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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The examiner thanks the applicant for pointing out the subject matter shown in Figure 3. The amendment to claim 8 was helpful in overcoming the previous rejection under 35 USC 112. However, the amendments also created a new issue as described below.
With respect to the arguments regarding the rejection of claims as anticipated by Joseph, the examiner disagrees. The applicant argues that Joseph fails to disclose the claim elements. However, as provided in the marked up figure below in the rejection, Joseph discloses all claimed elements as described. The carrier device of the claims is a generic structure with no implied meanings. There is no reason that the metal insulating layer of Joseph cannot satisfy that structural component maintaining all structural relationships to other components as described. The waveguide layer of Joseph, made up of the brag reflector layer 104 and the conducting material 122, is inside of. The manner of making the device “into which the at least one waveguide is inserted” is not germane to the patentability of the device itself, wherein it results in the same structure. The heat sink of Joseph does have an opening, the space between the planar sides as marked in the Figure below.
With respect to applicant’s argument on page 11 that the microlens is not connected to an end face of the carrier device, or for Joseph’s labels the substrate is not connected to the end face of the heat sink, the examiner disagrees. The applicant argues that because the substrate is not in direct contact with the heat sink, it cannot be connected. This is not true. The substrate is connected via the waveguide layers.
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained as previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is 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.
The preamble of claim 8 states “The optical unit according to claim 1, wherein the optical unit is part of a test system for the LiDAR sensor” and goes on to describe details regarding the test system. However, the test system is not actually claimed as part of the invention but rather described as the environment in which the optical unit is located, which is not limited on the optical unit itself. Because of this, the claim is confusing as to the metes and bounds as well as failing to differentiate over claim 1 since it simply restates the optical unit of claim 1 without adding any more meaningful limitations. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph U.S. Patent #7,949,024.
With respect to claim 1, Joseph discloses a multibeam array for high frequency operations comprising:
An optical unit for transmitting a synthetically generated optical signal for a test system of a LIDAR sensor (Figure 1, abstract, Col.13, l 35-37)
A carrier device for accommodating at least one optical waveguide, wherein the carrier device has at least one opening which is formed orthogonally to an end face of the carrier device and into which the at least one optical waveguide is inserted (Figure 1 and 2, carrier device = heat sink 124, waveguide = active region 106 comprising waveguide layer and DBR 104, Col.4, l 63-67)
At least one microlens connected to the end face of the carrier device, wherein end faces of the carrier device that face each other and of the at least one microlenses have a planar design (Figure 1, 2, microlens = substrate 102 per Figure 10, Col.10, l 51-55)
Wherein the at least one microlens is assigned to the at least one optical waveguide inserted into the at least one opening of the carrier device (Col.10,l 61-64)
Wherein the synthetically generated optical signal transmitted by the at least one waveguide is directed through the assigned microlens to the LiDAR sensor (Col.13, l 35-37)
Wherein the at least one optical waveguide is arranged in the carrier device, offset with respect to an optical axis of the microlens that is assigned to the at least one optical waveguide (Figure 10, Figure 11, Col.1, l 64-Col.12, l 13)
PNG
media_image1.png
456
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Joseph (edited)
With respect to claim 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Joseph discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Joseph discloses:
2- The at least one optical waveguide inserted into the at least one opening of the carrier device is arranged to be parallel with respect to the optical axis of the at least one microlens (Figure 10, Figure 2)
5- The at least one optical waveguide is fixed by a sleeve in the at least one opening formed in the carrier device wherein the sleeve is a ferrule, and wherein the sleeve is pressed to a respective optical waveguide (Figure 1, Figure 2, sleeve = dielectric coating 114, Col.6, l 13-23, wherein the deposition of the dielectric material = pressing onto the waveguide which is part of the device 100)
6- An axial end portion, configured in a planar manner, of the at least one optical waveguide is arranged on an end face, facing the carrier device, of the at least one microlens resting against an end face of the at least one microlens (Figure 1, waveguide 106+104 planar against planar face of 102)
7- the optical unit has a substantially strip-shaped design, and wherein the optical unit is fitted with a plurality of rows of microlenses aligned in the longitudinal direction and in the transverse direction (Figure 3B and Figure 5)
It should be noted that the limitation of claim 3 that the dimension of the microlens is configured with respect to the synthetically generated optical signal is not limiting on the device since the signal itself is not part of the claimed structure and cannot be used to define it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overview Joseph U.S. Patent #7,949,024.
With respect to claim 4, Joseph discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Joseph discloses:
The at least one microlens is integrally formed, and convex at an exit side of the synthetically generated optical signal (Figure 10, Col.10, l 51-Col.11, l 13)
The at least one microlens is made of Gallium Arsenide (GaAs), or other materials such as Indium Phosphide (In), Indium Arsenide (Inas), Silicon (Si) (Col.4, l 30-43, not plastic or glass)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use plastic or glass for the microlens of Joseph since lenses are typically made of glass or plastic with those materials offering the benefit of being transparent to most light wavelengths and inexpensive. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that microlenses are known to be made of glass or plastic.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overview Joseph U.S. Patent #7,949,024 in view of Lipson U.S. Publication 2015/0219764.
With respect to claim 8, Joseph discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Joseph discloses:
A plurality of optical units, arranged to be stationary or movable relative to the LiDAR sensor (Col.13, l 28-37, Figure 10, plurality of lenses)
However, Joseph fails to specifically disclose a LiDAR sensor and arranging the plurality of optical units arranged in a detection region of the LiDAR sensor.
Lipson discloses a small size LiDAR comprising:
A plurality of optical units, arranged to be stationary or movable relative to the LiDAR sensor (Figure 1, plurality of optical units = lens associated with each 18, P.0022)
The LiDAR sensor to which the synthetically generated optical signal transmitted through the optical units is directed (Figure 1, P.0022, LiDAR sensor = receivers 22)
Wherein the plurality of optical units is arranged in a detection region of the LiDAR sensor (Figure 1, wherein the sensors and optical units overlap detection region)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the optical device of Joseph aligned with LiDAR sensors since Joseph specifically discloses that it is useful for LiDAR systems and by matching up the optical units to the LiDAR sensors, the signals can be authentically transmitted and measured in a useful manner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights