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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application # 18/255,883 that was filed on 06/05/2023. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and are under 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.
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 1-16 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 1 recites a ‘double-sided mirror’. The recitations like horizontal surface, front
surface, back surface are not limiting, since the labels "horizontal", "front" or "back" depend on the orientation of the optical module, which is not fixed in the claims. For this reason, the limitation of claim 1 "..wherein the optical module includes an axis of retroreflection that is perpendicular to the horizontal surface and a normal line of the uniaxial retroreflective mirror." In lines 10-11 does not specify the axis of retroreflection in a clear and unambiguous manner. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
In claim 3, it is not clear to the examiner what the recitation “…wherein the mirror pair is disposed in a concave shape when viewed from the double-sided mirror’, mean. It is not clear in concave shape of what structure the claimed mirror pair is disposed. The claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
All the dependent calms are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claims 1 above solely based on their dependency from the rejected claim 1.
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) 1-4, 6, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda (JP2010217782A) (submitted on IDS dated 06/05/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) comprising:
a double-sided mirror (26) that rotates or undergoes pendulum motion about at least one rotation axis (see Figure 1A and para. [0020] of machine translation);
a plane mirror (18c) disposed at an angle of 45 degrees from a horizontal surface on a back surface side of the double-sided mirror (see Fig. 8A and para. [0051] of machine translation); and
a uniaxial retroreflective mirror (18A, 18B)disposed at an angle of 45 degrees from the horizontal surface on a front surface side of the double-sided mirror(see Fig. 1A, 3, 4A-C and Para. [0023]-[0025]).
Toyoda discloses the claimed invention except for the optical module includes an axis of retroreflective that is perpendicular to the horizontal surface and a normal line of the uniaxial retroreflective mirror. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the optical module an axis of retroreflective that is perpendicular to the horizontal surface and a normal line of the uniaxial retroreflective mirror, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the uniaxial retroreflective mirror(18A, 18B) has a mirror pair forming an angle of 90 degrees with each other (para. [0023], “As shown in Figure 1B, the ray direction changing mirror 18 is configured to have a pair of reflective mirrors 18A and 18B, and these reflective mirrors 18A and 18B are at a right angle to each other.” (see attached English translation)).
Regarding Claim 3, broadly interpreted modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the mirror pair (18A, 18B) is disposed in a concave shape when viewed from the double-sided mirror (Figure 1B; broadly interpreted, the mirror pair of modified Toyoda can also be interpreted to be "..a concave shape when viewed from the double-sided mirror…”)
Regarding Claim 4, Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the double-sided mirror has a lens (14, Fig. 1A) disposed on a front surface side, the lens having an optical axis center on a horizontal surface passing through a center of the double-sided mirror (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) with a lens (14, Fig. 1A) that implicitly has a focal point and the optical module of the modified Toyoda also have a pinhole. Modified Toyoda discloses the claimed invention except for the lens’ focal point located in a pinhole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the focal point of the lens in the pinhole, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the double-sided mirror includes a micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS) device (para. [0018], Fig. 2A, 2B).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the double-sided mirror includes a galvanometer mirror (para. [0021], see English translation, double-sided mirror 26 with drive coil and magnet).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Toyoda discloses a distance measuring device comprising the optical module according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and being configured to: cause laser light to be incident on a front surface side of the double-sided mirror (26, Fig 1A, para. [0009]-[0013]); irradiate an object with the laser light through the plane mirror (18c, Fig. 8B); reflect scattered light from the object by the uniaxial retroreflective mirror (18A, 18B, Fig. 1A); and reflect the light reflected by the uniaxial retroreflective mirror on the back surface side of the double-sided mirror and then detect the light by a light receiver (22, Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the light receiver includes a semiconductor element(para. [0026], photodiode, see English translation).
Regarding Claim 16, broadly interpreted, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) wherein the light receiver receives interference light between emitted laser light and the scattered light para. [0011], weak light from the target object (a distant object)is interpreted as interference light, see English translation).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyoda (JP2010217782A) in view of Jensen et al. (EP1890168A1) (submitted on IDS dated 06/24/2024).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Toyoda is silent, but Jensen teaches an optical module wherein the lens has a focal position of an outer periphery, the focal position facing a focal position of a center of the lens (para. [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens disclosed in modified Toyoda with the lens taught in Jensen with a reasonable expectation of success because a lens designed so that the focal position at the outer periphery coincides with the focal position at the center reduces spherical aberration and produces sharper, more uniform images.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyoda (JP2010217782A) in view of WUESTEFELD et al. (EP2378309A1) (submitted on IDS dated 06/24/2024).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Toyoda is silent, but Wuestefeld teaches an optical module wherein the double-sided mirror has a parabolic mirror disposed on a front surface side (20, Fig. 1-3, para. [0034], ‘deflection unit’, ‘…The deflection unit 20 is formed as a whole as a concave, rotationally symmetrical mirror and is an off-axis paraboloid in the illustration’, para. [0040]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical module disclosed in modified Toyoda with the parabolic mirror taught in Wuestefeld and have an optical axis of the parabolic mirror center on a horizontal surface passing through a center of the double- sided mirror with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers significant advantages in imaging quality, light manipulation, and compact, multifunctional design. The parabolic surface, unlike standard spherical mirrors, eliminates spherical aberrations, ensuring precise focusing of incident parallel rays into a single focal point.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Toyoda is silent, but Wuestefeld teaches an optical module wherein the parabolic mirror has a focal position of an outer periphery, the focal position facing a focal position of a center of the parabolic mirror (para. [0021] see English translation, the claim limitation describes an off axis Parabolic (OAP) mirror arrangement discussed in para. [0021] of Wuestefeld).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Toyoda discloses an optical module (see figure 1A) with parabolic mirror (Wuestefeld, 20, Fig. 1-3, para. [0034], ‘deflection unit’, para. [0040])) that implicitly has a focal point and the optical module of the modified Toyoda also have a pinhole. Modified Toyoda discloses the claimed invention except for the parabolic mirror’ has focal point located in a pinhole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to locate the focal point of the parabolic mirror in the pinhole, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyoda (JP2010217782A) in view of Jang et al. (US2020/0025893).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Toyoda is silent, but Jang teaches a metasurface element (200/10, Para. [0095]) comprised in an optical module for distance measurement (Fig. 1, Fig. 5. [0126]-[0128], [0198]-[0200]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the uniaxial retroreflective mirror of the optical module disclosed in modified Toyoda with the metasurface element taught in Jang with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers significant advantages in ultracompact design, high-efficiency light control, and enhanced functionality. It provides sub-wavelength phase manipulation, allowing for a flat footprint while enabling high-efficiency, retroreflection, and polarization control in a single thin-film layer
Regarding Claim 11, modified Toyoda is silent, but Jang teaches a metasurface element (200/10, Para. [0095]) wherein the metasurface has a concave shape when viewed from the double- sided mirror(Fig. 1, Fig. 5. [0126]-[0128], [0198]-[0200]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yong et al. (KR20190025116A) ((submitted on IDS dated 06/05/2023) discloses a rotary scanning LiDAR having multiple light sources. The light transmitting portion of the rotary scanning LiDAR is disposed on one side of a rotary mirror portion and a light receiving portion of the rotary scanning LiDAR is disposed on the other side facing the light transmitting portion. The rotary mirror portion is vertically installed on the same rotating shaft so as to be rotated and includes a rotary light transmitting mirror and a rotary light receiving mirror which are installed so as to cross each other. The light transmitting portion includes a plurality of unit light transmitting portions and the light receiving portion collects reflected light reflected from the rotary light receiving mirror through a reflecting mirror and a condensing lens and detects and outputs the reflected light to an optical detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642