DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites ‘FAC and SAC’. The claim language should be corrected to include the full phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205141361U (Zhang) in view of US 20160216369 A1 (KUMARAKRISHNAN et al.).
Claim 1 and 21 and 22. Zhang teaches a system, the system comprising:
a semiconductor-based laser source emitting the laser light (line 34 note laser);
an optical scanner configured to direct the laser light to a field-of-view (line 20-21 note scanning ,line 34 note mirror and reflector. Also see figure 1,2);
one or more optical elements disposed between the laser source and the optical scanner, the one or more optical elements being configured to direct the laser light from the laser source to the optical scanner (see figure 1 and note optical elements 2 and 3 and see line 34);
Zhang teaches a diffraction grating (line 34). Zhang fails to explicitly teach but KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches a system for providing reduced or eliminated wavelength variations of laser light and a grating structure mounted to, or integrated with, an optical element of the one or more optical elements (see figure 4 and note the diffraction grating 56 and piezo stack 28 ,also see para 80), one or more characteristics of the grating structure being configured to reduce or eliminate wavelength variations of the laser light caused by variations of one or more operational conditions of the laser source (para 1 note frequency stabilization, para 56-61,para 75 note stability and para 115).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang and KUMARAKRISHNAN and modify the system such a grating structure is mounted to an optical element and the grating structure being configured to reduce or eliminate wavelength variations of the laser light caused by variations of one or more operational conditions of the laser source. The motivation to do so would be to actively stabilize the wavelength with little to no human intervention (e.g., automatically) once laser system has been is set up and is running (KUMARAKRISHNAN Para 58).
Claim 2. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor-based laser source comprises one or more laser diodes (Zhang line 34 note Fabry Perot laser).
Claim 3. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor-based laser source comprises one or more of a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL), a vertical-external-cavity surface- emitting laser (VECSEL), an external-cavity diode laser, a distributed feedback laser (DFB), a distributed Bragg reflector laser (DBR), a separate confinement heterostructure diode laser, an interband cascade laser, a quantum cascade laser, a quantum well laser, and a double heterostructure laser (Zhang line 31 note external cavity laser).
Claim 4. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor-based laser source comprises laser emitting devices made from one or more of Gallium Arsenide-based, Indium Phosphide-based, Gallium Antimonide-based, and Gallium Nitride-based materials (Zhang line 34 note Fabry Perot laser).
Claim 5. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the grating structure comprises one or more of a diffractive grating structure, a reflective grating structure, a transmissive grating structure, and a combination thereof (Zhang line 34 note diffraction and grating).
Claim 6. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the grating structure comprises a periodic structure that diffracts the laser light into a plurality of light beams having different diffraction angles (Zhang abstract note first order and zero order diffraction, line 12-13,34 note blazed grating).
Claim 7. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the grating structure is configured to provide, based on the laser light, at least a zeroth-order beam and a first order beam, the zeroth-order beam corresponding to direct transmission or specular reflection of the laser light, the first order beam corresponding to a diffracted light intensity maxima at a first order diffraction angle, and wherein the one or more characteristics of the grating structure are configured such that the first order beam is directed from the grating structure toward to the laser source (Zhang abstract and line 9,34 note first order and zero order diffraction and also note feedback light path).
Claim 8. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more characteristics of the grating structure comprise a grating width, a groove spacing, a groove profile, a reflectivity of a grating structure coating, a diffraction angle, a resolution, an angular dispersion, and dimensions of the grating structure (Zhang line 34 note grating 1200 lines/mm3).
Claim 9. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 7, wherein an internal cavity of the laser source and the grating structure form a compound cavity that determines an operational wavelength of the laser light (Zhang see figure 1, and line 34 note laser and grating),
Zhang fails to explicitly teach but KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the operational wavelength of the laser light being substantially temperature independent (para 73 note Accordingly, the control of the temperature inside of enclosure 30 may provide some protection against changes in temperature of the environment outside of enclosure 30 and may contribute to the overall stability of laser system 100) .
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang and KUMARAKRISHNAN and modify the system such that the operational wavelength of the laser light being substantially temperature independent. The motivation to do so would be to provide some protection against changes in temperature of the environment outside of enclosure and contribute to the overall stability of laser system (KUMARAKRISHNAN para 73 ).
Claim 10. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the first order beam is the positive first order beam or a negative first order beam (Zhang see abstract).
Claim 18. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical elements comprise a FAC, a prism, an SAC, a combining mirror, a lens or a lens group, and a folding mirror, wherein the FAC, the prism, the SAC, the combining mirror, the lens or lens group, and the folding mirror are disposed in order along an optical path from the laser source to the optical scanner (Zhang figure 1 note lens 2).
Claim 19. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a geometry of the grating structure is configured based on a selected wavelength of the laser light (Zhang line 13).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205141361U (Zhang) in view of US 20160216369 A1 (KUMARAKRISHNAN et al.) further in view of US 20230221416 A1 (Park et al.).
Claim 11. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 7. Zhang teaches first order diffracted light and inherently it will have some percentage of the laser light. Zhang fails to explicitly teach wherein the first order beam has a light intensity that is about 0.1- 1% or 10-30% of a light intensity of the laser light. However, Park teaches that first order diffracted light can have intensity of about 2% and also teaches a wide range of intensity can be achieved (see para 111 and 115 and figure 12).
Zhang discloses the invention except for an intensity range that is about 0.1- 1% or 10-30% . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and Park and modify the system such that the first order beam has a light intensity that is about 0.1- 1% or 10-30% of a light intensity of the laser light, 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 .
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205141361U (Zhang) in view of US 20160216369 A1 (KUMARAKRISHNAN et al.) further in view of US 20150309304 A1 (Protz).
Claim 13. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1. Zhang fails but Protz teaches wherein the optical element is a mirror, and the grating structure is integrated with the mirror such that the mirror and the grating structure form an integral piece (para 41 note diffraction grating integrated with mirror).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and Protz and modify the system such that the optical element is a mirror, and the grating structure is integrated with the mirror such that the mirror and the grating structure form an integral piece. The motivation to do so would be to produce beams at desired angle.
Claim 14. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN and Portz teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the mirror is moveable or fixed (Portz para 41,62-66).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and Protz and modify the system such that the optical element is a mirror that is moveable or fixed. The motivation to do so would be to produce beams at desired angle.
Claim 15. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN and Portz teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the mirror comprises a portion that allows the laser light to pass through (Portz para 62 note mirror 23 with aperture ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and Protz and modify the system such that the mirror comprises a portion that allows the laser light to pass through. The motivation to do so would be to produce beams at desired angle.
Claim 16. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN and Portz teaches the system of claim 15. Portz teaches wherein the portion that allows the laser light to pass through comprises a substantially transparent portion, a portion having an anti-reflection coating, an opening, or a combination thereof (Portz para 56 note transparent and para 62 note mirror 23 with aperture ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and Protz and modify the system such that the portion that allows the laser light to pass through comprises an opening. The motivation to do so would be to produce beams at desired angle.
Claim(s) 12,17,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205141361U (Zhang) in view of US 20160216369 A1 (KUMARAKRISHNAN et al.) further in view of US 20180284274 A1 (LaChapelle).
Claim 12. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1. Zhang fails but LaChapelle teaches wherein the grating structure is integrated with the optical element at a surface of the optical element (para 136 note grism which is a combination of prism integrated with grating).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and LaChapelle and modify the system such that the grating structure is integrated with the optical element at a surface of the optical element. The motivation to do so would be to have a system so that light at a chosen central wavelength passes straight through.
Claim 17. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1. Zhang fails but LaChapelle teaches wherein the optical element is an optical prism, and the grating structure is integrated with the optical prism such that the optical prism and the grating structure form an integral piece (para 136 note grism which is a combination of prism integrated with grating).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and LaChapelle and modify the system such that the optical element is an optical prism, and the grating structure is integrated with the optical prism such that the optical prism. The motivation to do so would be to have a system so that light at a chosen central wavelength passes straight through.
Claim 20. Zhang as modified in view of KUMARAKRISHNAN teaches the system of claim 1. Zhang fails but LaChapelle teaches wherein the grating structure is embedded in the optical element (para 136 note grism which is a combination of prism integrated with grating).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Zhang, KUMARAKRISHNAN and LaChapelle and modify the system such that the grating structure is embedded in the optical element. The motivation to do so would be to have a system so that light at a chosen central wavelength passes straight through.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights