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 . Claims 1-7 are presented for examination
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. It appears these problems may be a result of a poor translation of the claims from the parent Japanese application.
Regarding Claim 1, the modulator is described as “configured to be disposed in the optical system”. Since the modulator is only configured to be disposed in the optical system the claim leaves the position of the modulator ambiguous. Further, the application as drafted only shows the modulator being disposed in the optical system and provides no understanding of where the modulator would be if it were outside the optical system. This ambiguity can be addressed by removing the language “configured to be” in this way “a modulator disposed in the optical system”.
Regarding Claim 2, the modulator is described as being “configured of a scanner”. The specification fails to provide a meaning for what “the modulator is configured of a scanner means”. Amending claim 2 by removing the language as follows would address this issue “wherein the modulator is a scanner”.
Regarding Claim 3, the modulator is described as being “configured of a rotation body”. The specification fails to provide a meaning for what “the modulator is configured of a rotation body”. Amending claim 3 as removing the language as follows would address this issue “wherein the modulator is a rotation body”.
Claims 4-6 are rejected due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required. The substantive rejections below have been made in light of the proposed claim amendments listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun, “High-speed wavelength-swept semiconductor laser with a polygon-scanner-based wavelength filter”, Yun et al, 2003 (hereinafter Yun).
Regarding Claim 1, Yun teaches a light source device comprising:
a light source configured to generate continuous light (Abstract describes the source as having a CW output);
a retroreflective material configured to retroreflect the light from the light source (FIG. 1 of Yun shows a polygonal mirror scanner retroreflecting light back in the same direction it arrived at the retroreflective mirror scanner. Examiner notes that the instant specification does not require the retroreflective material to refer only to surfaces made of glass beads or corner cubes as shown in [0043], which describes retroreflective material 23 broadly as a member that retroreflects a light beam from a laser source);
an optical system configured to guide the light from the light source to the retroreflective material and output the light retroreflected from the retroreflective material to the outside (FIG. 1 of Yun shows an optical system that includes Lenses 1 and 2, a grating and a fiber-optic collimator); and
a modulator configured to be disposed in the optical system, change an optical path length between the light source and the retroreflective material with time, and change a wavelength of the light with time using a Doppler effect (FIG. 1 of Yun shows how rotation of a polygonal mirror scanner changes a path length necessarily resulting in a change in wavelength/frequency due to doppler shift).
Regarding Claim 2, Yun teaches the light source device according to claim 1, wherein the modulator is configured of a scanner (Polygon Mirror Scanner, see FIG. 1) configured to change a position of irradiation of the light on the retroreflective material with time (rotation of polygonal mirror scanner changes the portion of the reflective surface of the polygon mirror scanner incident to the light irradiation).
Regarding Claim 3, Yun teaches the light source device according to claim 1, wherein the modulator is configured of a rotation body (Polygonal Mirror Scanner, see FIG. 1) configured to rotate the retroreflective material to change a position of irradiation of the light on the retroreflective material with time (rotation of polygonal mirror scanner changes the portion of the reflective surface of the polygon mirror scanner incident to the emitted light).
Regarding Claim 4, Yun teaches the light source device according to claim 3, wherein the rotation body has an outer surface and an inner surface, and the retroreflective material is provided on the outer surface of the rotation body (FIG. 1 of Yun clearly shows light retroreflecting off of an exterior surface of the polygonal mirror scanner).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of “High-bandwidth laser-pulse generator using continuous-wave lasers”, by Dierking et al, Aug 20, 1994 (hereinafter Dierking).
Regarding Claim 5, Yun teaches the light source device according to claim 3, wherein the rotation body has an outer surface and an inner surface but fails to teach a configuration in which the retroreflective material is provided on the inner surface of the rotation body.
However, Dierking teaches the use of a rotation body with retroreflective material provided on an interior facing surface of the rotation body (see FIG. 1 on page 2 of Dierking. Examiner notes that the instant drawings 12A-12B also show an open configuration in which the retroreflective material is on interior facing surfaces of the rotation body, rather than on an enclosed inner surface).
Yun and Dierking both describe polygonal mirror configurations configured to retroreflect received laser light. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the modulation system taught by Yun to incorporate a design maximizing amplitude stability of the laser (see Dierking on page 1, column 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of US5083138 (hereinafter Nowak).
Regarding Claim 6, Yun teaches the light source device according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein a surface on which the retroreflective material is disposed in the rotation body has a curved surface shape such that the wavelength of the light linearly changes with time due to rotation of the rotation body.
However, Nowak teaches the use of a polygonal scanner wherein a surface on which the retroreflective material is disposed in the rotation body has a curved surface shape such that the wavelength of the light linearly changes with time due to rotation of the rotation body (Col 6, lines 54-59 and FIG. 6 describe forming a curved surface on each facet so that at a desired operating speed a shape of the facet is configured to achieve a desired linearity in output as described in Col 3, lines 13-17).
Yun and Nowak are both related to the use of polygonal scanning mirrors to manipulate laser emissions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the system of Yun with the teachings of Duma to incorporate curved facets into the polygonal mirror scanner of Yun in order to correct for variations in the surface geometry of the polygonal mirror as a function of rotational speed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of US PG PUB 20200256960 (hereinafter LaChapelle).
Regarding Claim 7, Yun teaches the light source according to claim 1 but fails to teach the other limitations of claim 7.
However, LaChapelle teaches a distance measurement device (100) comprising:
a light source device (110);
a splitter configured to divide the light output from the light source device into
measurement light and reference light ([0061] describes splitting off a portion of the emitted light and subsequently mixing it with received light for determining a beat frequency);
an irradiator configured to irradiate a target object with the measurement light;
a detector (140) configured to detect interference light between reflected light
obtained by the measurement light being reflected by the target object and the reference light ([0061] describes the use of an APD to measure the received and emitted light to determine a beat frequency); and
a calculator (controller 150) configured to calculate a distance to the target object on the basis of an output signal from the detector ([0061] describes the math used to perform a distance determination using the returned and emitted light using the output from the detector, [0088] describes controller 150 being a processor responsible for determining the distance between the distance measurement device and a target).
Yun and LaChappelle both describe systems for modulating laser frequency output. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the light source described by Yun into the FMCW LIDAR system described by LaChapelle. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation into the system described by LaChapelle due to the ultrafast frequency modulation allowed by the light source modulator described by Yun (see Yun near the bottom of column 1 on page 1, where Yun describes its system as being able to achieve frequency/wavelength shifting at speeds of up to 1150nm/ms).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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 5712703603. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645