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 documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 23, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copy of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Six (6) sheets of drawings were filed on January 23, 2024 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 15, 16, 22, and 28 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.
Regarding claim 15; the term “substantially equal” in lines 2 and 3 of claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 16; the claim inherently contains the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which it depends.
Regarding claim 22; the term “substantially” in line 2 of claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s impossible to know what shapes qualify as “substantially a rectangular distribution”.
Regarding claim 28; the term “substantially” in line 2 of claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s impossible to know what shapes qualify as “substantially a rectangular distribution”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 14-15, 17-19, 21, 23-24, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sutton et al. (WO 2021/029969 A1; cited on the IDS filed January 23, 2024), hereafter Sutton.
Regarding claims 14-15, 17-19, 21, 23-24, 26-27, and 29; Sutton discloses a LiDAR device for scanning measurement of a distance to an object (see page 2, lines 8-33; see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the device comprises:
a photonic integrated circuit (photonic integrated circuit 20A, 20B) comprising
a plurality of optical waveguides (arrayed waveguides 22A, 22B) and
a plurality of couplers (emitters 28A, 28B),
wherein each coupler (28A, 28B) is associated with one of the optical waveguides (22A, 22B) and configured to couple light guided in the optical waveguide (22A, 22B) into free space and/or light propagating in free space into the optical waveguide (22A, 22B),
a collimating optical system (40A, 40B; see page 6, lines 21-27, and page 7, lines 4-14) configured to collimate light beams emitted by the couplers (28A, 28B) and/or to focus collimated light beams, and
a plurality of microlenses (34A, 34B),
wherein each microlens (34A, 34B) is associated with one of the couplers (28A, 28B) and forms a real or virtual image of the associated coupler (see page 6, lines 13-20, and page 7, lines 4-14),
wherein the images of the couplers (28A, 28B) are arranged in an object field of the collimating optical system (40A, 40B),
wherein each coupler (28A, 28B) has a coupler numerical aperture and the collimating optical system (40A, 40B) has a collimator numerical aperture which is greater than each of the coupler numerical apertures (see Figure 1A and 1B), and
wherein each microlens (34A, 34B) has, on a side pointing towards the couplers (28A, 28B), a coupler-side numerical aperture, and on a side pointing towards the collimating optical system (40A, 40B) a collimator-side numerical aperture that is greater than the coupler-side numerical aperture (see Figures 1a-4c, page 5, lines 16-18, page 6, lines 16-20, page 7, lines 11-14, and page 9, lines 23-26);
wherein the coupler numerical aperture of each coupler (28A, 28B) is at least substantially equal to the coupler-side numerical aperture of the associated microlens (34A, 34B) and wherein the collimator numerical aperture is at least substantially equal to the collimator-side numerical aperture of the microlenses (34A, 34B; see Figures 1A and 1B; the examiner notes that a range of values may be considered substantially equal);
wherein each microlens (34A, 34B; see Figures 1A and 1B) comprises two curved surfaces having a different refractive power (implied by different distances of the focal points on both sides of the microlenses);
wherein the couplers (28A, 28B; see Figures 1A and 1B) are arranged in a surface (32A, 32B) of the photonic integrated circuit (20A, 20B), the couplers (28A, 28B) are configured to emit and/or to receive light beams each having a centroid ray that forms an angle with a local surface normal (see Figures 1A and 1B), wherein the angle is between 50 and 700 (see Figures 1A and 1B), and wherein optical axes of the microlenses (34A and 34B) and directions of the associated centroid rays coincide and are parallel to an optical axis of the collimating optical system (40A, 40B; see Figures 1A and 1B);
wherein the surface (32A, 32B) is planar and has a surface normal that forms a non-zero angle to the optical axis of the collimating optical system (40A, 40B; see Figures 1A and 1B);
wherein each microlens (34A, 34B) is configured to transform an input angular light energy distribution produced by the associated coupler (28A, 28B) into an output angular light energy distribution that is flatter and/or broader than the input angular light energy distribution (see Figures 1A and 1B);
wherein two or more microlenses (each surface of microlenses 34A, 34B may be considered to be a microlens surface, and thus at least two microlenses are associated with each coupler) are associated with each coupler (28A, 28B);
wherein at least some microlenses (34A, 34B) have at least one aspherical lens surface; and
wherein the object field of the collimating optics (40A, 40B) is curved.
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.
Claims 16, 20, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutton et al. (WO 2021/029969 A1), hereafter Sutton.
Regarding claim 16; Sutton discloses the device of claim 15 as applied above, but does not disclose that the coupler numerical aperture of each coupler differs from the coupler-side numerical aperture of the associated microlens by less than 10%, and wherein the collimator numerical aperture differs from the collimator-side numerical aperture of the microlenses by less than 10%. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust eh numerical apertures of the couplers, microlenses and collimating optical system to provide for optimal coupling, including providing an arrangement of these elements wherein the coupler numerical aperture of each coupler differs from the coupler-side numerical aperture of the associated microlens by less than 10%, and wherein the collimator numerical aperture differs from the collimator-side numerical aperture of the microlenses by less than 10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233) and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 20; Sutton discloses the device of claim 14, wherein the microlenses (34A, 34B) have different focal lengths and direct beams at different angles (see page 2, lines 1-4), but does not explicitly states that the microlenses have different thicknesses. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the microlenses having different thicknesses in the invention of Sutton for the purpose of adjusting the focal lengths and beam deflection angles to desired different values as suggested by the teachings of Sutton, since the thickness of the microlens will affect deflection angles and focal lengths of the beam emitted from the microlens, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 22 and 28; Sutton discloses the device of claim 21 as applied above, but fails to explicitly disclose that the output angular light energy distribution is at least substantially a rectangular distribution. Before the effective filing date of the present invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the lenses to obtain any desired output angular light energy distribution, including at least a substantially rectangular distribution, since this is achievable with adjustment of lens properties to provide different deflection angles and focal distances (see page 2, lines 1-4) that provide for desired distributions and would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since no novel or unexpected advantages would appear to arise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, which is the most relevant prior art known, does not disclose or render obvious the device defined by claim 25, comprising a transparent plane-parallel plate that is arranged between the microlenses and the collimating optical system in combination with all of the limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 12,379,605 B2), see the entire disclosure;
Sutton et al. (US 12,313,790 B2), see the entire disclosure;
Seok et al. (US 12,140,676 B2), see the entire document;
Wu et al. (US 11,796,680 B2), see entire document;
Balbás et al. (US 2023/0288638 A1), see Figures 1, 2, and 9;
Swanson (US 11,579,356 B2), see Figure 30C;
Watts et al. (US 2022/0146903 A1), see entire document; and
Chriqui et al. (US 10,545,289 B1), see entire document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE R CONNELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, 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.
/MICHELLE R CONNELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874