DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
In Claim 1, the phrase "configured to continuously change, in accordance with a continuous change" lacks support and clarity in the specification. The feature has been construed as "configured to change, in accordance with a change" for the residual analysis.
In Claim 1, the phrase "mirror (6) arranged at a periphery of the optical mode converter’ lacks material support and clarity in the specification. This feature was construed as "comprises a mirror in the vicinity of the optical mode converter".
In Claim 1, the phrase “Optical mode converter” does not have a clearly defined meaning, and thus appears without necessary support and clarity in the specification. Neither a relative direction nor relative distance between the mirror and optical mode converter can be reasonably deduced, thus it is not possible to determine where the mirror is placed.
In Claim 1, it is unclear how a radiation direction can be transmitted as in the phrase “radiation direction of the light having transmitted through the waveguide”.
In Claim 2, the phrase "is rotated about a first shaft in accordance with the change in wavelength of the light output from the light source or phase of the light output from the light source” – is lacking support and clarity in the specification. The disclosed rotation always relates to a mechanical rotation. No relation is established between this mechanical rotation and the change in wavelength or phase. Hence, claim 2 for purposes of examination will be interpreted as "wherein a radiation direction of light from the optical mode converter is rotated about a first shaft -- and the first shaft is one of two rotation shafts of the actuator.".
Claim 3, the phrase "are each formed into a box shape, and respectively arranged at positions different from each other with respect to a plane that is a reference for the actuator, light radiation faces thereof being respectively arranged in directions different from each other with respect to the plane" is unclear and undefined. Furthermore, it is impossible to understand the metes and bounds of the claimed limitations. The claim is interpreted as follows: "The optical scanning device according to claim 1, wherein as the optical mode converter, a plurality of optical mode converters (5-1 to 5- 3) is used, -- and respectively arranged at positions different from each other -- light radiation faces thereof being respectively arranged in directions different from each other with respect to the plane". The same issue is present in dependent Claims 11-14.
In Claim 4, there is one light source. Therefore, it is not clear how this one light source can produce "lights having wavelengths different from each other or lights having phases different from each other". It appears that essential features (multiple light sources) therefore are missing.
In Claim 6, it is unclear how the feature "a time measurement unit to measure a time from when light is radiated from the optical mode converter to when the reflected light is received by the optical mode converter” how the timestamps of radiation/receiving through the optical mode converter are determined. It appears that the timestamps are rather generated by the source and the receiver.
Dependent claims 2-14 fail to remedy the listed issues present in Claims 1-4 and 6. 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (Us 2018/0267151) in view of Hosseini (US 2018/03060925).
Regarding Claim 1, Hall teaches an optical scanning device [0012], comprising: an optical mode converter [0059] connected to an optical waveguide through which the light output from the light source transmits, and configured to continuously change [#235, #256 of Fig 1, 5; 0015; 0043], wavelength or a phase of a light to be output [ Fig 2B, 4; 0036]. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Hall to include variable wavelengths or phases of output light so that waveguides do not cross-couple, and elements can be positioned very close to one another thereby suppressing array factor grating-lobes.
Regarding Claim 2, Hall also teaches wherein a radiation direction of light from the optical mode converter is rotated about a first shaft
Regarding Claim 3, Hall also teaches wherein as the optical mode converter, a plurality of optical mode converters is used, and the
Regarding Claim 4, Hall also teaches wherein as the optical mode converter, a plurality of the optical mode converters is used, and lights having wavelengths different from each other or lights having phases different from each other are output from the light source to each of the optical mode converters [#259 of Fig 5; #171-#175 of Fig 7; 0041-42; 0061-63].
Regarding Claim 5, Hall also teaches wherein the optical mode converter receives reflected light that is light transmitted from the light source through the optical waveguide, radiated from a radiation face of the optical mode converter, and reflected by the object [#259 of Fig 5; #171-#175 of Fig 7; 0041-42; 0061-63].
Regarding Claim 6, Hall also teaches ranging apparatus, comprising: the optical scanning device according to claim 5 [0012]; and a processing circuitry to measure a time from when light is radiated from the optical mode converter to when the reflected light is received by the optical mode converter [0022; 0041-43; 0046].
Regarding Claims 7-10, Hall also teaches a ranging apparatus, comprising: the optical scanning device according to … [0012]; an optical receiver to receive reflected light that is light radiated from the optical mode converter and then reflected by the object [#210, #235, #241 of Fig 1; 0046]; and a processing circuitry to measure a time from when light is radiated from the optical mode converter to when the reflected light is received by the optical receiver [#210, #235, #241 of Fig 1; 0046].
Regarding Claims 11-14, Hall also teaches a ranging apparatus according to … [0012], wherein as the optical mode converter, a plurality of optical mode converters is used [0041],
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645