DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 23rd July 2026.
Claims 1 and 7 were amended; no Claims were cancelled; new Claims 14-18 were added; therefore, claims 1-18 are pending in current application and are addressed below.
The objections to claims 1-6 and 8-13 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23rd July 2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an integrated reflector in which …having a first opening part and a second opening part ”, “the light emitted…is reflected by the first reflector and is irradiated as the collimated light”, “the collimated light irradiated…is incident on the object” and “causing the collimated light…inside the integrated reflector”) are not recited in the rejected claims. However, these claim limitations were not present in the original independent claims and were presented by amendment on 23rd July 2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Sullivan addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Mushimoto in the present Office Action.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 7894044 B1, hereinafter “Sullivan”), modified in view of Mushimoto et al. (US 20160011311 A1, hereinafter “Mushimoto”.
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan teaches an optical device comprising:
the first reflector is configured to reflect light emitted from a light emitter and irradiate collimated light onto an object (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a parabolic or spherical transmitter mirror 237 (equivalent to first reflector) in the center of the device 233 collimates transmitted light 239 from the transmitter optical fiber 225 toward object (not shown but inherently));
the second reflector is configured to reflect, toward a light receiver, reflected light resulting from reflection of the collimated light at the object (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a parabolic or spherical ring mirror 241 focuses return light 234 (reflected from object is not shown but inherently) into the receiver optical fiber 229),
the light emitted from the light emitter is reflected by the first reflector and is irradiated as the collimated light (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a parabolic or spherical transmitter mirror 237 (equivalent to first reflector) in the center of the device 233 collimates transmitted light 239 from the transmitter optical fiber 225 toward object (not shown but inherently)),
the collimated light irradiated by the first reflector passes through the opening part is incident on the object (Sullivan; Fig. 13, clearly seen the collimated transmitted light 239 passes through a center opening provided by the parabolic ring mirror 241).
Sullivan does not teach,
an integrated reflector in which a first reflector and a second reflector are integrated, the integrated reflector having a first opening part and a second opening part
the light emitted from the light emitter passes through the first opening part,
the light irradiated by the first reflector passes through the second opening part from inside the integrated reflector.
Mushimoto teaches,
an integrated reflector in which a first reflector and a second reflector are integrated, the integrated reflector having a first opening part and a second opening part (Mushimoto; Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B, [0112], [0117], the laser light emitted from the light source 4A is reflected by the first reflective surface 26A (equivalent to first reflector) after entering the aperture 32 of the scanning mirror 6A (equivalent to an integrated reflector and it has first opening part and second opening part. And the first opening part (Fig. 5A the opening with width W2) and the second opening part (Fig. 5B) forms the aperture 32 which can be seen in the Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B). Here, since the first reflective surface 26A is oblique to the optical axis L2 of the laser light as described above ([0113]-[0116]), the laser light is reflected out of the aperture 32 toward the target object 20 by the first reflective surface 26A; [0118], as illustrated in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5B, a portion of the laser light reflected from target object 20 is subsequently reflected by the second reflective surface 30A (equivalent to second reflector) of the scanning mirror 6A. The laser light reflected from the second reflective surface 30A is received by the first photodetector 12A via the condenser lens 10A).
the light emitted from the light emitter passes through the first opening part (Mushimoto; Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B, [0112], [0117], the laser light emitted from the light source 4A is reflected by the first reflective surface 26A (equivalent to first reflector) after entering the aperture 32 of the scanning mirror 6A (aperture 32 has first opening as seen in Fig. 5A),
the light irradiated by the first reflector passes through the second opening part from inside the integrated reflector (Mushimoto; Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B, [0112], [0117], since the first reflective surface 26A is oblique to the optical axis L2 of the laser light as described above ([0113]-[0116]), the laser light is reflected out of the aperture 32 toward the target object 20 by the first reflective surface 26A (aperture 32 has second opening as seen in Fig. 5B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify optical device taught by Sullivan to include an integrated reflector in which a first reflector and a second reflector are integrated, the integrated reflector having a first opening part and a second opening part; the light emitted from the light emitter passes through the first opening part; the light irradiated by the first reflector passes through the second opening part from inside the integrated reflector taught by Mushimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is integrated the first reflector and the second reflector in the same integrated reflector system predictably to reduce the size for a compact optical system.
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 1, wherein the first reflector causes the collimated light to pass through a center part of the opening part (Sullivan; Fig. 13, clearly seen the collimated transmitting light 239 passes through a center opening provided by the parabolic ring mirror 241).
Sullivan does not teach,
the second opening part.
Mushimoto teaches, the second opening part (Mushimoto; Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B, [0112], [0117], the laser light emitted from the light source 4A is reflected by the first reflective surface 26A (equivalent to first reflector) after entering the aperture 32 of the scanning mirror 6A (equivalent to an integrated reflector and it has first opening part and second opening part. And the first opening part (Fig. 5A the opening with width W2) and the second opening part (Fig. 5B) forms the aperture 32 which can be seen in the Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B). Here, since the first reflective surface 26A is oblique to the optical axis L2 of the laser light as described above ([0113]-[0116]), the laser light is reflected out of the aperture 32 toward the target object 20 by the first reflective surface 26A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify optical device taught by Sullivan to include an integrated reflector in which a first reflector and a second reflector are integrated, the integrated reflector having a first opening part and a second opening part; the light emitted from the light emitter passes through the first opening part; the light irradiated by the first reflector passes through the second opening part from inside the integrated reflector; second opening part taught by Mushimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is integrated the first reflector and the second reflector in the same integrated reflector system wherein the integrated reflector has an aperture 32 which has first opening part and second opening part such that the first opening part is for light emitted into the first reflector and the second opening part is for light emitted out to the target. The integrated reflector with all feature is predictably to reduce the size for a compact optical system.
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 1, wherein the integrated reflector (Mushimoto; Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B, [0112], [0117], scanning mirror 6A is equivalent to the integrated reflector, please also see claim 1 for mapping the integrated reflector taught by Mushimoto) is accommodated in a same housing (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, transmitter mirror 237 (equivalent to first reflector) in the center of the device 233. The first optical fiber head 233 and second optical fiber head 235 are located symmetrically on opposite side of the device 233; clearly seen the first mirror 237 and second mirror 241 is in the same housing (device 223)).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 1, wherein the light emitted from the light emitter is a pulse wave (Sullivan; Column 1, line 54-66, disclosed the LIDAR systems using pulse wave for different applications such as the sensor sends laser pulses vertically into the atmosphere. The pulse rate varies with the temperature to maintain a constant power output. The time interval between the pulse transmission and the reflected reception is used to determine the cloud height).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 1, wherein the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a transmitter optical fiber head 233 (equivalent to the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber), transmitter optical fiber 225 or a transmitter 227 itself), and
the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a receiver optical fiber head 235 (equivalent to het light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber), receiver optical fiber 229 or a receiver 234 itself).
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 5, wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber are installed in parallel to each other (Sullivan; Fig. 13, fiber 233 and fiber 235 is set in the opposite side of the device 223. Though it is not specified that both fiber is installed in parallel to each other, MPEP § 2144.04 VI C Rearrangement of Parts states that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.01 VI C: Rearrangement of Parts)).
Claim 7 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to claim 1 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 2, wherein the integrated reflector (Mushimoto; Fig. 4 through Fig. 5B, [0112], [0117], scanning mirror 6A, please also see claim 1 for mapping the integrated reflector taught by Mushimoto) is accommodated in a same housing (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, transmitter mirror 237 (equivalent to first reflector) in the center of the device 233. The first optical fiber head 233 and second optical fiber head 235 are located symmetrically on opposite side of the device 233; clearly seen the first mirror 237 and second mirror 241 is in the same housing (device 223)).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 2, wherein the light emitted from the light emitter is a pulse wave (Sullivan; Column 1, line 54-66, disclosed the LIDAR systems using pulse wave for different applications such as sends laser pulses vertically into the atmosphere. The pulse rate varies with the temperature to maintain a constant power output. The time interval between the pulse transmission and the reflected reception is used to determine the cloud height).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 3, wherein the light emitted from the light emitter is a pulse wave (Sullivan; Column 1, line 54-66, disclosed the LIDAR systems using pulse wave for different applications such as sends laser pulses vertically into the atmosphere. The pulse rate varies with the temperature to maintain a constant power output. The time interval between the pulse transmission and the reflected reception is used to determine the cloud height).
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 2, wherein the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a transmitter optical fiber head 233 (equivalent to the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber), transmitter optical fiber 225 or a transmitter 227 itself), and
the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a receiver optical fiber head 235 (equivalent to the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber), receiver optical fiber 229 or a receiver 234 itself).
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 3, wherein the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a transmitter optical fiber head 233 (equivalent to the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber), transmitter optical fiber 225 or a transmitter 227 itself), and
the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a receiver optical fiber head 235 (equivalent to the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber), receiver optical fiber 229 or a receiver 234 itself).
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan as modified above teaches the optical device as recited to claim 4, wherein the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a transmitter optical fiber head 233 (equivalent to the light emitter is an end surface of a first optical fiber), transmitter optical fiber 225 or a transmitter 227 itself), and
the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber (Sullivan; Fig. 13, column 5, paragraph 5, a receiver optical fiber head 235 (equivalent to the light receiver is an end surface of a second optical fiber), receiver optical fiber 229 or a receiver 234 itself).
Claim 14 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to claim 2 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 15 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to claim 3 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 16 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to claim 4 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 17 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to claim 5 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 18 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to claim 6 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHIA-LING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3630. 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.
/CHIA-LING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
