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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 8/30/2023 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
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 “two-dimensional Bravais lattice” of claim 6 must be shown must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The examiner does not see a two-dimensional lattice arrangement in the drawings, only a one-dimensional, linear, repeating pattern. 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 Objections
Claims 8, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 1: “The light guide according of claim 6” should delete “according” and instead state “The light guide of claim 6”.
Claim 11, line 3: The period (.) after Polyethylene Terephthalate and before (PET) should be deleted.
Claim 17, line 1: “the radar sensor“ should instead state “a radar sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 19 are 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the outcoupling structure includes structural elements arranged in a two-dimensional Bravais lattice at lattice points thereof in the first main surface.” There is no further description in the claim to define what is meant by structural element. Is it a cutout, or a pillar, or a component of a crystalline material? Since the claim provides no guidance as to the nature of the structural element, the examiner looked to the specification for clarity. The specification identifies that structural elements can be any size, shape, or have any spacing and that these values do not have to be mathematically definable (see paragraph 0025), which does not provide any definitive meaning as to what the structure actually is. The specification describes gas inclusions and foam-like material (see paragraph 18), so it is unclear if the claim is with regards to inclusions within the material of the first main surface, akin to crystalline materials, or if they mean that the first main surface is laid out in a grid of depressions and/or bumps. Since the specification identifies 18 and 18’ in Fig. 1 as the structural elements, which appear to be either bumps or depressions, the examiner is interpreting structural elements as bumps or depressions for purpose of examination.
Claims 7-8 are rejected due to their dependency on rejected claim 6.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the cover serves as the light guide”. Claim 19 depends on claim 18 which depends on claim 14. Claim 14 states that the light guide comprises a second main surface. Claim 18 states that the second main surface (of the light guide) faces towards the cover, which suggests that the cover and light guide are two distinct objects. Claim 19 states that the cover serves as the light guide. It is unclear how the second main surface of the light guide can face towards the cover if the cover is also the light guide. Is the cover meant to be a different light guide? Is the light guide meant to act as a cover and claim 19 is meant to be directed to a different embodiment than that of claim 18? Or does the claim limitation that the second main surface of the light guide faces toward the cover include the interpretation that the second main surface faces into the light guide itself (although surfaces of objects are typically considered to face outward from the object)? For purpose of examination, claim 19 is assumed to allow that the second main surface faces into the light guide itself (internal surface).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fattal in US 20180072320 A1 (hereinafter "Fatal").
Regarding claim 1, Fattal discloses a light guide comprising:
an outcoupling structure (at least a portion of diffraction grating 124 is interpreted as an outcoupling structure) adapted to deflect light coupled into the light guide (light guide 122) in a first predetermined outcoupling direction (see Fig. 5B where light is leaving the lightguide through the diffraction grating),
wherein the outcoupling structure is formed by a configuration of a surface of the light guide (see Fig. 5B where diffraction grating 124 is on a surface of light guide 122).
Regarding claim 13, Fattal discloses a device comprising:
a light guide including:
an outcoupling structure (at least a portion of diffraction grating 124 is interpreted as an outcoupling structure) adapted to deflect light coupled into the light guide (light guide 122) in a first predetermined outcoupling direction (see Fig. 5B where light is leaving the lightguide through the diffraction grating),
wherein the outcoupling structure is formed by a configuration of a surface of the light guide (see Fig. 5B where diffraction grating 124 is on a surface of light guide 122).
Fattal does not disclose that the light guide is explicitly a radar device, however the emission and/or propagation of radar waves is considered to be an intended use of the device since the device of Fattal is compatible with any wavelength (“any source of light”; see Para. 77), which necessarily includes radar. No structure claimed limits the device to only working with radar. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the light guide is formed as a planar light guide (122 lies in a plane in Fig. 5B; see Para. 24-25) comprising a first main surface (the surface where diffraction grating 124 is present as viewed in Fig. 5B) and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (the surface of 122 underneath and opposite to 124 as viewed in Fig. 5B), wherein the first and second main surfaces (as interpreted, these surfaces are parallel) extend perpendicular to a direction of a thickness d of the light guide (the light guide 122 creates a thickness between the two parallel surfaces and is necessarily perpendicular to them) and the outcoupling structure is formed in the first main surface (diffraction grating 124 is formed in the interpreted first main surface as viewed in Fig. 5B).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the first main surface comprises an outcoupling area in which the outcoupling structure is formed (there are 4 outcoupling areas with diffraction gratings 124 present on the interpreted first main surface in Fig. 5B), and a non-outcoupling area in which the outcoupling structure is not formed (there are at least 3 non-coupling areas present between diffraction gratings 124 in Fig. 5B).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 3 as discussed above, wherein the outcoupling area (the 4 outcoupling areas with diffraction gratings 124 in Fig. 5B) comprises a plurality of outcoupling portions which are not connected with one another (each diffraction grating 124 in Fig. 5B is comprises of a plurality of unconnected bumps which are interpreted as outcoupling portions).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5B
Regarding claim 5, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 3 as discussed above, wherein the outcoupling area has a first thickness d1 (see Annotated Fig. 5B) and the non-outcoupling area has a second thickness d2 (see Annotated Fig. 5B), wherein the first and second thicknesses d1 and d2 each have a distance between the first main surface and the second main surface (see Annotated Fig. 5B), and wherein the first thickness d1 is not equal to the second thickness d2 (see Annotated Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 6, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the outcoupling structure (diffraction grating 124) includes structural elements (see Annotated Fig. 5B) arranged in a two-dimensional Bravais lattice (see Fig. 5B where diffraction gratings 124 occur at intervals thereby forming a linear one-dimensional Bravais lattice in the plane shown; note that Para. 26 discloses that the lattice may be one- or two-dimensional) at lattice points (each out-coupling diffraction grating 124 is interpreted as a lattice point) thereof in the first main surface (see Annotated Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 7, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 6 as discussed above, wherein a size of the structural elements is constant or changes in a defined manner in at least one predetermined direction parallel to the first main surface (see Para. 26 regarding periodicity and note diffraction gratings 124 and their structural elements as in Annotated Fig. 5B).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5B
Regarding claim 8, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 6 as discussed above, characterized in that the structural elements each have a height d3 or a depth d4 relative to the first main surface (see Annotated Fig. 5B above; note that a height or depth will always be necessarily present so long as the first main surface is not flat).
Regarding claim 9, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising at least one of a plurality of outcoupling portions (the interpreted first main surface is interpreted as having at least one of a plurality of outcoupling portions as in Fig. 5B) including a plurality of outcoupling zones (see Annotated Fig. 5B where two portions of diffraction grating 124 are interpreted as the outcoupling zones) with a differently formed outcoupling structure (at least a portion of diffraction grating 124 was interpreted as an outcoupling structure and the two interpreted zones must be formed differently in order to have the different surface shapes shown in Annotated Fig. 5B; see also Para. 65-67).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Fattal discloses the light guide of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the light guide is formed of plastic (see Para. 60).
Regarding claim 11, Fattal discloses the light guide according to claim 10 as discussed above, characterized in that the plastic is one of Styrol Methyl Methacrylate (SMMA), Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA), Polycarbonate (PC), Polyamide 12 (PA12), Polypropylene (PP), and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (see Para. 60; note that poly(methyl methacrylate) and polycarbonate are explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 17, Fattal discloses the device of claim 14 as discussed above, wherein a sensor (the time-of-flight camera is interpreted as the sensor) emits waves (the time-of-flight camera emits light waves or pulses; see Para. 39), and wherein the first main surface faces toward the sensor (the first main surface may point inwards or outwards as in Para. 61 and in one of these embodiments, the first main surface will be directly facing the sensor; additionally, all components must have some face, internal or external, “facing” all other components).
Fattal does not explicitly state that these components are for radar, but radar has been addressed as an intended use of the device (see the rejection of claim 13 above for details).
Regarding claim 18, Fattal discloses the radar device of claim 14 as discussed above further comprises a cover (the light guide 122 is interpreted as a cover for the light valve array 126), wherein the second main surface faces toward the cover (the second main surface as shown in Annotated Fig. 5B has an internal surface facing inwards towards the light guide 122 which is also the interpreted cover).
Regarding claim 19, Fattal discloses the radar device of claim 18 as discussed above, wherein the cover serves as the light guide (he light guide 122 is also the interpreted cover).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fattal in US 20180072320 A1 (hereinafter "Fatal") in view of Johnson et al in US Patent 9,500,333 B1 (hereinafter "Johnson").
Regarding claim 12, Fattal does not disclose a method of manufacturing the light guide of claim 1 as discussed above via one of an injection molding method, a lithography method, or a galvanic method.
However, Fattal suggests a method of manufacturing the light guide of claim 1 as discussed above via one of an etching, milling, or molding (see Para. 64).
Johnson discloses that injection molding of light guides was well known at the time of invention (see Col. 6 lines 7-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the injection molding of Johnson in the light guide of Fattal for the purpose of manufacturing a light guide via well-known methods thereby achieving a highly repeatable method (and thus product) with high precision and cost-effectiveness.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 8384630 B2 discloses a light guide with grooves or channels.
US 11878622 B2 discloses Fig. 4B has a lattice and is used for radar.
US 20230288705 A1 discloses an output coupler with a two-dimensional pattern and can be used in a radar tracking system.
US 20240010137 A1 discloses a radar light guide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874