reflective surfaces include: first and second reflective surfaces spaced from each other; and a third reflective surface configured to reflect light that has passed a space between the first and second reflective surfaces similar to Kenyon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of dividing the outgoing light into more beams to improve coverage of the field of view.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks US 20200018854 A1 in view of Kenyon US 4400764 A and further in view of Tokuda US 20180141492 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Hicks as modified above teaches the in-vehicle system according to claim 13,
Hicks does not explicitly teach further comprising a notification apparatus configured to notify information on the collision between the vehicle and the object to outside.
Tokuda teaches a notification control unit that notifies the outside of information about the collision ([0027, 53], claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hicks to include a notification apparatus configured to notify information on the collision between the vehicle and the object to outside similar to Tokuda with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping alert the object and others nearby to the movement of the vehicle to avoid the collision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645