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.
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 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saracco et al. (US 9798149 B1, hereinafter “Saracco”).
Regarding claim 1, Saracco discloses a beam splitter (Fig. 3B; column 6 lines 7-13, column 6 lines 28-37), comprising a beam-splitting layer (332), an anti-reflective layer (344; column 6 lines 26-28 and 41-44) and a reflection suppression layer (349; column 6 lines 51-53);
the beam-splitting layer is located on a side of an incident surface of the beam splitter (Fig. 3B), and configured to change an optical path of a part of incident light rays (Fig. 3B);
the anti-reflective layer is located on a side of an exiting surface of the beam splitter (Fig. 3B; column 6 lines 42-44 “344 on the output surface is antireflective coating”), and configured to reduce light reflection of incident light rays entering the beam splitter (column 6 lines 26-44); and
the reflection suppression layer is located on a reflection path of reflected light rays reflected by the anti-reflective layer (Fig. 3B), and configured to suppress the reflected light rays reflected by the anti-reflective layer (column 6 lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 2, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a thickness of the beam splitter enables the reflection suppression layer to be located on the reflection path of the reflected light rays reflected by the anti-reflective layer (see Fig. 3B teaching the beam-splitting layer 332 has a certain thickness to split light, the anti-reflective layer 334 has a certain thickness to reflect and/or diffract light and the reflection suppression layer 349 has a certain thickness to absorb light, where 349 is located on the reflection path of the reflected light rays; see column 6 lines 2-6, 14-25, 26-28 and 50-53).
Regarding claim 3, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the beam-splitting layer is a beam-splitting film attached to the incident surface of the beam splitter (Fig. 3A and column 6 lines 19-25 “the beam splitter 332 comprises an uncoated glass window positioned to receive the laser beam to receive the laser beam at a specific angle of incidence, with that angle of incidence selected to cause reflection of the first portion of light toward the filter component 334 while the second portion passes through the glass window and to the scanning mirrors”).
Regarding claim 5, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the beam-splitting layer is a layer structure with a beam-splitting function and integrated at the incident surface of the beam splitter (column 6 lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 9, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the reflection suppression layer is a light-absorbing layer (column 6 lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 10, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the light-absorbing layer is a target surface to which a light-absorbing material is attached in the beam splitter (Fig. 3B and column 6 lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 12, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the anti-reflective layer is an anti-reflective, abbreviated as AR, coating (Column 6 lines 41-44 “in this embodiment the second coating 344 on the output surface is antireflective coating”).
Regarding claim 13, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the beam splitter comprises the incident surface (the incident surface of 332 facing 102), the exiting surface and a bottom surface (the bottom surface of 349 away from 334) located between the incident surface and the exiting surface, and the reflection suppression layer is located at the bottom surface (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 16, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the beam splitter has a beam-splitting parameter (column 6 lines 19-27 “the beam splitter 302 comprises an uncoated glass window positioned to receive the laser beam at a specific angle of incidence … (e.g., the material and angle of incidence)”), and the beam-splitting parameter is used to adjust beam-splitting capability of the beam splitter (column 6 lines 25-28 “It should be noted that by precise configuration of the beam splitter 302 (e.g., the material and angle of incidence) a selected percentage of the laser beam can be directed toward the filter element”).
Regarding claim 17, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the beam-splitting parameter comprises at least one of: a material of the beam splitter, a grating structure of the beam splitter, a type and a thickness of a material attached to the surface of the beam splitter, and an incident angle of the beam splitter (column 6 lines 25-28 “It should be noted that by precise configuration of the beam splitter 302 (e.g., the material and angle of incidence) a selected percentage of the laser beam can be directed toward the filter element”).
Regarding claim 18, Saracco discloses an optical power monitoring system (Figs. 2 and 3B; column 1 lines 30-35 “an optical power sensor”; column 6 lines 7-13, column 6 lines 28-37), comprising:
an incident light module (102) configured to generate multiple channels of incident light rays (column 3 lines 21-27);
a beam splitter (332, 344, 349; column 6 lines 7-53) arranged behind the incident light module;
a monitoring module (336) is arranged on a path of the part changed by the beam splitter of the incident light rays (Fig. 3B), and configured to perform multi-channel optical power monitoring (column 6 lines 47-50); and
the beam splitter comprising a beam-splitting layer (332) and a reflection suppression layer (349; column 6 lines 51-53), wherein the beam-splitting layer is configured to change an optical path of a part of the incident light rays (see Fig. 3B) and the reflection suppression layer is configured to suppress reflected light rays reflected toward the interior of the beam splitter (Fig. 3B and column 6 lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 19, Saracco discloses an optical power monitoring system (Figs. 2 and 3B; column 1 lines 30-35 “an optical power sensor”), comprising:
a beam splitter (332, 344, 349; column 6 lines 7-53);
an incident light module (102) configured to generate multiple channels of incident light rays (column 3 lines 21-27); and
a monitoring module (336) arranged on a reflection path of a part reflected by the beam splitter of the incident light rays (Fig. 3B), and configured to perform multi-channel optical power monitoring (column 6 lines 47-50),
wherein the beam splitter is arranged behind the incident light module (Fig. 3B), and configured to change an optical path of a part of the incident light rays (Fig. 3B) and configured to suppress reflected light rays reflected toward an interior of the beam splitter (see 349 in Fig. 3B and column 6 lines 51-53).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracco.
Regarding claim 14, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
In the Figure 3B embodiment, Saracco does not explicitly disclose the incident surface and the exiting surface are parallel to each other.
However, Saracco teaches the beam-splitting layer is posited to receive the laser beam (column 6 lines 19-25), and a filter component has a wedge structure (see 334 in Fig. 3B; column 6 lines 26-30).
Because the incident surface and the wedge structure can be adjusted to receive the laser beam and transmit the exiting light based on the location of the light source and the monitoring module, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam splitter, wherein the incident surface and the exiting surface are parallel to each other, for the purpose of providing optical components in an optical power sensor while having the necessary optical paths (Saracco: Fig. 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracco in view of Ricks et al. (US 20190250400, hereinafter “Ricks”).
Regarding claim 4, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
Saracco does not disclose the beam-splitting film is a Non-Polarizing Reflector, abbreviated as NPR, film.
However, Ricks teaches a beam-splitting film may be a Non-Polarizing Reflector, abbreviated as NPR, film, or a polarizing film (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam-splitting film as disclosed by Saracco with the teachings of Ricks, wherein the beam-splitting film is a Non-Polarizing Reflector, abbreviated as NPR, film, for the purpose of providing a beam-splitter based on its preferred design, including a preferred transmission/reflection ratio or polarization states (Ricks: Para. [0046]).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracco in view of Hiwatashi et al. (US 20090116132, hereinafter “Hiwatashi”).
Regarding claim 6, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Saracco does not necessarily disclose the reflection suppression layer is a diffuse reflection layer.
However, Hiwatashi teaches a reflection suppression layer may be a diffuse reflection layer (Para. [0221] “<Antireflective layer> a so-called antiglare layer and/or so-called antireflective layer … diffuse a light”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflection suppression layer as disclosed by Saracco with the teachings of Hiwatashi, wherein the reflection suppression layer is a diffuse reflection layer, for the purpose of using a known reflection suppression layer to suppress reflection on the surface (Hiwatashi: Paras. [0221]-[0222]).
Regarding claim 11, Saracco as modified by Hiwatashi discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Saracco does not necessarily disclose the reflection suppression layer is a diffuse reflection layer to which a light-absorbing material is attached.
However, Hiwatashi teaches a reflection suppression layer may be a diffuse reflection layer to which a light-absorbing material is attached (Paras. [0221] “diffuse a light”, [0241] “a light diffusion particle is added in the surface protective layer (if there are plural layers, the particle is added to the upper layer thereof)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflection suppression layer as disclosed by Saracco with the teachings of Hiwatashi, wherein the reflection suppression layer is a diffuse reflection layer to which a light-absorbing material is attached, for the purpose of using a known reflection suppression layer to suppress reflection on the surface (Hiwatashi: Paras. [0221]-[0222]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracco in view of Yu et al. (US 20240048823, hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 20, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 19 above, and
Saracco does not disclose the monitoring module comprises a lens array and a photoelectric sensor array, and
wherein the lens array is used to transmit the light rays that are reflected by the beam splitter into the photoelectric sensor array for performing multi-channel optical power monitoring.
However, Yu teaches a known monitoring module (Fig. 3A; Paras. [0054], [0059]) comprises a lens array (an array of ML) and a photoelectric sensor array (an array of PD’s), and
wherein the lens array is used to transmit the light rays into the photoelectric sensor array for performing multi-channel optical power monitoring (Fig. 3A; Para. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the monitoring module as disclosed by Saracco with the teachings of Yu, wherein the monitoring module comprises a lens array and a photoelectric sensor array, and wherein the lens array is used to transmit the light rays that are reflected by the beam splitter into the photoelectric sensor array for performing multi-channel optical power monitoring, for the purpose of implementing optical sensors (Yu: Para. [0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 15 are 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:
Regarding claim 7, Saracco as modified by Hiwatashi discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and Hiwatashi further teaches a reflection suppression layer may be a diffuse reflection layer acting like frosted glass (Paras. [0221], [0241]).
However, Saracco and Hiwatashi fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the target surface is located on an optical path of reflected light rays of the exiting surface”, because Saracco teaches the reflection suppression layer is located on the opposite side of the exiting surface (see 349 in Fig. 3B). The examiner further considered Hughes (US 20230194884) and Thompson (US 20040080834). For example, Hughes teaches a beam splitter (Fig. 2; Para. [0038]) wherein anti-reflection coatings are applied to the input and output faces (Para. [0047]), but fails to disclose the reflection suppression layer located on a reflection path of reflected light rays reflected by the anti-reflective layer. Saracco, Hiwatashi, Ricks, Yu, Hughes and Thompson, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Saracco as modified by Hiwatashi discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, Hiwatashi further teaches a known reflection suppression layer may be a diffuse reflection layer having a target surface to which a diffuse reflection material is attached (Paras. [0221], [0241]).
However, Saracco and Hiwatashi fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the target surface is located on an optical path of reflected light rays of the exiting surface”, because Saracco teaches the reflection suppression layer is located on the opposite side of the exiting surface (see 349 in Fig. 3B). The examiner further considered Hughes and Thompson. For example, Hughes teaches a beam splitter (Fig. 2; Para. [0038]) wherein anti-reflection coatings are applied to the input and output faces (Para. [0047]), but fails to disclose the reflection suppression layer located on a reflection path of reflected light rays reflected by the anti-reflective layer. Saracco, Hiwatashi, Ricks, Yu, Hughes and Thompson, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Saracco discloses the limitations of claim 14 above.
However, Saracco fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “a cross section of the beam splitter is a parallelogram, the incident surface and the exiting surface correspond to two oblique sides of the parallelogram respectively, and the reflection suppression layer corresponds to a base side of the parallelogram”. For example, Saracco teaches adjusting the incident surface of beam-splitting layer (column 6 lines 19-25), but fails to explicitly disclose the reflection suppression layer corresponds to a base side of the parallelogram. The examiner further considered Hughes and Thompson. The prior art of Hughes teaches a beam splitter is a parallelogram (Fig. 2; Para. [0038]) wherein anti-reflection coatings are applied to the input and output faces (Para. [0047]), but fails to disclose the reflection suppression layer located on a reflection path of reflected light rays reflected by the anti-reflective layer. Saracco, Hiwatashi, Ricks, Yu, Hughes and Thompson, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871