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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 3/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, 17 under Cruse in view of Chiatti have been fully considered and are persuasive as the existing rejections do not address all the limitations of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cruse (US 20170162019) in view of Kirihara (EP 3214425) and Barrett (GB 2404731).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 recites “the first reflective tilted space” which lacks antecedent basis. However, as line 4 recites “a first reflective tilted surface” which is supported by the instant specification, the “space” is interpreted as “surface”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20170162019) in view of Kirihara (EP 3214425), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “CK”.
As to claim 1, Cruse teaches a smoke detector (Abstract “A smoke detector”), comprising:
a substrate, having an upper surface (Figure 3, paragraph 0039 “circuit board 24”);
a light guiding and blocking member, comprising a first accommodation space (Figure 3, the area around element 26), a second accommodation space (Figure 3, the area around element 30), a light trap region (Figure 3, paragraph 0049 “light trap 11”), a first reflective tilted surface (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “prism carrier 34 … and a prism 38”),
wherein the first reflective tilted space is arranged above the first accommodation space (Figure 3, the reflecting prism 38 is above element 26), and
the second accommodation space is arranged between the first accommodation space and the light trap region in a first direction (Figure 3, element 30 is between element 26 and the light trap off to the left);
a light source (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “SMD LED chip package 26”), arranged inside the first accommodation space and configured to project a shaped light beam to the first reflective tilted surface (Figure 3, the LED 26 shines light up to prism 38); and
a light sensor (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “light sensor 30”), arranged inside the second accommodation space and configured to receive scattered light generated by the reflected and shaped light beam upon illuminating smoke particles (Figure 3, paragraph 0043 “When smoke particles enter the space above the light sensor 30, a portion of the light emitted by the LED is scattered towards the photo detector.”).
Cruse does not teach a second reflective tilted surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches a smoke detector (paragraph 0001 “The present invention relates to a particle detection sensor and to devices which include the particle detection sensor, such as a dust sensor, smoke detector”) in which a light is shined into a space then directed to a beam dump (Figure 4 with light source 121, particles 2, scattered light sensor 130 & light trap 40) with a second reflective tilted surface (Figure 4, paragraph 57 “reflective wall 112”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a second reflective tilted surface, in order to better direct the light to a desired location (i.e. the light trap).
Cruse as modified by Kirihara above does not teach the second reflective tilted surface is arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region, and a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches the second reflective tilted surface is arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region (Figure 4, surface 112 extends from housing surface 110 and encloses light trap 40), and a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region (the section of the housing through which the arrow from “41” passes, as in the modified Figure 4 below those four connected line segments of housing 110 are interpreted to read on the claimed substrate).
Modified Kirihara Figure 4
PNG
media_image1.png
413
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the second reflective tilted surface is arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region, and a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region, in order to better direct the light to a desired location (i.e. the light trap) and prevent unwanted scattering.
Cruse as modified by Kirihara above does not explicitly teach wherein the first reflective tilted surface is configured to reflect the shaped light beam toward the second reflective tilted surface, and the second reflective tilted surface is configured to reflect a reflected and shaped light beam from the first reflective tilted surface to the light trap region. However, the invention of Cruse is modified by the teachings of Kirihara above (see the modified Kirihara Figure 4) to insert a second reflecting surface between the particle interaction region and the light trap. As the first reflecting surface of Cruse directs the light from the source to the light trap (see Cruse Figures 3 & 4), it is obvious that in the invention of Cruse modified by Kirihara would have the first reflective tilted surface be configured to reflect the shaped light beam toward the second reflective tilted surface, and the second reflective tilted surface be configured to reflect a reflected and shaped light beam from the first reflective tilted surface to the light trap region. This would be done in order to better guide the beam into a light trap and lower the chance of unwanted scattering light entering the detector.
As to claim 2, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Cruse teaches the light source, the light sensor and the light guiding and blocking member are arranged on the upper surface of the substrate (Figures 3 & 4, paragraphs 0039-0040).
As to claim 4, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Cruse teaches the light guiding and blocking member further comprises:
a first light blocking wall, arranged between the first accommodation space and the second accommodation space (Figure 3, there is a vertical wall under lens 152); and
a second light blocking wall, arranged between the second accommodation space and the light trap region (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “arm 46”).
Cruse as modified by Kirihara above does not teach the second light blocking wall is higher than the first light blocking wall. However, it is known in the art of scatterometry to use walls, baffles and shields to block unwanted light and Kirihara teaches multiple walls intended to stop unwanted light (Figure 4, walls 111, 112, 113, 114, 115) with varying heights (esp. element 115). As the instant specification does not discuss the criticality of the second wall being higher (e.g. paragraph 0047 “In one aspect, the second light blocking wall 344 is higher than the first light blocking wall 343, but not limited thereto.”) it would be an obvious matter of engineering experience to adjust the height of any given wall to have the invention of Cruse as modified by Kirihara read on the claimed relative heights, in order to better block light for a given experimental setup. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
As to claim 5, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 4, in addition Cruse teaches an upper edge of the first reflective tilted surface extends to be above the first light blocking wall in the first direction (Figure 3, the top (horizontal) part of the sloped wall extends over the vertical wall under the lens).
As to claim 6, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 4, in addition Cruse teaches an upper edge of the second reflective tilted surface does not extend to be above the second light blocking wall in the first direction (Figure 3, the diagonal part of the sloped wall 34 does not extend over the vertical wall under the lens).
As to claim 7, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Kirihara teaches the bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb reflected light of the second reflective tilted surface (paragraph 0043 “the inner surfaces of housing 10 are painted black so housing 10 can absorb stray light”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb reflected light of the second reflective tilted surface, in order to better absorb undesired light.
As to claim 17, Cruse teaches a light guiding and blocking member of a smoke detector, the light guiding and blocking member being configured to be arranged on an upper surface of a substrate (Figure 3, the elements & walls are on top of element 24), and the light guiding and blocking member comprising:
a light trap region (Figure 4, element 11),
an accommodation space (Figure 3, the region around element 30), configured to accommodate a light sensor (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “light sensor 30”);
a first light blocking wall, arranged at a side of the accommodation space farther away from the light trap region (Figure 3, the light trap is off to the left and there is a vertical wall to the right of element 30 under lens 152); and
a second light blocking wall, arranged at a side of the accommodation space closer to the light trap region, and between the light trap region and the accommodation space (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “arm 46” and element 46 is between the light trap to the left and the region around element 30).
Cruse does not teach that a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region (Figure 4, housing 110 extends around to be part of light trap area 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a part of the upper surface of the substrate be configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region, in order to better direct the light to a desired location (i.e. the light trap) and prevent unwanted scattering.
Cruse does not teach a reflective tilted surface, arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region and configured to reflect light beams to the bottom surface of the light trap region. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches a reflective tilted surface, arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region and configured to reflect light beams to the bottom surface of the light trap region (Figure 4, reflective surface 112 is above light trap region 40 and reflects light into it). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a reflective tilted surface, arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region and configured to reflect light beams to the bottom surface of the light trap region, in order to better direct the light to a desired location (i.e. the light trap) and prevent unwanted scattering.
Cruse as modified by Kirihara above does not teach the second light blocking wall is higher than the first light blocking wall. However, it is known in the art of scatterometry to use walls, baffles and shields to block unwanted light and Kirihara teaches multiple walls intended to stop unwanted light (Figure 4, walls 111, 112, 113, 114, 115) with varying heights (esp. element 115). As the instant specification does not discuss the criticality of the second wall being higher (e.g. paragraph 0047 “In one aspect, the second light blocking wall 344 is higher than the first light blocking wall 343, but not limited thereto.”) it would be an obvious matter of engineering experience to adjust the height of any given wall to have the invention of Cruse as modified by Kirihara read on the claimed relative heights, in order to better block light for a given experimental setup. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
As to claim 18, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Cruse teaches
another accommodation space (Figure 3, the area around element 26), arranged at a side of the first light blocking wall farther away from the accommodation space and configured to accommodate a light source (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “SMD LED chip package 26”); and
another reflective tilted surface (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “prism carrier 34 … and a prism 38”), arranged above said another accommodation space and configured to reflect an emission light beam of the light source to the reflective tilted surface (Figure 3, element 38 reflects the beam from source 26 to the left, which in claim 17’s Cruse as modified by Kirihara would also be to the left, see Figure One above for the rejection of claim 9).
As to claim 19, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Kirihara teaches a carrier wall, arranged at a side of the first light blocking wall farther away from the accommodation space and configured to carry a light source (Figure 4, the walls around elements 121 & 122 hold light source 121 in a desired position). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a carrier wall, arranged at a side of the first light blocking wall farther away from the accommodation space and configured to carry a light source, in order to better hold optical elements in desired positions.
Cruse as modified by Kirihara above does not teach a height of the carrier wall is higher than that of the second light blocking wall. However, Cruse teaches walls to block light from reaching undesirable locations (see Figure 3) and Kirihara teaches the use of walls to position optical elements in desired positions (Figure 4), and as the heights of the walls are results effective variables and there are a finite number of heights, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed relative heights, in order to increase their ability to block unwanted light and hold optical elements in desired positions. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
As to claim 20, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 17, in addition Kirihara teaches the bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb light beams reflected by the reflective tilted surface (paragraph 0043 “the inner surfaces of housing 10 are painted black so housing 10 can absorb stray light”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb light beams reflected by the reflective tilted surface, in order to better absorb undesired light.
Claims 3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CK, and further in view of Arnold et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230314299).
As to claim 3, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam. However, it is known in the art as taught by Arnold. Arnold teaches measuring light scattered from airborne particles (Figure 3A, Abstract “Systems and methods for trapping and holding airborne particles” and paragraph 0019 “The measurement device may be judiciously configured to measure one or more of … light scattering over one or more angles, light scattering at multiple wavelengths”) using a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam (paragraph 0012 “The optics and/or mechanics for forming and shaping the beam of light into an orienting hollow beam may include one or more optical elements, holographic means, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments and implementations, the optics and/or mechanics for forming and shaping the beam of light into the orienting hollow beam include a first means for forming shaping an intermediate beam from the beam of light, and a second means for forming and shaping the orienting hollow beam from the intermediate beam.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam, in order to form the light to a shape best suited for a desired purpose.
As to claim 8, CK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Cruse teaches the light source comprises a first chip configured to emit a first wavelength light (paragraph 0040 “The optical bench assembly comprises an SMD LED chip package 26”).
Cruse as modified by Kirihara above does not teach a second chip configured to emit a second wavelength light, and the light sensor comprises a pixel array having a first detection zone arranged with a first optical filter in front and a second detection zone arranged with a second optical filter in front, and the first detection zone and the second detection zone are respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light. However, it is known in the art as taught by Arnold. Arnold teaches
a second chip configured to emit a second wavelength light (paragraph 0117 “the particle detector 150 may be comprised of two different-wavelength crossed-beam diode lasers”), and
the light sensor comprises a pixel array (paragraph 0096 “imaging device 68, such as an intensified charged-couple device” where ICCDs have pixels) having a first detection zone arranged with a first optical filter in front and a second detection zone arranged with a second optical filter in front, and the first detection zone and the second detection zone are respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light (paragraph 0117 “the particle detector 150 may be comprised of two different-wavelength crossed-beam diode lasers with corresponding photodetectors, each of said photodetectors including an optical filter that passes the wavelength of the diode laser it detects and blocks the light from the other diode laser and light at any other wavelengths that would interfere” and the pair of photodetectors is interpreted as the claimed pixel array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a second chip configured to emit a second wavelength light, and the light sensor comprises a pixel array having a first detection zone arranged with a first optical filter in front and a second detection zone arranged with a second optical filter in front, and the first detection zone and the second detection zone are respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light, in order to better detect light scattered from different materials.
Examiner’s Note: Regarding the rejection of claim 9 below, the rejection is made with references to the following Figure One, which is a combination of Kirihara Figure 4 (on the left), Cruse Figure 3 (the center) and Barrett Figure 8 (on the right). This figure is provided because the limitations taught by Cruse, Kirihara & Barrett are blended in a way that separating & addressing them individually felt awkward. This figure is intended to give a frame of reference for how the examiner intends the combined elements of Cruse, Kirihara & Barrett to relate to one another. If this is unclear, the examiner is open to an interview to clarify their position.
PNG
media_image2.png
230
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure One
Claims 9-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruse in view of Kirihara in view of Barrett (GB 2404731), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “CKB”.
As to claim 9, Cruse teaches a smoke detector, comprising:
a substrate, having an upper surface (Figure 3, paragraph 0039 “circuit board 24”);
a light guiding and blocking member, comprising a carrier wall (taught by Barrett below and shown in Figure One as element A), an accommodation space (Cruse Figure 3, the area around element 30, shown in Figure One as element B), a light trap region (Cruse Figure 3, paragraph 0049 “light trap 11”, also taught by Kirihara below and shown in Figure One as element C) and a reflective tilted surface (taught by Kirihara below, shown in Figure One as element D),
a light source (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “SMD LED chip package 26”), arranged on the carrier wall (taught by Barrett below and shown in Figure One by putting element A in place of the light source 26 & prism 38 of Cruse) and configured to project a shaped light beam (Figure 8, the beams of light from element 112 and going through planes X and Y) to the reflective tilted surface (taught by Kirihara below, shown in Figure One as the light beam being directed to element D and reflected into light trap C),
a light sensor (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “light sensor 30”), arranged inside the accommodation space and configured to receive scattered light generated by the shaped light beam upon illuminating smoke particles (Figure 3, paragraph 0043 “When smoke particles enter the space above the light sensor 30, a portion of the light emitted by the LED is scattered towards the photo detector.”).
Cruse does not teach a carrier wall. However, it is known in the art as taught by Barrett. Barrett teaches a smoke detector (Figure 3, Abstract “A smoke detector”) including a carrier wall (Figure 8, page 15:1 “LED 110”, the vertical bar on which it rests and the shaded wall behind it is interpreted as the claimed carrier wall, shown in Figure One as element A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a carrier wall, in order to provide a concentrated beam at the plane of the sensor field of view without the need for a prism or other device to turn the light beam (page 15:11-15).
Cruse as modified by Barrett above does not teach a light trap region that comprises part of the substrate. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches a light trap region that comprises part of the substrate (Figure 4, housing 110 forms a wall of the light trap area 40, shown as element C in Figure One above, that uses part of the heavy black line representing housing 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a light trap region that comprises part of the substrate, in order to save cost & weight by reducing the number of walls in the design.
Cruse as modified by Barrett and Kirihara above does not teach a reflective tilted surface, wherein the reflective tilted surface is arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region, and a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region, and the accommodation space is arranged between the carrier wall and the light trap region in a first direction. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches a reflective tilted surface (Figure 4, paragraph 57 “reflective wall 112”, shown in Figure One as element D), wherein the reflective tilted surface is arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region (Figure 4, surface 112 extends from housing surface 110 and encloses light trap 40, shown in Figure One where element D extends from the thick black line (representing substrate 110) and covers element C), and a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region (Figure 4, housing 110 forms part of the light trap, shown in Figure One as the heavy black line forming part of light trap element C), and the accommodation space is arranged between the carrier wall and the light trap region in a first direction (in Figure One, element B is between elements A and C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a reflective tilted surface, wherein the reflective tilted surface is arranged on a base longitudinally extended from the upper surface of the substrate and above the light trap region, and a part of the upper surface of the substrate is configured as a bottom surface of the light trap region, and the accommodation space is arranged between the carrier wall and the light trap region in a first direction, in order to better direct the light to a desired location (i.e. the light trap) and prevent unwanted scattering.
Cruse as modified by Barrett and Kirihara above does not teach the light source is arranged on the carrier wall and configured to project a shaped light beam to the reflective tilted surface, wherein the reflective tilted wall is configured to reflect the shaped light beam to the light trap region. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kirihara. Kirihara teaches the light source is arranged on the carrier wall (Figure 4, light source 121 is mounted on the surrounding walls that extend from the housing 110) and configured to project a shaped light beam to the reflective tilted surface (Figure 4, light from source 121 hits particles in area DA then continues to surface 112), wherein the reflective tilted wall is configured to reflect the shaped light beam to the light trap region (Figure 4, light from the source 121 hits the wall 112 and is reflected into trap area 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the light source is arranged on the carrier wall and configured to project a shaped light beam to the reflective tilted surface, wherein the reflective tilted wall is configured to reflect the shaped light beam to the light trap region, in order to better direct the light to a desired location (i.e. the light trap) and prevent unwanted scattering.
As to claim 10, CKB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition Cruse teaches the light sensor and the light guiding and blocking member are arranged on the upper surface of the substrate (Figures 3 & 4, paragraphs 0039-0040, and in Figure One above the dark black line is interpreted as the substrate).
As to claim 12, CKB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition Cruse teaches the light guiding and blocking member further comprises:
a first light blocking wall, arranged between the carrier wall and the accommodation space (Figure 3, there is a vertical wall under lens 152); and
a second light blocking wall, arranged between the accommodation space and the light trap region (Figure 3, paragraph 0040 “arm 46”).
Cruse as modified by Barrett and Kirihara above does not teach the second light blocking wall is higher than the first light blocking wall. However, Cruse teaches walls to block light from reaching undesirable locations (see Figure 3) and as the heights of the walls are results effective variables and there are a finite number of heights, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable the claimed relative heights, in order to increase their ability to block unwanted light. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
As to claims 13 and 14, CKB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 12, with the exception of the claimed surface and wall heights. However, it is known in the art of scatterometry to use walls, baffles and shields to block unwanted light and Kirihara teaches multiple walls intended to stop unwanted light (Figure 4, walls 111, 112, 113, 114, 115) with varying heights above different surfaces (esp. element 115). As the instant specification does not discuss the criticality of the second wall being higher (e.g. paragraph 0047 “In one aspect, the second light blocking wall 344 is higher than the first light blocking wall 343, but not limited thereto.”) it would be an obvious matter of engineering experience to adjust the height of any given wall to have the invention of Cruse as modified by Kirihara read on the claimed relative heights, in order to better block light for a given experimental setup. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
As to claim 15, CKB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition Kirihara teaches the bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb reflected light of the reflective tilted surface (paragraph 0043 “the inner surfaces of housing 10 are painted black so housing 10 can absorb stray light”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the bottom surface of the light trap region is further arranged with a light absorption member to absorb reflected light of the reflective tilted surface, in order to better absorb undesired light.
Claims 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CKB, and further in view of Arnold et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230314299).
As to claim 11, CKB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, with the exception of a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam. However, it is known in the art as taught by Arnold. Arnold teaches a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam (paragraph 0012 “The optics and/or mechanics for forming and shaping the beam of light into an orienting hollow beam may include one or more optical elements, holographic means, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments and implementations, the optics and/or mechanics for forming and shaping the beam of light into the orienting hollow beam include a first means for forming shaping an intermediate beam from the beam of light, and a second means for forming and shaping the orienting hollow beam from the intermediate beam.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a diffractive optical element configured to shape an emission light beam of the light source to a linear light beam, an elliptic light beam or a circular light beam as the shaped light beam, in order to form the light to a shape best suited for a desired purpose.
As to claim 16, CKB teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 9, in addition Cruse teaches the light source comprises a first chip configured to emit a first wavelength light (paragraph 0040 “The optical bench assembly comprises an SMD LED chip package 26”).
Cruse as modified by Barrett and Kirihara above does not teach a second chip configured to emit a second wavelength light, and the light sensor comprises a pixel array having a first detection zone arranged with a first optical filter in front and a second detection zone arranged with a second optical filter in front, and the first detection zone and the second detection zone are respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light. However, it is known in the art as taught by Arnold. Arnold teaches
a second chip configured to emit a second wavelength light (paragraph 0117 “the particle detector 150 may be comprised of two different-wavelength crossed-beam diode lasers”), and
the light sensor comprises a pixel array (paragraph 0096 “imaging device 68, such as an intensified charged-couple device” where ICCDs have pixels) having a first detection zone arranged with a first optical filter in front and a second detection zone arranged with a second optical filter in front, and the first detection zone and the second detection zone are respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light (paragraph 0117 “the particle detector 150 may be comprised of two different-wavelength crossed-beam diode lasers with corresponding photodetectors, each of said photodetectors including an optical filter that passes the wavelength of the diode laser it detects and blocks the light from the other diode laser and light at any other wavelengths that would interfere” and the pair of photodetectors is interpreted as the claimed pixel array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a second chip configured to emit a second wavelength light, and the light sensor comprises a pixel array having a first detection zone arranged with a first optical filter in front and a second detection zone arranged with a second optical filter in front, and the first detection zone and the second detection zone are respectively configured to detect the first wavelength light and the second wavelength light, in order to better detect light scattered from different materials.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
