DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 11/25/2025. Claim 1, 2, & 7 are amended. Claims 13-15 are canceled. Presently, Claims 1-12, 16-20 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 Arguments
Previous objections to the Specification & Drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 11/25/2025.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 11/25/2025.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 11/25/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1). applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection now relies on Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735).
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1:
Line 2: “[[the]]a skin”.
Claim 8:
Line 2: “the cylindrical outer surface of the opaque barrier.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735).
Claim 1: A system, (¶0097, ‘FIGS. 35A-C show some of the many configurations of a multi-chip package with optical emitter(s) and detector(s) inside optical cavities.’) comprising: a wearable device configured to be worn against the skin of a subject, (¶FIGS. 35A-C, FIG. 36B) comprising:
a transmitting window; (¶0097, ‘the optical cavity can be filled with a material with optical refractive index closer to the skin in order to improve the sensor-skin optical coupling.’. This material in its respective cavity defines a transmitting window.)
a light source for generating light for transmission through the transmitting window; (FIG. 35C, “emitter”, The emitted light from these LEDs interacts with the optical cavity (filled with the material having a refractive index closer to the skin to improve sensor-skin optical coupling) and the patients skin, ¶0097
a receiving window; (¶0097, ‘there are two optical cavities, one for the emitter and one for the detector’; also seen in FIG. 36B, Lamego states, ‘the optical cavity can be filled with a material with optical refractive index closer to the skin in order to improve the sensor-skin optical coupling’, ¶0097. The material facilitates not only the transmission of the light from the emitter into the skin, but also the efficient reception of attenuated and scattered light from the skin back to the detector, ¶0097. Thus this material in its respect cavity defines a receiving window.)
a photodetector configured to detect the light received through the receiving window; and (FIG. 35C, “detector”, ¶0097 states, ‘there are two optical cavities, one for the emitter and one for the detector’; also seen in FIG. 36B, Lamego states, ‘the optical cavity can be filled with a material with optical refractive index closer to the skin in order to improve the sensor-skin optical coupling’, ¶0097. After light passes through the patients tissue, it can be received by the detector, ¶0097, ‘Light piping is minimized by introducing an optically dark wall that minimizes the light transmitted directly from the recessed emitter to the recessed detector given their reception/emission cone’. The function of the photodetector, (optical sensor 110 comprises high efficiency LEDs 113 and at least one silicon photodiode (photodetector) 114, ¶0088), detects the light emitted by the diodes after it passes through part of the patient’s body, ¶0004.)
an opaque barrier, (FIG 35C, “optically dark wall” includes, an “optically dark background in the emitter-detector gap region’ and “a small wall separating physically the emitter and detector regions.’, ¶0095. The design minimizes “light piping”, ¶0097, ‘FIG. 35C where two cavities have their walls optically dark, which offer improved performance in terms of reduced light piping figures.’)
an edge of the transmitting window being separated from an edge of the receiving window by a gap having a width between 2.5 to 7 millimeters (mm), and (FIG. 32, Action 1: ¶0131, ‘FIG. 32 highlights the preferred design tradeoffs in the present inventions which enable the measurement of SpO2, PR, and PI using a small emitter-detector separation while still being able to produce acceptable signal-to-noise ratio figures. […] Action 1 (decreasing emitter to detector separation) decreases required LED optical power but requires actions 2 (making emitter-detector gap region optically dark)’; ¶0098, ‘optimal emitter-detector separation preferably is between 2.5 to 7 mm […] The SFH7050 component preferably has a detector separation of approximately 3 mm and thus is suitable for preferred embodiments of the invention.’)
the opaque barrier being in the gap. (FIG. 35C)
Lamego discloses: wherein the system comprises:
a package base comprising the light source, and (FIG. 35C)
Lamego fails to disclose: a width of less than 2 millimeters (mm)
However, Campbell in the context of sensors local to skin for spectrum data discloses, a width of less than 2 millimeters (mm) (¶0033, ‘a 0.1 mm source-detector separation as described above would be best suited to spectral measurements in the range of about 1800 nm to about 2500 nm, where tissue absorbance is high.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of Lamego to be less than 2 mm as taught by Cambell for the advantage of suiting spectral measurements in the range of about 1800 nm to about 2500 nm, where tissue absorbance is high, as suggested by Campbell ¶0033.
Lamego fails to disclose:
a lid,
the lid comprising:
the transmitting window,
the receiving window, and
a photodetector.
wherein a lower surface of the lid abuts against an upper surface of a flange of the package base, and a gap between the lid and the package base.
However, Chou in the context of a optical sensing module discloses: a package base (substrate 80) comprising the light source (light-emitting unit 20), and a lid (FIG. 2: Cap 10, Cap body 16, separation structure 17, sensing chip 45, away structure 50) the lid comprising: the transmitting window (transmitting window 14, FIG. 2), the receiving window (receiving window 12, FIG. 2), and a photodetector (light sensing region 40 disposed on sensing chip 45, FIG. 2),
wherein a lower surface of the lid abuts against an upper surface of the package base, and a gap between the lid and the package base. (FIG. 2, the lower surface of the cap abuts against an upper surface of the substrate, the gap (i.e., air) would be between the lid and package base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the package base of modified Lamego include a lid in view of teachings of Chou. The motivation to do this yields predictable results effectively reducing interference, Chou ¶0030.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the package base of modified Lamego include a lid in view of teachings of Chou. The motivation to do this yields predictable results effectively reducing interference, Chou ¶0030.
Lamego in view of Campbell in view of Chou fails to disclose the package device includes a flange.
However, Abe in the context of mounting of an optical device discloses, the package device includes a flange, enables the lid to slide, on the upper surface of the flange, in a direction parallel to the upper surface of the flange, and (base 4 includes ring-shaped flange 5 covered by the cap 20 joined at the cap’s flange 21a, FIG. 2. [Col 3 l.31-35])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the package device and lid of modified Lamegeo in view of the package device and lid that includes a flange as taught by Abe. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as facilitating a secure attachment of the cap to the base, thereby covering and protecting the internal optical elements and circuitry.
Regarding the limitations of claim 1 of “enables the lid to slide, on the upper surface of the flange, in a direction parallel to the upper surface of the flange, and" directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the invention of modified Lamego is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114."
Lamego in view of Campbell in view of Chou in view of Abe fails to disclose: wherein the lid comprises a threaded hole for receiving a threaded part, the threaded part being configured, when turned, to cause the lid to slide on the upper surface of the flange.
However, Hartung in the context of light emitters and receivers discloses, wherein the lid (housing 35 & clamp guide 38 including the threaded hole to receive the screws 39) comprises a threaded hole for receiving a threaded part, the threaded part being configured, when turned, to cause the lid to slide on the upper surface of the flange. (FIG. 1, [Col. 2 l.60-63], ‘The housing is preferably of cup shape having a mounting flange 37 which is secured by a circular guiding and clamping member 38 held in place by screws 39’, [Col 4 l.56-60], ‘Any angle may be selected simply by slight loosening of the screws 39 which clamp the circular guide 38, permitting the housing 35 to be rotated without disturbing the relationship of the parts which are secured within the housing.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of modified Lamego to be configured to comprise a threaded hole for receiving a threaded part, the threaded part being configured, when turned, to cause the lid to slide on the upper surface of the flange as taught by Hartung. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to permit the lid to be rotated without disturbing the relationship of the parts which are screwed within the lid, as suggested by Hartung, [Col 4 l.56-60].
Claim 3: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego discloses, wherein the receiving window is parallel, to within 5 degrees, to the transmitting window. (¶FIG. 35C, in the case where the optical cavities are filled with a material, ¶0097. The receive window and the transmitting window are within -5 to 5 degrees of each other, in FIG. 35C.)
Claim 4: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego discloses, wherein the receiving window is coplanar, at the gap, to within 2.5 to 7 mm, with the transmitting window. (¶FIG. 35C, in the case where the optical cavities are filled with a material, ¶0097. The receive window and the transmitting window are within -0.5 to 0.5 degrees of each other, in FIG. 35C. The receiving window and transmitting window lie on the same geometric plane, where the gap is between them.)
However, Campbell is relied upon above discloses, wherein the receiving window is coplanar, at the gap, to within 0.5 mm, with the transmitting window. (¶0033, ‘a 0.1 mm source-detector separation as described above would be best suited to spectral measurements in the range of about 1800 nm to about 2500 nm, where tissue absorbance is high.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap of modified Lamego to be less than 2 mm as taught by Cambell for the advantage of suiting spectral measurements in the range of about 1800 nm to about 2500 nm, where tissue absorbance is high, as suggested by Campbell ¶0033.
Claim 20: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego discloses, wherein the wearable device is waterproof. (FIG. 37, “water resistant”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sade (US 2013/0280923 A1)
Claim 2: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego discloses, wherein the opaque barrier is opaque to the light at a wavelength in a range from 2000 nanometers (nm) to 2500 nm.
However, Sade in the context of optical components discloses, (¶0029, ‘The lasers may have wavelength between about 200 nm and about 2,000 nm’; Claim 2, ‘wherein the energy blocking layer is opaque or reflective to a preselected range of wavelengths between about 200 nm and about 2,000 nm.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opaque barrier of modified Lamego such that it is opaque to light at a wavelength of about 2000 nm, which is in the range from 2000nm to 2500 nm as taught by Sade. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as preventing contaminates from being imaged, as suggested by ¶0011 of Sade.
Claims 5-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ben Ishay et al (US 2022/0354389 A1).
Claim 5: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego discloses, wherein the receiving window is rectangular and has a rectangular outer surface. (¶FIG. 35C, in the case where the optical cavities are filled with a material, ¶0097.)
Lamego fails to disclose: wherein the receiving window is cylindrical and has a cylindrical outer surface.
However, Ben Ishay in the context of optical measurements of a wearable device discloses: wherein the receiving window is cylindrical and has a cylindrical outer surface. (FIG. 4, FIG. 5a, The reflector 24 surrounding the light detector 26 defines a receiving window that is cylindrical and has a cylindrical outer surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of modified Lamego receiving window and transmitting window such that the receiving window is disposed within and surrounded by the cylindrical barrier, and the transmitting window is disposed outside the barrier as taught by Ben Ishay, because it appears to be an arbitrary design choice consideration because it has been held that In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) MPEP 2144.04 VI C., which fails to patentable distinguish over the cited reference. Further the applicant has not disclosed that the claim configurations of the elements solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose or improvement. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain such a configuration through routine experimentation. Accordingly, such a modification would disclose wherein the receiving window is cylindrical and has a cylindrical outer surface.
Claim 6: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein the transmitting window has a circular hole, having a larger diameter than the receiving window.
However, Ben Ishay is relied upon above discloses: wherein the transmitting window has a circular hole, having a larger diameter than the receiving window. (FIG. 4, FIG. 5a; the emitting surfaces (plural) and receiving surface (singular) are defined by concentric reflective members that are circular in shape defining a plurality of circular holes of the transmitting windows having a larger diameter than the receiving window. The surfaces with the light source 22 define the transmitting windows whereas the surface containing the light detector defines a receiving window.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of modified Lamego receiving window and transmitting window such that the receiving window is disposed within and surrounded by the cylindrical barriers, and the transmitting window is disposed outside the barriers in view of the teachings of Ben Ishay which comprises a transmitting window with a circular hole having a larger diameter than the receiving window, because it appears to be an arbitrary design choice consideration because it has been held that In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) MPEP 2144.04 VI C., which fails to patentable distinguish over the cited reference. Further the applicant has not disclosed that the claim configurations of the elements solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose or improvement. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain such a configuration through routine experimentation. Accordingly, such a modification would disclose wherein the transmitting window has a circular hole, having a larger diameter than the receiving window.
Claim 7: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 6, Lamego discloses, wherein the opaque barrier has an outer surface fitting against an inner surface of the hole. (FIG 35C, “optically dark wall” includes, an “optically dark background in the emitter-detector gap region’ and “a small wall separating physically the emitter and detector regions.’, ¶0095. The design minimizes “light piping”, ¶0097, ‘FIG. 35C where two cavities have their walls optically dark, which offer improved performance in terms of reduced light piping figures.’)
Lamego fails to disclose: wherein the opaque barrier has a cylindrical outer surface fitting against the inner surface of the circular hole, and a bore having a cylindrical inner surface fitting against the cylindrical outer surface of the receiving window.
However, Ben Ishay is relied upon above discloses: wherein the opaque barrier (reflector 24, ¶Abstract, ‘The light signal is substantially reflected by the reflector away from the light sensor.’, see also ¶0010) has a cylindrical outer surface fitting against the inner surface of the circular hole (see highlighted FIG. 4 below),
and a bore (the reflector in FIG. 4, defines a hole (i.e., a bore) around the light detector define by a cylindrical opaque barrier) having a cylindrical inner surface fitting against the cylindrical outer surface of the receiving window (FIG. 4 – the opaque barrier has an cylindrical inner surface fitted against the cylindrical outer surface of the receiving window) (see FIG. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of modified Lamego opaque barrier, receiving window and transmitting window such that the receiving window is disposed within and surrounded by the opaque barrier in view of the teachings of Ben Ishay, because it appears to be an arbitrary design choice consideration because it has been held that In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) MPEP 2144.04 VI C., which fails to patentable distinguish over the cited reference. Further the applicant has not disclosed that the claim configurations of the elements solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose or improvement. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain such a configuration through routine experimentation. Accordingly, such a modification would disclose wherein the opaque barrier has a cylindrical outer surface fitting against the inner surface of the circular hole, and a bore having a cylindrical inner surface fitting against the cylindrical outer surface of the receiving window.
Claim 8: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein the cylindrical inner surface is offset from the cylindrical outer surface.
However, Ben Ishay is relied upon above discloses: wherein the cylindrical inner surface is offset from the cylindrical outer surface. (FIG. 3C, 4, 5A, ¶0014, ‘The light signal is substantially reflected by the reflector away from the light sensor. A profile of a cross section of the reflector is at least one of a linear profile, a concave profile, convex profile and a parabolic profile.’) -The reflector is a cylindrical barrier with a parabolic cross-section such that the inner parabolic cylindrical surface and the outer parabolic cylindrical surface are offset in the radial direction. In addition, the two surfaces are not coincident but separated (i.e., offset).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of modified Lamego the inner cylindrical surface of the bore is offset from the cylindrical outer surface of the opaque barrier as taught by Ben Ishay. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving the control of the reflection angle of the light signal, ¶0013-0014, ¶0045 of Ben Ishay.
Claim 11: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Lamego discloses: comprising a photodetector enclosure (FIG. 35C) comprising the receiving window and the opaque barrier (FIG. 35C),
Lamego fails to disclose:
wherein: the photodetector enclosure comprises a step at an end of the bore, and
a lower surface of the receiving window abuts against the step.
However, Ben Ishay is relied upon above discloses a photodetector enclosure, FIG. 4 & FIG. 5A. that comprises a step at an end of the bore, (the bore is previously identified in highlighted FIG. 4 of Ben Ishay above). At the end of the reflector that faces away from the substrate 24, the bore terminates at a edge of the top surface of the reflector wall. That edge defines a transition from the lower surface of the bore to the top surface of the reflector wall. The transition is a change in surface level (i.e., a step at an end of the bore). The lower surface surrounding the detector 26 would be seen as abutting against the step because the wall of the bore transitions from the edge directly into that lower surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of modified Lamego photodetector enclosure such that the receiving window is disposed within and surrounded by the opaque barrier in view of the teachings of Ben Ishay, because it appears to be an arbitrary design choice consideration because it has been held that In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) MPEP 2144.04 VI C., which fails to patentable distinguish over the cited reference. Further the applicant has not disclosed that the claim configurations of the elements solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose or improvement. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain such a configuration through routine experimentation. Accordingly, such a modification would disclose the photodetector enclosure comprises a step at an end of the bore, and a lower surface of the receiving window abuts against the step.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735) in view of Ben Ishay et al (US 2022/0354389 A1), as applied to claim 8, in further view of Fukamichi (JP 2015/129257 A)
Claim 9: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 8, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein at a thinnest point, the opaque barrier has a thickness of less than 1 mm.
However, Fukamichi in the context of optical devices discloses, wherein at a thinnest point, the opaque barrier has a thickness of less than 1 mm. (¶007, ‘a reflector of an optical semiconductor device, the reflector having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less at its thinnest point’; ¶0032, ‘the effect of the present invention can be obtained, which is that "even if the reflector is molded so that the thickness at the thinnest point is 0.2 mm or less, it will exhibit high initial light reflectance, and will also have excellent long-term light resistance and resistance to heat discoloration."’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the opaque barrier of modified Lamego in view of the teachings of Fukamichi. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as exhibiting high initial light reflectance and also have excellent long-term light resistance and resistance to heat discoloration, ¶0032 of Fukamichi.
Claim 10: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 9, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein at the thinnest point, the opaque barrier has a thickness of less than 0.5 mm.
However, Fukamichi in the context of optical devices discloses, wherein at the thinnest point, the opaque barrier has a thickness of less than 0.5 mm. (¶007, ‘a reflector of an optical semiconductor device, the reflector having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less at its thinnest point’; ¶0032, ‘the effect of the present invention can be obtained, which is that "even if the reflector is molded so that the thickness at the thinnest point is 0.2 mm or less, it will exhibit high initial light reflectance, and will also have excellent long-term light resistance and resistance to heat discoloration."’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the opaque barrier of modified Lamego in view of the teachings of Fukamichi. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as exhibiting high initial light reflectance and also have excellent long-term light resistance and resistance to heat discoloration, ¶0032 of Fukamichi.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735) in view of Ben Ishay et al (US 2022/0354389 A1), as applied to claim 11, in further view of Cui et al (US 5,584,296).
Claim 12: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein: the photodetector enclosure further comprises a flange, and a lower surface of the transmitting window abuts against an upper surface of the flange.
However Cui in the context of a spectrophotometric apparatus discloses, wherein: the photodetector enclosure further comprises a flange, and a lower surface of the transmitting window abuts against an upper surface of the flange. (FIG. 9-10, [Col 7 l.65-67 to Col. 8 l.1-8], ‘The preferred configuration of the light-passage components 60, 60a is generally illustrated in FIG. 10, from which it will be seen that these elements preferably include a barrel-like tubular shank 62 with an integral flat, annular end flange 64. While various specific materials may be used for this element, they should be substantially rigid and non-deformable, at least under the type and extent of stresses typically encountered in the usage and application here involved, and they shou-ld be opaque to the light energy wavelengths involved and, preferably, have white or other optically reflective surfaces inside the light passage portion. […] Also, it is desirable that they be lightweight and inexpensive.’, see also [Col. 8 l.44-66 to Col. 9 l.1-9])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opaque barrier of modified Lamego such that it configured to include a flange such that a lower surface of the transmitting window abuts against an upper surface of the flange as taught by Cui. The motivation to do this yields predictable result such as providing an lightweight and inexpensive arrangement of elements as suggested by Cui, [Col 7 l.65-67 to Col. 8 l.1-8].
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Govil et al (US 2005/0023573 A1).
Claim 16: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego fails to disclose: further comprising a reflector for reflecting light from the light source through the transmitting window.
However, Govil in the context of optical devices discloses: further comprising a reflector for reflecting light from the light source through the transmitting window.
-The reflection device has a reflection surface, ¶Abstract. Light passes through an optical system, which becomes distorted, ¶0025-0026. The deformable optics device reflecting light that has already passed though the optical system where light is reflected before being projected onto a substrate for patterning, ¶0005-0006, ¶0026.
-The device of Govil utilizes a deformable optical device that includes an actuator, referred to as a integrated piezoelectric actuator, ¶Abstract, ¶0008-0009, ¶0027, ¶0035. The electrodes coupled to the actuator are configured to control extensions, and the process involves detecting a wavefront aberration and the generating a control signal based on the aberration. This control signal is used to move the extensions of the integrated circuit piezoelectric actuator, ¶Abstract ¶0009-0010, ¶0022, ¶0026. As the extensions move, they deform areas of the reflective surfaces they are coupled to. This allows for fine and tunable deformation of the reflector, ¶0020-0022.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify device and system of modified Lamego such that includes a reflector in view of the teachings of Govil. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as correcting for wavefronts by producing fine tunable deformations, as suggested by Govil, ¶0021.
Claim 17: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 16, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein the reflector is a deformable reflector.
However, Govil is relied upon above discloses: wherein the reflector is a deformable reflector.
-The device of Govil utilizes a deformable optical device that includes an actuator, referred to as a integrated piezoelectric actuator, ¶Abstract, ¶0008-0009, ¶0027, ¶0035. The electrodes coupled to the actuator are configured to control extensions, and the process involves detecting a wavefront aberration and the generating a control signal based on the aberration. This control signal is used to move the extensions of the integrated circuit piezoelectric actuator, ¶Abstract ¶0009-0010, ¶0022, ¶0026. As the extensions move, they deform areas of the reflective surfaces they are coupled to. This allows for fine and tunable deformation of the reflector, ¶0020-0022.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of modified Lamego such that wherein the reflector is a deformable reflector as taught by Govil. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as correcting for wavefronts by producing fine tunable deformations, as suggested by Govil, ¶0021.
Claim 18: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 17, Lamego fails to disclose: further comprising a piezoelectric actuator configured, when driven by an electric drive signal, to cause the deformable reflector to deform.
However, Govil is relied upon above discloses: further comprising a piezoelectric actuator configured, when driven by an electric drive signal, to cause the deformable reflector to deform.
-The device of Govil utilizes a deformable optical device that includes an actuator, referred to as a integrated piezoelectric actuator, ¶Abstract, ¶0008-0009, ¶0027, ¶0035. The electrodes coupled to the actuator are configured to control extensions, and the process involves detecting a wavefront aberration and the generating a control signal based on the aberration. This control signal is used to move the extensions of the integrated circuit piezoelectric actuator, ¶Abstract ¶0009-0010, ¶0022, ¶0026. As the extensions move, they deform areas of the reflective surfaces they are coupled to. This allows for fine and tunable deformation of the reflector, ¶0020-0022.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Lamego to comprise a piezoelectric actuator configured, when driven by an electric drive signal, to cause the deformable reflector to deform as taught by Govil. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as correcting for wavefronts by producing fine tunable deformations, as suggested by Govil, ¶0021.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamego et al (US 2020/0330012 A1) in view of Campbell et al (US 2008/0221410 A1) in view of Chou et al (US 2022/0082672 A1) in view of Abe (US 5567972), in view of Hartung (US 3,965,735), as applied to claim 1, in further view Fish et al (US 2020/0340860 A1)
Claim 19: Lamego as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Lamego fails to disclose: wherein the light source comprises:
a photonic integrated circuit, comprising a waveguide having an output facet at an edge of the photonic integrated circuit; and
a lens, secured to the edge of the photonic integrated circuit.
However, Fish in the context of spectroscopic photonic integrated circuit sensors discloses: wherein the light source comprises: a photonic integrated circuit, comprising a waveguide having an output facet at an edge of the photonic integrated circuit; and a lens, secured to the edge of the photonic integrated circuit. (Claim 14, ‘The photonic integrated circuit of claim 13, further comprising a grating to direct the light towards the lens, the grating being coupled to the one or more waveguides to receive the light from the light source.’, Abstract, ‘optical sensing devices for photonic integrated circuits (PICs). A PIC may comprise a plurality of waveguides formed in a silicon on insulator (SOI) substrate, and a plurality of heterogeneous lasers, each laser formed from a silicon material of the SOI substrate and to emit an output wavelength comprising an infrared wavelength. Each of these lasers may comprise a resonant cavity included in one of the plurality of waveguides, and a gain material comprising a non-silicon material and adiabatically coupled to the respective waveguide. A light directing element may direct outputs of the plurality of heterogeneous lasers from the PIC towards an object, and one or more detectors may detect light from the plurality of heterogeneous lasers reflected from or transmitted through the object.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of modified Lamego to comprise a photonic integrated circuit, comprising a waveguide having an output facet at an edge of the photonic integrated circuit; and a lens, secured to the edge of the photonic integrated circuit as taught by Fish. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving the signal to noise ratio of the measurement and measure the optical delay of the signal that has passes through, ¶0025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798