DETAILED ACTION
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the axis of rotation is parallel to an optical axis of the deflection optics” in claim 6 and “wherein the rotary actuator is configured to tilt the flat plate about an axis of rotation that is parallel to an optical axis of the lens” in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Based on specification in page 3, line 28-29, page 3, line 6, page 4, line 13, page 10, line 7, 11, page 11, line 21, 26, 29, the flat plate should be rotated in the axis which is perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens such that the emission light has a parallel offset to the optical axis of the lens. However, the claims are directed to the axis of rotation of the flat plate which is parallel to an optical axis of the deflection optics. This will not change the emission light to an offset to the optical axis 42. Therefore, for examine purpose, examiner will treat the claim 6 and claim 12 with the emission light has a parallel offset to the optical axis of the deflection optics.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 13, “…a distance…” should read “…the distance…”.
Regarding claim 10, line 13, “…a distance…” should read “…the distance…”.
Regarding claim 14, line 14, “…transparent flat plate…” should read “…the transparent flat plate…”.
Second Claim 1, page 1, line 20, is objected to because it fails to comply to 37 CFR 1.75(f). There is already a claim 1 previously. For examine purpose, the second claim 1 is labeled as claim 1.1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 1.1 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.
Regarding page 1, there are two claim 1, one in line 1 and the other one in line 20. Therefore claim 1 is indefinite due to unclear scope.
Regarding the first claim 1, line 1, the limitation of “…the distance to an object…” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding the second claim 1, line 20, depends on claim 1 which creates ambiguity in the claim scope, therefore it is indefinite. For purpose of prior art rejection, the second claim is considered to depend on the first claim 1. For rejection purpose, this claim is labeled as claim 1.1.
Regarding claim 2, line 23, depends on claim 2 which creates ambiguity in the claim scope, therefore it is indefinite. For purpose of prior art rejection, it is considered to depend on claim 1.1.
Regarding claims 3-9, depends on claim 1, however, there are two claim 1 (page 1, line 1 and line 20), therefore claims 3-9 are indefinite due to unclear scope. For purpose of prior art rejection, the second claim 1 is labeled as claim 1.1.
Regarding claim 10, line 1, the limitation of “…the distance to an object…” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, depends on claim 11 which creates ambiguity in the claim scope, therefore it is indefinite. For purpose of prior art rejection, the claim will be treated to depend on claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, line 1, the limitation of “…the distance to an object…” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, line 8, the limitation of “…the aid of free-space couplers…” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, depends on claim 15 which creates ambiguity in the claim scope, therefore it is indefinite. For purpose of prior art rejection, the claim will be treated to depend on claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, depends on claim 16 which creates ambiguity in the claim scope, therefore it is indefinite. For purpose of prior art rejection, the claim will be treated to depend on claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, line 2, the limitation of “…the beam shifting unit…” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1-18, there is an obvious misnumbering in the claims starting with what should be claim 2, but that it is leading claims to refer to themselves. For examination purposes, the following numbering of the claims will be used: the second claim 1 (page 1, line 20) is labeled as claim 1.1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding second claim 1, line 20, the claim depends on claim 1 which fails to reference a different previously set forth claim and fails to further limit the referenced claim. For purpose of prior art rejection, the second claim 1 is labeled as claim 1.1.
Regarding claim 2, line 23, the claim depends on claim 2 which fails to reference a different, previously set forth claim. For purpose of prior art rejection, it is considered to depend on claim 1.1.
Regarding claims 3-9, the claim depends on claim 1. However, there are two claim 1 (line 1 and line 20). Therefore, the claims 3-9 fails to further limit the referenced claim. For purpose of prior art rejection, the second claim 1 is labeled as claim 1.1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim depends on claim 11 which fails to reference a different, previously set forth claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim depends on claim 15 which fails to reference a different, previously set forth claim. For purpose of prior art rejection, the claim will be treated to depend on claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the claim depends on claim 16 which fails to reference a different, previously set forth claim. For purpose of prior art rejection, the claim will be treated to depend on claim 15.
Other claims are rejected due to claim dependency.
Regarding claim 1-18, there is an obvious misnumbering in the claims starting with what should be claim 2, but that it is leading claims to refer to themselves. For examination purposes, the following numbering of the claims will be used: the second claim 1 (page 1, line 20) is labeled as claim 1.1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1, 1.1, , 3-6, 10, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels et al. (US 20220146645 A1, hereinafter “Michaels”), modified in view of Simon et al. (US 20240364990 A1, hereinafter “Simon”).
Regarding claim 1, Michaels teaches a device for scanning measurement of the distance to an object, comprising:
a light source configured to generate an optical signal having a varying frequency (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029], 204 and 206; Fig. 9, [0041]-[0042], 902 fed by frequency modulated light source),
a distribution matrix configured to distribute the optical signal simultaneously to a plurality of optical output waveguides (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029], a Lidar system containing an focal plane array (FPA) system includes coherent pixel array CPA 201, optical element 202 and diffraction grating DGS 200; Fig. 9, [0041]-[0043], shows a switchable coherent pixel array (SCPA) FMCW Lidar chip 911. Optical switch networks 904 selectively supply signal to coherent pixels 905 in Fig. 9 with connecting waveguides 1003 in Figs. 10a-10d),
a plurality of free-space couplers that are configured to couple out the optical signals guided in the optical output waveguides as light beams into free space, wherein at least one light beam propagates along an exit direction (Michaels; Figs. 10a-10d, [0043], one incoming waveguide 1003 for each coupler 1000 or 1010 (the optical antenna is a device that emits light from on-chip waveguides into free space or couples light from free space into on-chip waveguide such as a grating coupler, an edge coupler, an integrated reflector or any spot-size converters)),
deflection optics configured to deflect the optical signals emerging from the optical output waveguides so that they are simultaneously emitted in different directions from the device (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029], the diffraction grating DGS 200 (equivalent to deflection optics) takes input form the CPA 201 which may optionally employ an optical element 202 to correct an output beam angle; [0004], the DGS also collimates the light emitted from the CPs of the CPA. Each of the one or more light beam is emitted at a specific output angle is unique for each CP, such light form each CP is output by the DGS as a light beam at an angle unique to the CP. Example of DGS includes Fig. 1 (DGS 110, [0025]-[0026]), Fig. 3 (DGS 310, [0031]), Fig. 4 (DGS 410, [0033])),
at least one detector configured to detect a superposition of the optical signal generated by the light source with an optical signal reflected by the object (Michaels; Figs. 10a-10d, [0043], LO 1006 or 1014; Photodiodes 1007 and 1008. Splitter 1002 splits the light into 2 output ports ( TX signal 1005 and LO 1006)),
an evaluation unit configured to compute a distance to the object from the superposition detected by the at least one detector (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029]-[0030], [0042], microcomputer 209 processes data (depth information [0020], [0023]) coming from the FPA system),
Michaels does not teach,
a beam shifting unit configured to temporarily shifting the light beams coupled out from the free-space couplers before they impinge on the deflection optics, wherein the beam shifting unit comprises a flat plate and a rotary actuator configured to move the flat plate between at least two angular positions with respect to an axis of rotation which runs at an angle to the exit direction of the at least one light beam.
Simon disclosed in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraph [0130], the beam displacing device 38 (includes an actuator 54 [0134]) can be designated as a “beam shifter”; [0132], the beam displacing device 38 comprises a beam displacing device element in the form of a window 44 (implies it is a transparent plate and it is flat as seen in the figure), which is changeable with respect to its displacement effect on the signal paths 42a and 42b; [0137], deflection mirror 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using beam shifting unit to change the direction of emitting beam in different direction which is still parallel but a little offset to the original direction (Simon; [0130], [0132], [0134], [0137]).
Regarding claim 1.1, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the distribution matrix is a switching matrix comprising a plurality of optical switches, and wherein the distribution matrix is configured to selectively distribute the optical signal to the plurality of optical output waveguides (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029], a Lidar system containing an focal plane array (FPA) system includes coherent pixel array CPA 201, optical element 202 and diffraction grating DGS 200; Fig. 9, [0041]-[0043], shows a switchable coherent pixel array (SCPA) FMCW Lidar chip 911. Optical switch networks 904 selectively supply signal to coherent pixels 905 in Fig. 9 with connecting waveguides 1003 in Figs. 10a-10d).
Regarding claim 3, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the free-space couplers are arranged in a plane (Michaels; Fig. 9, [0041]-[0043], shows a switchable coherent pixel array (SCPA) FMCW Lidar chip 911. Optical switch networks 904 selectively supply signal to coherent pixels 905 in Fig. 9 with connecting waveguides 1003 in Figs. 10a-10d; [0043], one incoming waveguide 1003 for each coupler 1000 or 1010. The optical antenna is a device that emits light from on-chip waveguides into free space or couples light from free space into on-chip waveguides, such a grating coupler, an edge coupler, an integrated reflector or any spot-size converters. Because the antenna is arranged one by one with waveguides 1003, implies the antenna is arranged in a plane).
Regarding claim 4, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the deflection optics is a collimating optical system having a front focal plane in which the free-space couplers are arranged (Michaels; [0028], in the transmit direction, light emitted by a CP will pass through the DGS 110. As the beam propagates through the stack and diffracts, it is molded into a collimated beam at a particular angle. When this beam reflects off of a (diffuse) surface, the light returns to the DGS at the same angle as return light, and thus along the return path there is an approximate “collimated” wave hitting the DGS 110. In the return direction, the DGS 110 focuses the return light back onto the CP in a reciprocal manner. In this manner, one or more CPs emit light that the DGS 110 diffracts to one or more light beams and the DGS 110 diffracts the corresponding return light to the one or more CPs. Those skilled in the art can design the gratings in the DGS to work optimally for all CPs in the CPA. Implies the CPs is positioned in the focal plane of the DGS).
Regarding claim 5, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the axis of rotation forms an angle of 90˚ to the exit direction of the at least one light beam.
Simon disclosed in Fig. 3, paragraph [0130], [0132], the beam displacing device 38 comprises a beam displacing device element in the form of a window 44, which is changeable with respect to its displacement effect on the signal paths 42a and 42b. Clearly seen that the axis of rotation of the displacing device 38 is 90˚ respected to the exit direction of light beam (shown in the arrow of 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit; wherein the axis of rotation forms an angle of 90˚ to the exit direction of the at least one light beam taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that rotating of the displacing device with respected to the axis which is perpendicular to the exit direction of light beam such that the changed light emission direction is still parallel but a little offset to the original direction (Simon; [0130], [0132], [0134], [0137]).
Regarding claim 6, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the axis of rotation is parallel to an optical axis of the deflection optics.
Simon disclosed in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraph [0130], the beam displacing device 38 (includes an actuator 54 [0134]) can be designated as a “beam shifter”; [0132], the beam displacing device 38 comprises a beam displacing device element in the form of a window 44 (implies it is a transparent plate and it is flat as seen in the figure), which is changeable with respect to its displacement effect on the signal paths 42a and 42b. As can been seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the tilt of the flat plate changes the emission light direction which is offset but parallel to the optical axis of the lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using beam shifting unit to change the direction of emitting beam in different direction which is still parallel but a little offset to the original direction (Simon; [0130], [0132], [0134], [0137]).
Regarding claim 10, Michaels teaches a device for scanning measurement of the distance to an object, comprising:
a light source configured to generate an optical signal having a varying frequency (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029], 204 and 206; Fig. 9, [0041]-[0042], 902 fed by frequency modulated light source),
a plurality of optical output waveguides (Michaels; Fig. 2, [0029], a Lidar system containing an focal plane array (FPA) system includes coherent pixel array CPA 201, optical element 202 and diffraction grating DGS 200; Fig. 9, [0041]-[0043], shows a switchable coherent pixel array (SCPA) FMCW Lidar chip 911. Optical switch networks 904 selectively supply signal to coherent pixels 905 in Fig. 9 with connecting waveguides 1003 in Figs. 10a-10d),
a plurality of free-space couplers that are configured to couple out the optical signals guided in the optical output waveguides as light beams into free space (Michaels; Figs. 10a-10d, [0043], one incoming waveguide 1003 for each coupler 1000 or 1010 (the optical antenna is a device that emits light from on-chip waveguides into free space or couples light from free space into on-chip waveguide such as a grating coupler, an edge coupler, an integrated reflector or any spot-size converters)),
at least one detector configured to detect a superposition of the optical signal generated by the light source with an optical signal reflected by the object (Michaels; Figs. 10a-10d, [0043], LO 1006 or 1014; Photodiodes 1007 and 1008. Splitter 1002 splits the light into 2 output ports ( TX signal 1005 and LO 1006)), and
an evaluation unit configured to compute a distance to the object from the superposition detected by the at least one detector (Michaels Fig. 2, [0029]-[0030], [0042], microcomputer 209 processes data (depth information [0020], [0023]) coming from the FPA system).
Michaels does not teach,
a flat plate, and
a rotary actuator configured to tilt the flat plate such that the light beams emerging from the free-space couplers are offset in parallel, wherein said offset increases with increasing tilt angle,
a lens configured to deflect the light beams passing the flat plate,
Simon teaches,
a flat plate (Simon; Fig. 3, [0130], the beam displacing device (includes a beam displacing device element in the form of a window 44 [0132], which is flat can been seen in the figure)), and
a rotary actuator configured to tilt the flat plate such that the light beams emerging from the free-space couplers are offset in parallel, wherein said offset increases with increasing tilt angle (Simon; Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0130], the beam displacing device 38 (includes an actuator 54 [0134]) comprises a beam displacing device element in the form of a window 44 which is changeable with respect to its displacement effect on the signal paths 42a and 42b),
a lens configured to deflect the light beams passing the flat plate (Simon; Fig. 3, [0131], the optical lens 40 and the scanning signal deflection device 24),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using beam shifting unit to change the direction of emitting beam in different direction which is still parallel but a little offset to the original direction (Simon; [0130], [0132], [0134], [0137]).
Regarding claim 12, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 11.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the rotary actuator is configured to tilt the flat plate about an axis of rotation that is parallel to an optical axis of the lens.
Simon disclosed in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, paragraph [0130], the beam displacing device 38 (includes an actuator 54 [0134]) can be designated as a “beam shifter”; [0132], the beam displacing device 38 comprises a beam displacing device element in the form of a window 44 (implies it is a transparent plate and it is flat as seen in the figure), which is changeable with respect to its displacement effect on the signal paths 42a and 42b. As can been seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the tilt of the flat plate changes the emission light direction which is offset but parallel to the optical axis of the lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using beam shifting unit to change the direction of emitting beam in different direction which is still parallel but a little offset to the original direction (Simon; [0130], [0132], [0134], [0137]).
Claims 14-15 are the method claim possess nearly identical limitation to those of claims 1-1.1 and are thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels, modified in view of Simon, in view of Silverstein et al. (US 20100296061 A1, hereinafter “Silverstein”).
Regarding claim 7, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the deflection optics have an intermediate image plane in which the flat plate is arranged.
Silverstein disclosed in Fig. 2, paragraph [0042], the intermediate image plane 21 is located within or substantially within a speckle reduction system which comprise a speckle reduction element 40 (such as glass, fused silica, plastics or epoxy [0061]) and a movement generating system. An actuator 49 moves the speckle reduction element 40 is projected by the projection subsystem 20. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination with the Simon’s invention with a beam shifting unit and Silverstein’s invention with a speckle reduction system and put them in the intermediate image plane can further reduce the speckle noise.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon, include wherein the deflection optics have an intermediate image plane in which the flat plate is arranged taught by Silverstein with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is the intermediate image plane 21 is located within or substantially within a speckle reduction system which comprise a speckle reduction element 40 and a movement generating system. The movement-generating system provides vibration, rotation, or other repeating or random movement to the speckle reduction element 40 while the intermediate image passes through it in order to reduce speckle (Silverstein; [0042], [0046]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination with the Simon’s invention with a beam shifting unit and Silverstein’s invention with a speckle reduction system and put them in the intermediate image plane can further reduce the speckle noise.
Regarding claim 9, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the beam shifting unit is configured to superimpose further movements with smaller amplitudes on a movement of the flat plate between the at least two angular positions, thereby avoiding speckle patterns.
Silverstein disclosed in Fig. 2, paragraph [0042], the intermediate image plane 21 is located within or substantially within a speckle reduction system which comprise a speckle reduction element 40 (such as glass, fused silica, plastics or epoxy [0061]) and a movement generating system. An actuator 49 moves the speckle reduction element 40 is projected by the projection subsystem 20. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination with the Simon’s invention with a beam shifting unit and Silverstein’s invention with a speckle reduction system and put them in the intermediate image plane can further reduce the speckle noise.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon, include wherein the deflection optics have an intermediate image plane in which the flat plate is arranged; wherein the beam shifting unit is configured to superimpose further movements with smaller amplitudes on a movement of the flat plate between the at least two angular positions, thereby avoiding speckle patterns taught by Silverstein with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is the intermediate image plane 21 is located within or substantially within a speckle reduction system which comprise a speckle reduction element 40 and a movement generating system. The movement-generating system provides vibration, rotation, or other repeating or random movement to the speckle reduction element 40 while the intermediate image passes through it in order to reduce speckle (Silverstein; [0042], [0046]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination with the Simon’s invention with a beam shifting unit and Silverstein’s invention with a speckle reduction system and put them in the intermediate image plane can further reduce the speckle noise.
Claims 18 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to those of claims 9 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels, modified in view of Simon, in view of Okazaki (US 4978970 A, hereinafter “Okazaki”).
Regarding claim 8, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 1.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the light beams are shifted by the beam shifting unit by a distance that is half a lateral distance between immediately adjacent light beams.
Okazaki disclosed in Fig. 9, column 8, line 2, the said beam shifter 4 comprises transparent parallel flat plates such as shown in FIG. 9. By setting the angle Ө1 formed by the normal N of the plane of the parallel flat plate and the laser beam B3 at an angle defined by the following equation, the emitted light B4 is shifted in parallel by a desired pitch P (here the distance necessary to shift the beam spot line by D/2 (equivalent to half a distance between immediately adjacent light beams)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon, include wherein the light beams are shifted by the beam shifting unit by a distance that is half a lateral distance between immediately adjacent light beams taught by Okazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using beam shifter to shift the emitted light in parallel by a desired pitch P (here the distance necessary to shift the beam spot line by D/2) (Okazaki; column 8, line 2).
Regarding claim 13, Michaels as modified above teaches the device as recited in claim 11.
Michaels does not teach, wherein the flat plate is tilted such that the light beams are offset in parallel by a distance that is half a lateral distance between immediately adjacent light beams.
Okazaki disclosed in Fig. 9, column 8, line 2, the said beam shifter 4 comprises transparent parallel flat plates such as shown in FIG. 9. By setting the angle Ө1 formed by the normal N of the plane of the parallel flat plate and the laser beam B3 at an angle defined by the following equation, the emitted light B4 is shifted in parallel by a desired pitch P (here the distance necessary to shift the beam spot line by D/2 (equivalent to half a distance between immediately adjacent light beams)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the device taught by Michaels to include a beam shifting unit taught by Simon, include wherein the flat plate is tilted such that the light beams are offset in parallel by a distance that is half a lateral distance between immediately adjacent light beams taught by Okazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using beam shifter to shift the emitted light in parallel by a desired pitch P (here the distance necessary to shift the beam spot line by D/2) (Okazaki; column 8, line 2).
Claims 17 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to those of claims 8 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, 11 and 16, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious the following element, along with all other claimed feature:
comprising a control unit that is configured to synchronize the optical switches of the switching matrix with an offset of the light beams caused by the beam shifting unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 20220196804 A1) disclosed in Fig. 3, paragraph [0055], the transmitting array 120 consists of three aligned transmitting antennas 120A, 120B, 120C. clearly seen they are arranged in a plane.
Xu et al. (WO 2020202011 A1) disclosed in Fig. 3, paragraph [0058], one of more speckle reduction components require space for the speckle reduction component itself, as well as one or mor motors and/or coil required to move, rotate, or vibrate the speckle reduction component. In some examples, vibrating an objective lens by passing current through one or more coils attached to the objective lens and/or an objective lens holder or housing results in a low power consumption and/or small device size speckle reduction component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-LING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 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 at (571)270-3630. 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.
/CHIA-LING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights