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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 EP 0747744 A1.
Regarding claims 1 D1 teaches
a block(12) of optically transmissive material,(fig. 1) the block having a monolithic shape comprising:
a planar light receiving surface,(14)(col 3)
a first reflective surface(18), and
a second reflective surface(22) positioned adjacent to the planar light receiving surface(14), wherein the block is configured to:
receive light from a distant on-axis source at the planar light receiving surface,(fig. 1 )
transmit the light through the block to the first reflective surface(18)(fig. 1);
reflect the light from the first reflective surface towards the second reflective surface(22)(fig. 1),
reflect the light from the second reflective surface through a receiving aperture(24) formed in the first reflective surface(18), and focus the light at or after the receiving aperture.(fig. 1)
3. (Currently Amended) The receiver of any preceding claim 1 wherein the monolithic block is formed optically transmissive material is of one of glass, plastic polymer, such as Poly Methyl MethAcrylate, polystyrene, polycarbonate, COC, or COP, Calcium fluoride or ClearTran (RTM).(col 3)
4. (Currently Amended) The receiver of any preceding claim 1further comprising an anti-reflective surface formed on the planar light receiving surface.(fig. 1 implicit light passes through 14)
5. (Currently Amended) The receiver of any preceding claim 1 wherein the first reflective surface defines a concave parabolic mirror(abstract, if parabolic defines the shape then it is obvious but it may be just name) and the second reflective surface defines a convex hyperbolic mirror(abstract, similarly hyperbolic).
9. (Original) The receiver of claim 8 wherein the detector is an array of light receivers. (abstract)
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) 6 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Regarding claim 6 D1 teaches the first reflective surface is a mirror
But does not explicitly teach
6. (Currently Amended) The receiver of any preceding claim 1 wherein the first reflective surface has a metallic layer attached thereto.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 to use metallic mirror on glass in order to create mirror.
7. (Original) The receiver of claim 6, wherein the metallic layer is gold. (obvious design choice to achieve specific reflectivity)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 to use gold in order to achieve specific reflectivity for specific wavelength. (see as evidence US 3711185 A col 5-6 teaches that gold mirror is more efficient for infrared radiation)
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
8. (Currently Amended) The receiver of any preceding claim 1, further comprising a detector bonded to the block at the receiving aperture.
Placement of the detector is obvious design choice which is depending on optical power of the lens in order to concentrate light on the detector.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 EP 0747744 A1.
Regarding claims 10 D1 teaches
a block(12) of optically transmissive material,(fig. 1) the block having a monolithic shape comprising:
a planar light receiving surface,(14)(col 3)
a first reflective surface(18), and
a second reflective surface(22) positioned adjacent to the planar light receiving surface(14), wherein the block is configured to:
receive light from a distant on-axis source at the planar light receiving surface,(fig. 1 )
transmit the light through the block to the first reflective surface(18)(fig. 1);
reflect the light from the first reflective surface towards the second reflective surface(22)(fig. 1),
reflect the light from the second reflective surface through a receiving aperture(24) formed in the first reflective surface(18), and focus the light at or after the receiving aperture.(fig. 1)
but does not teach
array of receivers and each receiver comprising of above
Although D1 does not teach array of receivers and each receiver comprising of above
It is just matter of multiplication of parts in order to achieve the desired FOV coverage.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 EP 0747744 A1 in view of US 20190011567 A1 .
Regarding claims 12 D1 does not teach but Pacala teaches
12. (Currently Amended) The lidar system of claim [[11]] 10, wherein the array of receivers is formed from a single monolithic block.(1019+1021 fig. 10)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to achieve micromirror lens system for multiple detectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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 at 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645