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
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-24 and 26-28 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 05 July 2026, overcomes the prior objection(s) and rejection(s). However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a virtual image of at least one of the first optical array or the second optical array” that is shifted toward “the other” array. Because “at least one” may encompass both arrays, “the other” lacks a unique referent when both arrays are selected. Consequently, it is unclear which virtual image is shifted toward which array. For the purposes of examination, “a virtual image of at least one of the first optical array or the second optical array that is laterally shifted toward the other of the first optical array or the second optical array” is understood to read --one or both of (i) a virtual image of the first optical array laterally shifted toward the second optical array and (ii) a virtual image of the second optical array laterally shifted toward the first optical array--.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-24 and 26-28 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Donovan (US 20190033429 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Donovan discloses a system (Fig. 4, illuminator 400, where source 402 is further detailed in Fig. 3) comprising:
a first optical array comprising a first active area (Fig. 3, top row of λ1 VCSEL bar 306; ¶¶ 39, 42);
a second optical array comprising a second active area (Fig. 3, second to top row of λ2 VCSEL bar 308; ¶¶ 39, 42); wherein
the first active area and the second active area are separated by a distance (Fig. 3, top row of bar 306 physically separate from second to top row of bar 308);
an imaging lens configured to produce an image of the first active area and the second active area at a distant point (Fig. 4, lens 408; ¶¶ 44, 46, lens 408 projects light from the VCSEL bars to target planes at a distance); and
at least one optical component situated between the first and second optical arrays and the imaging lens (Fig. 4, multiplexer 406 positioned in the optical path between source 402 and lens 408; ¶¶ 43-44),
the at least one optical component configured to present to the imaging lens a virtual image of at least one of the first optical array or the second optical array that is laterally shifted toward the other of the first optical array or the second optical array, thereby reducing a gap in a field of view of the system (Fig. 4, lateral shifting of λ1 VCSEL bar virtual image towards λ2 VCSEL bar; ¶ 44, multiplexer 406 laterally shifts λ1 optical path to eliminate gap with λ2 optical path; ¶¶ 37-38, source separation produce gaps, thus the optical path shift via 406 presents lens 408 with an apparent source position shifted toward the other VCSEL bar).
Regarding claim 4, Donovan discloses the system recited in claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the first optical array comprises a first plurality of emitters, and the second optical array comprises a second plurality of emitters (Fig. 3, each bar 306 and bar 308 comprises a plurality of cluster VCSEL devices 302; ¶ 42).
Regarding claim 5, Donovan discloses the system recited in claim 4, and further discloses: wherein the first plurality of emitters and the second plurality of emitters comprise a plurality of lasers (¶¶ 42-43, VCSEL devices that emit laser beams).
Regarding claim 6, Donovan discloses the system recited in claim 4, and further discloses: wherein at least one of the plurality of lasers comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) (¶ 42, VCSEL devices).
Regarding claim 13, Donovan discloses the system recited in claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the at least one optical component comprises at least one of (a) a negative rooftop glass prism situated over the first optical array and the second optical array, or (b) a diffractive surface (Fig. 4, multiplexer 406; ¶ 44, diffractive optic).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 107390458 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a system (Fig. 1; ¶ 36) comprising:
a first optical array comprising a first active area (Fig. 1, DMD 2A; ¶ 38);
a second optical array comprising a second active area, wherein the first active area and the second active area are separated by a distance (Fig. 1, DMD 2B, as further detailed by upper DMD relative to left DMD 2A in Fig. 2b; ¶¶ 37-38, DMDs occupy different radial positions);
an imaging lens configured to produce an image of the first active area and the second active area at a distant point (Fig. 1, projection lens 1; ¶¶ 3-38, lens 1 projects the combined DMD image onto a screen); and
at least one optical component situated between the first and second optical arrays and the imaging lens (Fig. 1, prism 3; ¶ 38, DMD light passes through prism 3 and then enters lens 1),
the at least one optical component configured to present to the imaging lens a virtual image of at least one of the first optical array or the second optical array that is laterally shifted toward the other of the first optical array or the second optical array, thereby reducing a gap in a field of view of the system (Fig. 1, prism 3 and virtual DMD 5, as further detailed in Figs. 2a-2b; ¶¶ 36-38, prism 3 combines and splices the separated DMD images on one plane as a complete image).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan in view of Edmond (US 20170294417 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Donovan discloses the system recited in claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein the first optical array is situated in a first die, and the second optical array is situated in a second die, and wherein the first die is in contact with the second die. Edmond teaches the limitation in Fig. 42 & ¶ 301, first optical array chip 320-1 supported by first substrate 173-1, separate second optical array chip 320-2 supported by second substrate 173-2, where the substrates is “abut one another without space therebetween.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Donovan with the teachings of Edmond, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a known variation of optical component packaging, and an artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the teachings of Edmond would confer the advantages of greater manufacturing flexibility, independent array module testing, and scalable assembly, thereby yielding a more versatile system with greater reliability and yield.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Anwer (US 10145517 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses the system recited in claim 1, further comprising:
a third optical array comprising a third active area (Fig. 1, DMD 2C, as further detailed by the right DMD in Fig. 2b; ¶ 38); and
a fourth optical array comprising a fourth active area (Fig. 1, DMD 2D, as further detailed by the lower DMD in Fig. 2b; ¶ 38), and wherein: […], and
the at least one optical component comprises a first prism situated over the first active area, a second prism situated over the second active area, a third prism situated over the third active area, and a fourth prism situated over the fourth active area (Fig. 1, prism 3, as further detailed by its four constituent prisms in Figs. 2a-2b; ¶ 38, one prism corresponds to each DMD), wherein
the first prism, the second prism, the third prism, and the fourth prism are configured to laterally shift virtual images of the first, second, third, and fourth optical arrays such that the first, second, third, and fourth active areas appear to the imaging lens as a single contiguous active area (Fig. 1, virtual DMD 5; ¶¶ 36-38, the four DMD images are combined and spliced on one plane as a complete image).
Chen does not disclose: “the first optical array is situated on a first printed circuit board (PCB), the second optical array is situated on a second PCB, the second PCB being substantially perpendicular to the first PCB, the third optical array is situated on a third PCB, the third PCB being substantially parallel to the first PCB and substantially perpendicular to the second PCB, the fourth optical array is situated on a fourth PCB, the fourth PCB being substantially parallel to the second PCB and substantially perpendicular to the first PCB and to the third PCB.” However, Anwer teaches the arrangement: PCBs 12, 14, 16, and 18 (Figs. 1 and 2A; Col. 3:7-14) adjacent at 90 degrees (Col. 8:61-65), where PCB 14 is perpendicular to PCB 12, opposing PCB 16 is parallel to PCB 12 and perpendicular to PCB 14, and opposing PCB 18 is parallel to PCB 14 and perpendicular to PCBs 12 and 16, and further teaching each PCB supports an optical array of LEDs (Col. 3:40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Chen so that each optical array was hosted by a PCB as taught by Anwer, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a known detector packaging choice, and an artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting a PCB supported optical configuration would improve mechanical mounting by providing a stable structure for securing and positioning each optical array at the desired optical location. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Anwer teaches the system recited in claim 19, and further teaches: wherein the first prism, the second prism, the third prism, and the fourth prism are in contact (Chen, Fig. 1, prism 3, as further detailed in Fig. 2b; ¶ 38, four right angle prisms are “spliced together” to form prism 3).
Regarding claim 21, Chen in view of Anwer teaches the system recited in claim 19, and further teaches: wherein the first active area faces the third active area, and the second active area faces the fourth active area (Chen, Fig. 1, as further detailed in Fig. 2b; ¶ 38, opposing DMDs 2A and 2C face each other, as do opposing DMDs 2B and 2D).
Regarding claim 22, Chen in view of Anwer teaches the system recited in claim 19, and further teaches: wherein the first optical array comprises a first plurality of emitters, the second optical array comprises a second plurality of emitters, the third optical array comprises a third plurality of emitters, and the fourth optical array comprises a fourth plurality of emitters (Anwer, Fig. 1, LEDs on PCBs 12, 14, 16, and 18; Col. 3:7-14 and 3:40-44, respective pluralities of LEDs at the four PCB positions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen in view of Anwer and incorporate multiple PCB mounted emitters as further taught by Anwer with the motivation to increase the available illumination in each DMD channel. The combination would have predictably supplied multiple local emitters, without changing the fixed DMD and prism assignments of Chen in view of Anwer, thereby yielding a system with increased power output and greater illumination capacity.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Anwer further in view of Zalevsky (US 20070273957 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Chen in view of Anwer teaches the system recited in claim 22, however does not teach: wherein the first plurality of emitters, the second plurality of emitters, the third plurality of emitters, and the fourth plurality of emitters comprise a plurality of lasers. Zalevsky teaches the limitation, specifically: Fig. 2A; ¶ 61, module 1 with “a plurality of N micro light sources 6 all carried by a common substrate 2”; where, ¶¶ 69-70, the sources may be LEDs, lasers, or an array of surface emitting lasers such as VCSELs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a respective VCSEL array of Zalevsky for the plurality of LEDs at each of PCBs 12, 14, 16, and 18 of Chen in view of Anwer. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution in order to obtain miniature size, cost efficiency, low threshold current, high array density, simplified alignment, and simplified packaging (Zalevsky, ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 24, Chen in view of Anwer further in view of Zalevsky teaches the system recited in claim 23, and further teaches: at least one of the plurality of lasers comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) (Zalevsky, ¶¶ 69-70).
Claims 1, 8-10, 12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eskin (US 11902638 B1) in view of Hosseini (US 20200379185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eskin discloses a system (Figs. 2A-2B; Col. 4:8-18), comprising:
a first optical array comprising a first active area (Fig. 2A, first detector array 214a; Col. 4:58-65, detector 212a includes detector array 214a formed of photosensitive pixels);
a second optical array comprising a second active area, wherein the first active area and the second active area are separated by a distance (Fig. 2A, second detector array 214b spatially separated from first detector array 214a; Col. 4:58-65, Col. 5:1-13, detector 212b includes detector array 214b formed of photosensitive pixels);
an imaging lens (Fig. 2A, imaging optics 204; Col. 1:24-26, comprising lenses) […]; and
at least one optical component situated between the first and second optical arrays and the imaging lens (Fig. 2A, segmentation optics 208; Col. 4:25-32, optics 208 in optical path 220 between imaging optics 204 and detector arrays 214),
the at least one optical component configured to present to the imaging lens a virtual image of at least one of the first optical array or the second optical array that is laterally shifted toward the other of the first optical array or the second optical array (Fig. 2A, segmentation optics 208 via first mirrored facet 228a presents first detector array 214a to imaging optics 204 at a reflected virtual position shifted toward second detector array 214b; Col. 4:33-57), thereby reducing a gap in a field of view of the system (Col. 5:13-26, creates overlapping component images thereby avoiding a gap between the corresponding portions of field of view).
Eskin does not expressly disclose: [an imaging lens] “configured to produce an image of the first active area and the second active area at a distant point.” However, Hosseini teaches the known focal plane to distant field lens relationship missing from the express disclosure of Eskin, specifically: ¶ 29, teaches that based on time reversal symmetry, positioning an optical array on the focal plane of a lens causes light from the optical array to be imaged in the far field; ¶ 30 and Fig. 1, further teaches spatially separated optical elements A and B positioned along the focal plane of common lens such that their beams are directed into the far field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the imaging lens of Eskin according to the focal plane lens arrangement taught by Hosseini, such that the continuous virtual focal plane presented by segmentation optics 208 coincides with the focal plane of the imaging lens and is imaged to the far field. The modification applies a known technique to a known optical system ready for improvement and would have yielded predictable results (KSR rationale D). Here, Eskin provides the known optical system having physically separated active areas and a continuous virtual focal plane. Hosseini provides the known lens configuration that maps spatial positions at a lens focal plane to corresponding far field angular positions. Applying the known configuration of Hosseini would predictably produce a continuous image of the first and second virtual active areas of Eskin at a distant point in the far field, retaining the continuous mosaic, thereby yielding a system with reduced angular blind zones and improved field uniformity across the field of view. The modification applies a known technique to a known optical system ready for improvement and the skilled artisan would have pursued the advancement with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first optical array comprises a first plurality of detectors, and the second optical array comprises a second plurality of detectors (Eskin, Col. 4:58 to Col. 5:1, detector arrays 214a and 214b each comprise an array of photosensitive pixels).
Regarding claim 9, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system of claim 8, and further teaches: wherein the first plurality of detectors and the second plurality of detectors comprise a plurality of photodiodes (Hosseini, ¶¶ 62, 66, array of avalanche photodiodes positioned at the focal plane of a receiver lens). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detectors of Eskin in view of Hosseini with the additional teachings of Hosseini with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide increased optical sensitivity and higher precision optical measurements (Hosseini, ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 10, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system of claim 9, and further teaches: wherein at least one of the plurality of photodiodes comprises an avalanche photodiode (APD) (Hosseini, ¶¶ 62, 66).
Regarding claim 12, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least one optical component comprises at least one of a prism or a mirror (Eskin, Fig. 2A, facets 228a and 228b; Col. 4:40-57, planar mirrors).
Regarding claim 15, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system recited in claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least one optical component comprises first and second mirrors (Eskin, Fig. 2A, segmentation optics 208 comprise first mirrored facet 228a and second mirrored facet 228b; Col. 4:40-57).
Regarding claim 16, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system recited in claim 15, and further teaches: wherein the first and second mirrors are 45-degree mirrors situated between the first optical array and the second optical array (Eskin, Fig. 2A, facets 228a and 228b in 45 degree orientations positioned between detector arrays 214a and 214b), and wherein the first optical array and the second optical array are situated in different planes (Eskin, Fig. 2A, detector arrays 214a and 214b located on opposite first and second focal planes 216a and 216b; Col. 4:44-53).
Regarding claim 17, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system recited in claim 16, and further teaches: wherein the first active area faces the second active area (Fig. 2A, light sensitive surface of detector arrays 214a at first component focal plane 216a opposed to and facing light sensitive surface of detector arrays 214b at second component focal plane 216b; Col. 5:7-13).
Regarding claim 18, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system recited in claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the at least one optical component comprises: first and second mirrors in a 45-degree configuration (Eskin, Fig. 2A, facets 228a and 228b in 45 degree orientations positioned between detector arrays 214a and 214b; Col. 4:40-57, planar mirrors); and […]. The Fig. 2 embodiment of Eskin does not disclose: “first and second prisms situated between the first and second mirrors.” However, another embodiment of Eskin teaches the mirrors as reflective prism facets. In particular, Eskin in Col. 2:20-30 teaches that the segmentation optics can include a faceted prism, and further teaches in Col. 4:53-57 the reflective prism facet surfaces. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second mirrors of Eskin in view of Hosseini with the additional teachings of Eskin since the combination is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Both embodiments of Eskin disclose reflective segmentation optics. The simple substitution of one known element (mirror facets 228 of Fig. 2A of Eskin) for another (reflective prism facets of Col. 2:20-30, 4:53-57 of Eskin) would have been accomplished with no unpredictable result and therefore renders the claim obvious.
An alternative ground of rejection is introduced for Claim 1 relying on a different embodiment of Eskin for the mapping of remaining dependent claims.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eskin in view of Hosseini.
Regarding claim 1, Eskin discloses a system (Fig. 16, imaging system 104, with field segmentation optics 208 and detectors 212 further detailed in Figs. 5A-5B and virtual image arrangement further detailed in Figs. 15A-15C; Col. 9:56-60), comprising:
a first optical array comprising a first active area (Figs. 5A-5B, detector 212a having focal plane 216a; Col. 10:15-30, detector 212a comprising array formed of photosensitive pixels);
a second optical array comprising a second active area, wherein the first active area and the second active area are separated by a distance (Figs. 5A-5B, detector 212b having focal plane 216b physically spaced from detector 212a; Col. 6:18-32; Col. 10:15-30, detector 212b comprising array formed of photosensitive pixels);
an imaging lens (Fig. 16, imaging optics 204; Col. 1:23-26, imaging optics consist of lenses, Col. 9:61-67, imaging optics 204 collect light from scene and focused onto focal plane) [...]; and
at least one optical component situated between the first and second optical arrays and the imaging lens (Figs. 5A-5B, segmentation optics 208; Col. 6:18-32, segmentation optics 208 between exit pupil 224 of imaging optics 204 and focal plane 216; Col. 10:4-14),
the at least one optical component configured to present to the imaging lens a virtual image of at least one of the first optical array or the second optical array that is laterally shifted toward the other of the first optical array or the second optical array (Figs. 15B-15C, physically separated detectors are presented as adjacent, overlapping virtual images; Col. 9:26-32, produced by shifting virtual images using tilted facets 228 of the segmentation optics; Col. 9:38-41, “their virtual images form the desired continuous, overlapping focal plane”), thereby reducing a gap in a field of view of the system (Col. 2:20-30, segmentation optics solves the mosaic gap problem; Col. 6:52-67, Col. 7:1-3, overlapping portions of the component images form a composite image indistinguishable from portions supplied by one detector).
Eskin does not expressly disclose: [an imaging lens] “configured to produce an image of the first active area and the second active area at a distant point.” However, Hosseini teaches the known focal plane to distant field lens relationship missing from the express disclosure of Eskin, specifically: ¶ 29, teaches that based on time reversal symmetry, positioning an optical array on the focal plane of a lens causes light from the optical array to be imaged in the far field; ¶ 30 and Fig. 1, further teaches spatially separated optical elements A and B positioned along the focal plane of common lens such that their beams are directed into the far field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the imaging lens of Eskin according to the focal plane lens arrangement taught by Hosseini, such that the continuous virtual focal plane presented by segmentation optics 208 coincides with the focal plane of the imaging lens and is imaged to the far field. The modification applies a known technique to a known optical system ready for improvement and would have yielded predictable results (KSR rationale D). Here, Eskin provides the known optical system having physically separated active areas and a continuous virtual focal plane. Hosseini provides the known lens configuration that maps spatial positions at a lens focal plane to corresponding far field angular positions. Applying the known configuration of Hosseini would predictably produce a continuous image of the first and second virtual active areas of Eskin at a distant point in the far field, retaining the continuous mosaic, thereby yielding a system with reduced angular blind zones and improved field uniformity across the field of view. The modification applies a known technique to a known optical system ready for improvement and the skilled artisan would have pursued the advancement with predictable results.
Claims 19, 21 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eskin in view of Hosseini further in view of Feng (CN 100465699 C).
Regarding claim 19, Eskin in view of Hosseini teaches the system recited in claim 1, and further teaches:
a third optical array comprising a third active area (Eskin, Figs. 5A-5B, detector 212d having focal plane 216d; Col. 10:15-30, detector 212d comprising array formed of photosensitive pixels); and
a fourth optical array comprising a fourth active area (Eskin, Figs. 5A-5B, detector 212c having focal plane 216c; Col. 10:15-30, detector 212c comprising array formed of photosensitive pixels), and wherein: […], and
the at least one optical component comprises a first prism situated over the first active area, a second prism situated over the second active area, a third prism situated over the third active area, and a fourth prism situated over the fourth active area (Eskin, Figs. 5A-5B, four corresponding facet positions 228a, 228b, 228d, and 228c of segmentation optics 208 are situated in optical path 220 between imaging optics 204 and the respective active areas of detectors 212a, 212b, 212d, and 212c; Col. 2:20-29 and Col. 10:4-14, segmentation optics implemented as a multifaceted prism; Col. 4:54-58, each facet 228 corresponding to a prism facet), wherein
the first prism, the second prism, the third prism, and the fourth prism are configured to laterally shift virtual images of the first, second, third, and fourth optical arrays such that the first, second, third, and fourth active areas appear to the imaging lens as a single contiguous active area (Eskin, Fig. 15C and Col. 9:25-40, arrangement combines images from four facets and the detectors are located so their virtual images form a continuous, overlapping focal plane).
Eskin in view of Hosseini does not teach: “the first optical array is situated on a first printed circuit board (PCB), the second optical array is situated on a second PCB, the second PCB being substantially perpendicular to the first PCB, the third optical array is situated on a third PCB, the third PCB being substantially parallel to the first PCB and substantially perpendicular to the second PCB, the fourth optical array is situated on a fourth PCB, the fourth PCB being substantially parallel to the second PCB and substantially perpendicular to the first PCB and to the third PCB.” However, Feng teaches the limitation. In particular, Feng teaches a first optical array situated on a first PCB (Fig. 1, circuit board carrying first CCD 3; ¶¶ 11, 32); a second optical array situated on a second PCB, the second PCB being substantially perpendicular to the first PCB (Fig. 1, circuit board carrying second CCD 4 on an image plane perpendicular to first CCD 3; ¶¶ 13-14, 19, 32); a third optical array situated on a third PCB, the third PCB being substantially parallel to the first PCB and substantially perpendicular to the second PCB (Fig. 1, circuit board carrying third CCD 5 is positioned opposite and parallel to the circuit board carrying first CCD 3 and perpendicular to the circuit board carrying second CCD 4; ¶¶ 14, 19, 32-33); and a fourth optical array situated on a fourth PCB, the fourth PCB being substantially parallel to the second PCB and substantially perpendicular to the first PCB and to the third PCB (Fig. 1, circuit board carrying fourth CCD 6 is positioned opposite and parallel to the circuit board carrying second CCD 4 and perpendicular to the circuit boards carrying first CCD 3 and third CCD 5; ¶¶ 14, 19, 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Eskin in view of Hosseini so that each optical array was hosted by a PCB as taught by Feng (i.e., circuit boards carrying CCDs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Feng corresponding respectively to detectors 212a, 212b, 212d, and 212c of Eskin), since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a known detector packaging choice, and an artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting a PCB supported detector configuration would improve mechanical mounting by providing a stable structure for securing and positioning each optical array at the desired optical location. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Eskin in view of Hosseini further in view of Feng teaches the system recited in claim 19, and further teaches: wherein the first active area faces the third active area (Eskin, Figs. 5A-5B, detectors 212a facing 212d), and the second active area faces the fourth active area (Eskin, Figs. 5A-5B, detectors 212b facing 212c).
Regarding claim 26, Eskin in view of Hosseini further in view of Feng teaches the system recited in claim 19, and further teaches: wherein the first optical array comprises a first plurality of detectors, the second optical array comprises a second plurality of detectors, the third optical array comprises a third plurality of detectors, and the fourth optical array comprises a fourth plurality of detectors (Eskin, Figs. 16 & 5B, a corresponding detector array 214 for each of detector 212a, 212b, 212c, 212d; Col. 9:17-26, pixels corresponding to detector elements; Col. 10:15-30, detector array 214 incorporates a plurality of photosensitive pixels).
Regarding claim 27, Eskin in view of Hosseini further in view of Feng teaches the system of claim 26, and further teaches: wherein the first plurality of detectors, the second plurality of detectors, the third plurality of detectors, and the fourth plurality of detectors comprise a plurality of photodiodes (Hosseini, ¶¶ 62, 66, array of avalanche photodiodes positioned at the focal plane of receiver lens). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detectors of Eskin in view of Hosseini further in view of Feng with the additional teaches of Hosseini with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide increased optical sensitivity and higher precision optical measurements (Hosseini, ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 28, Eskin in view of Hosseini further in view of Feng teaches the system of claim 27, and further teaches: wherein at least one of the plurality of photodiodes comprises an avalanche photodiode (APD) (Hosseini, ¶¶ 62, 66).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Holman (US 20060152931 A1) which discloses prism layers providing laterally shifted virtual images of separated emitters in order to fill intervening gaps and present a continuous active area to the imaging optics.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights