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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species III in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the case is a 371 submission and the restriction does not address unity of invention.
The requirement has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites the limitation "the structural elements" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation, it is assumed to refer to the dielectric layer of line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21-24, 28-29, 32-33, 35, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,842,255 (Yoo).
For claim 21, Yoo teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 1-6) comprising:
a housing body (fig. 1 and 2, 10);
a light-emitting semiconductor component in the housing body, the light-emitting component configured to emit light (fig. 1 and 2, 71 or 72; col. 5, l. 25-27); and
an adaptive optical element in and/or on the housing body arranged downstream of the light-emitting semiconductor component in an optical path of the light (fig. 1-6, 90), wherein the light-emitting device is a semiconductor package (col. 5, l. 25-27).
For claim 22, Yoo teaches the light-emitting device is a surface mountable device (col. 3, l.54-62).
For claim 23, Yoo teaches the housing body comprises a plastic housing or a ceramic housing (col. 3, l. 51-53).
For claim 24, Yoo teaches the adaptive optical element comprises a plurality of structural elements, and wherein the structural elements have an extension size adapted to a wavelength of the light (fig. 3/5, 96). The elements inherently have an extension size adapted to the wavelength of the light as they affect the distribution angle as shown in fig. 6. If they were not “adapted to the wavelength” there would be no corresponding change in output.
For claim 28, Yoo teaches the adaptive optical element comprises a dielectric elastomer actuator in or on which the structural elements are arranged (fig. 3-5, 95; col. 6, l. 42; with no voltage applied polymer layer returns to the configuration of fig. 3 and is therefore considered an elastomer).
For claim 29, Yoo teaches the adaptive optical element comprises a liquid crystal layer in which the structural elements are arranged (fig. 3, 95/96; col. 7, l. 22).
For claim 32, Yoo teaches the light-emitting semiconductor component is electrically connected via at least one electrical contact element of the housing body (fig. 1, 21 for 71 and 31 for 72).
For claim 33, Yoo teaches the adaptive optical element is electrically connected via at least one electrical contact element of the housing body (fig. 1, 93).
For claim 35, Yoo teaches the housing body comprises a transparent cover plate (fig. 3, 91; col. 6, l. 43-44).
For claim 39, Yoo teaches a LIDAR system (the preamble does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art) comprising:
at least one light-emitting device according to claim 21 (Yoo is applied according to the rejection of claim 21 above),
wherein the LIDAR system is configured to emit light with a radiation pattern that is variable (fig. 6(A) and 6(B)).
For claim 40, Yoo teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 1-6) comprising:
a housing body (fig. 1 and 2, 10);
a light-emitting semiconductor component in the housing body, the light-emitting semiconductor component configured to emit light (fig. 1 and 2, 71 or 72; col. 5, l. 25-27); and
an adaptive optical element in and/or on the housing body arranged downstream of the light-emitting semiconductor component in an optical path of the light (fig. 1-6, 90), wherein the light-emitting device is a semiconductor package (col. 5, l. 25-27),
wherein the adaptive optical element comprises a plurality of structural elements, and wherein the structural elements have an extension size adapted to a wavelength of the light (fig. 3/5, 96). The elements inherently have an extension size adapted to the wavelength of the light as they affect the distribution angle as shown in fig. 6. If they were not “adapted to the wavelength” there would be no corresponding change in output.
Further, Yoo teaches wherein the adaptive optical element comprises a dielectric elastomer actuator in or on which the structural elements are arranged (fig. 3-5, 95; col. 6, l. 42; with no voltage applied polymer layer returns to the configuration of fig. 3 and is therefore considered an elastomer).
Claims 21, 35, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0060821 (Wang).
For claim 21, Wang teaches a light-emitting device (fig. 1-6) comprising:
a housing body (fig. 1-6, 16);
a light-emitting semiconductor component in the housing body, the light-emitting component configured to emit light (fig. 1, 18; [0022]); and
an adaptive optical element in and/or on the housing body arranged downstream of the light-emitting semiconductor component in an optical path of the light (fig. 1-6, 24), wherein the light-emitting device is a semiconductor package ([0013]).
For claim 35, Wang teaches the housing body comprises a transparent cover plate (fig. 1-6, 12; [0021]).
For claim 37, Wang teaches the adaptive optical element (fig. 4, 24) is arranged on the cover plate (fig. 4, 12) on a side facing the light-emitting semiconductor component (fig. 4, 18).
For claim 39, Wang teaches a LIDAR system (the preamble does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art) comprising:
at least one light-emitting device according to claim 21 (Wang is applied according to the rejection of claim 21 above),
wherein the LIDAR system is configured to emit light with a radiation pattern that is variable (fig. 1).
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 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,842,255 (Yoo) in view of US 2002/0080466 (Bayart).
For claim 25, Yoo does not teach the extension size is less than or equal to a wavelength of light emittable by the semiconductor light-emitting component. However, Bayart teaches an extension size is less than or equal to a wavelength of light emittable by the semiconductor light-emitting component (claim 8) in order to act as scatterers when not aligned (claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the size taught by Bayart with the invention of Yoo so that the structural elements will act as scatterers when not aligned.
For claims 26-27, Yoo further teaches the light generated by the light-emitting semiconductor component has at least a first spectral component and a second spectral component different therefrom (col. 5, l.20-27 also col. 9, l. 41-44). Yoo does not teach the structural elements comprise at least a first group of structural elements having a first extension size and a second group of structural elements having a second extension size, the first extension size being different from the second extension size; wherein the extension size of the structural elements of the first group are matched to the first spectral component and the extension size of the structural elements of the second group are matched to the second spectral component. However, Bayart does teach an extension size is less than or equal to a wavelength of light emittable by the semiconductor light-emitting component (claim 8) in order to act as scatterers when not aligned (claim 8). As Yoo teaches two different spectral wavelength components and Bayart teaches extension size is a results effective variable dependent on wavelength, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the structural elements of Yoo such that they comprise at least a first group of structural elements having a first extension size and a second group of structural elements having a second extension size, the first extension size being different from the second extension size; wherein the extension size of the structural elements of the first group are matched to the first spectral component and the extension size of the structural elements of the second group are matched to the second spectral component in order to act as scatterers for the two wavelengths when not aligned, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0060821 (Wang) in view of US 2003/0068134 (Gunn).
For claim 30, Wang teaches the adaptive optical element comprises a dielectric layer with an electrically adaptable refractive index ([0032]). Wang does not teach the layer is a dielectric layer between electrodes, and wherein a density of free charge carriers in the structural elements are adjustable to change the refractive index.
However, Gunn teaches an electrically adaptive element may be formed by a dielectric layer between electrodes wherein a density of free charge carriers in the structural elements are adjustable to change the refractive index ([0007] and [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adaptive refractive index element of Gunn as a simple substitution for the adaptive refractive index element of Wang as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative way to provide an adaptive index material. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,842,255 (Yoo) in view of US 20190019779 (Kwon).
For claim 31, Yoo teaches the adaptive optical element comprises electrodes (fig. 3, 93/94).
Yoo does not teach the electrode is an elastic electrodes.
However, Kwon teaches electrodes may be formed as elastic electrodes ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic electrodes of Kwon as a simple substitution for the electrodes of Yoo as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative electrode material. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claims 34, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,842,255 (Yoo).
For claim 34, Yoo teaches the housing body comprises at least three electrical contact elements (fig. 1, 21, 46, 31, fig. 393 and 94), wherein the light-emitting semiconductor component (fig. 1, 71) is electrically connected via at least a first electrical contact element (fig. 1, 21) and a second electrical contact element (fig. 1, 46), and wherein the adaptive optical element is electrically connected via at least a third contact element and a fourth electrical contact element (fig. 3, V1 and V2 connection to 93 and 94).
Yoo does not teach the second and fourth contact element are the same contact element. However, the examiner takes official notice that using a common contact for multiple elements, particularly a ground contact was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Yoo, for example, illustrates a common contact for elements 71 and 72 at fig. 1, 46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the well-known common contact with the device of the device of Yoo, such that the second and fourth contact elements are the same in order to provide common grounds for the light emitting semiconductor and adaptive optical element. Doing so has the advantage of reducing total required contacts for the device.
For claim 36, Yoo does not teach the cover plate hermetically seals a cavity of the housing body in which the light-emitting semiconductor component is arranged.
However, the examiner takes official notice that hermetic sealing using a cover plate was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention in order to protect the semiconductor device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cover plate of Yoo to hermetically seal the cavity in order to protect the semiconductor device as was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 38, Yoo does not teach at least one electronic component is arranged in the housing body, which is configured to drive the light-emitting semiconductor component and/or the adaptive optical element. However, the examiner takes official notice that at least one electronic component arranged in a housing body, which is configured to drive the light-emitting semiconductor component and/or the adaptive optical element was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the well-known configuration of at least one electronic component arranged in a housing body, which is configured to drive the light-emitting semiconductor component and/or the adaptive optical element with the device of the previous combination in order to drive the emitter of Yoo.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2010/0060821 (Wang).
For claim 36, Wang does not teach the cover plate hermetically seals a cavity of the housing body in which the light-emitting semiconductor component is arranged.
However, the examiner takes official notice that hermetic sealing using a cover plate was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention in order to protect the semiconductor device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cover plate of Wang to hermetically seal the cavity in order to protect the semiconductor device as was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0163627, 2020/0313400, and 2022/0085572 all teach emitters and drivers in a same housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights