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 § 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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (20190004394) in view of Garcia (20200011979).
Referring to claim 1, Shin shows an optical phased array device comprising:
a light distribution unit configured to branch a traveling path of light (see figure 8 Ref 103), input through an input terminal (see the input from the light source Ref 110), at least twice, and to direct distributed pieces of sub-light to a plurality of output terminals (see figure 8 note the output terminals Ref OP);
at least one light modulator configured to form a plurality of channels by modulating phases of the pieces of sub-light (see the various light modulators that modulate the phase of the sub-light Ref 140_X_X);
at least one first amplifier in an optical path between the input terminal and the at least one light modulator (see figure 8 Ref 120), the at least one first amplifier configured to amplify at least a piece of sub-light (note Ref 120 amplifies all of the sub-lights).
However Shin fails to show at least one first complementary amplifier configured to replace the at least one first amplifier; and
a switch configured to switch the first complementary amplifier in or out of the optical path between the input and the at least one light modulator.
Garcia shows a similar device that includes at least one first complementary amplifier configured to replace the at least one first amplifier (see figure 1A Ref 133, 135 that are amplifiers paragraph 36); and
a switch configured to switch the first complementary amplifier in or out of the optical path between the input and the at least one light modulator (see figure 1A Ref 137).
It would have been obvious to include the first complementary amplifier and the switch as shown by Garcia because this allows for redundancy in the amplifiers to replace an amplifier that has failed as taught by Garcia (see paragraph 16).
Referring to claim 20, Shin shows the light distribution unit that is used in a lidar device (see figure 10)
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Shin and Garcia shows the optical phase array device is configured such that the switch replaces the at least one first amplifier with the at least one first complementary amplifier when the performance of the at least one first amplifier is degraded (see the switch that acts upon the amplifier and replaces it with the complementary amplifier for the sake of redundancy as shown in paragraph 16). The combination of Shin and Garcia show the switching and redundant amplifier to correct for a failed amplifier.
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Shin and Garcia shows at least one second amplifier in an optical path passing through the at least one light modulator (see figure 8 note the OA1 in addition the OA2) however Shin fails to show the second complementary amplifier and the second switch.
Garcia shows the at least one second complementary amplifier configured to replace the at least one second amplifier (see figure 1a Ref 134 and 136); and
a second switch configured to switch the at least one second complementary amplifier in and out of the optical path passing through the at least one light modulator (see figure 1a Ref 138). It would have been obvious to include the second complementary amplifier and second switch as shown by Garcia because this allows for redundancy in multiple stages of amplification.
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Shin and Garcia shows the optical phased array device is configured such that the second switch replaces the at least one second amplifier with the at least one second complementary amplified when the performance of the at least one second amplifier is degraded (see the switch that acts upon the amplifier and replaces it with the complementary amplifier for the sake of redundancy as shown in paragraph 16). The combination of Shin and Garcia show the switching and redundant amplifier to correct for a failed amplifier.
Referring to claim 19, the combination of Shin and Garcia shows a waveguide-based structure forming an optical connection between the light distribution unit, the at least one first amplifier, the first complementary amplifier, and the switch (see figure 8 of Shin and 1A of Garcia).
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (20190004394) in view of Garcia (20200011979) and Barber (20220260695).
Referring to claim 2, Shin fails to show but Barber shows the light distribution unit includes a plurality of branch points, and
wherein the at least one first amplifier is disposed in each of a plurality of optical paths between an initial branch point and a final branch point (see figure 3 Ref 308a-308d). It would have been obvious to include the first amplifier disposed in each of the plurality of optical paths because this allows each of the amplifiers can be individually controlled with different duty cycles (see Barber paragraph 52).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Shin and Barber shows the at least one light modulator is disposed in each of a plurality of optical paths between the final branch point and the plurality of output terminals (see Shin figure 8 Ref 140_X_X also see Barber figure 3).
Referring to claim 4, Shin shows the light distribution unit is configured to branch the light input through the input terminal M times to form 2M number of optical paths (see figure 8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (20190004394) in view of Garcia (20200011979) and Piggott (20210141058).
Referring to claim 6, Shin fails to show but Piggott shows a monitoring photodiode electrically connected to the at least one first amplifier and configured to monitor the performance of the at least one first amplifier (see figure 8 note the unreferenced photodiodes next to each OUT signal and figure 5 Ref 510 and 511 also see paragraph 60). It would have been obvious to include the monitoring photodiode as shown by Piggott because this allows for feedback of the output light and control of the drive and amplifier as taught by Piggott paragraph 60.
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Shin and Piggott shows a monitoring photodiode array for calibrating the at least one light modulator (see the array of monitoring photodiodes as shown in figure 8 of Piggott that monitors all the outputs).
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Shin and Piggott shows the monitoring photodiode array is configured to monitor all of the plurality of channels (see the array as shown in figure 8 that monitors all outputs). It would have been obvious to include the monitoring of all outputs as shown by Piggott because this allows each channel to be controlled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-10, and 16-18 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645