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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/07/2026. The applicant argued that there is only minimal incrementally extra search burden. The examiner disagrees. Aligning the microlens or having them offset is a major characteristic. Unless the applicant believes these to be obvious variants of each other there is a search burden since there are different reasons and structure required whether the lenses are aligned or not.
For this reason, the restriction is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The optical units arranged in a detection region of a LiDAR sensor is not shown in any of the figures and no LiDAR sensor is in any of the figures at all. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the optical unit" and “a plurality of optical units”. It is unclear if “the optical unit” is one of the “plurality of optical units” or if they are different optical units unrelated to each other. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
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.
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)
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over view 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 (InP), 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 over view 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
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