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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11-13, 39, 44, and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication US 2021/0373182 A1 to Wu et al. (hereinafter “US1”).
Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optoelectronic device (see Fig 1), comprising:
a planar substrate (3);
an array of optical transceiver cells (9) disposed on the substrate, each transceiver cell comprising an optical transducer (“emission unit”, see [0011], 91) configured to couple optical radiation (12) between the transceiver cell and a target external to the substrate (15);
an optical distribution tree (2, 4, 5, 6, 8, see Fig 1, [0011], [0039]), comprising a network of waveguides (4, 5, 8) and switches (6) disposed on the substrate, coupled to convey coherent radiation from a radiation source (1) to the optical transceiver cells; and
a controller (10), which is configured to actuate the switches so as to select different subsets of the optical transceiver cells that are to receive the coherent radiation from the optical distribution tree and to transmit the coherent radiation toward the target at different times during a scan of the target (see [0011], [0020], [0034], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 6, US1 further describes:
each optical transceiver cell comprising a receiver (92), which is coupled to mix a local part (14) of the coherent radiation conveyed from the optical distribution tree to the optical transceiver cell with the optical radiation received by the optical transducer (13) and to output an electrical signal (via 93) responsively to the mixed radiation.
Regarding Claim 11, US1 further describes:
the signal output by the receiver in each transceiver cell comprising a beat frequency responsive to a range of the target from the device (see [0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, US1 further describes:
the transceiver cells having respective fields of view, which are defined by respective optical apertures of the optical transducers (see Figs 1, 3-4), and wherein the device comprises a scanner, which is configured to scan the fields of view over the target (see [0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, US1 further describes:
that as the scanner scans the fields of view over the target, the optical apertures define respective scan lines extending along a scan direction of the scanner, and wherein the controller is configured to actuate the switches so as to select the scan lines to be probed by the device (see [0020].
Claims 39, 44, and 49-51 describe methods substantially embodied by the above-discussed devices of Claim 1, 6, and 11-13. Therefore, Claims 39, 44, and 49-51 are rejected in view of US1 for substantially the same reasoning.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 14, 40, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US1 as applied to Claims 1 or 39 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2017/0067829 A1 to Duer (hereinafter “US2”), cited in Applicant’s IDS received 20 June 2024.
Regarding Claim 2, US1 does not describe the optical distribution tree comprising multiple passive splitters, which divide the coherent radiation among the waveguides constituting branches of the tree. US1 is silent as to the particular structure of the switch (6), only describing, “[t]he 1×N optical switch 6 is a binary tree structure, or a series structure or a combination structure of the two.” (see [0039]).
US2 describes a switchable light source (see Fig 6B, [0160]-[0162]), for a scanning sensing system (see Figs 1A-1C, [0119]-[0123], [0131]). The switchable light source includes an optical distribution tree comprising multiple passive splitters, which divide the coherent radiation among the waveguides constituting branches of the tree (see Fig 6B, [0162])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the switchable structure of US2 for the switch of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to make a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, US1 does not describe the optical distribution tree comprising at least first and second trees, which are coupled to convey the coherent radiation in at least first and second wavelength bands, respectively, to at least first and second sets of the optical transceiver cells simultaneously for coupling between the optical transceiver cells and the target. US1 is silent as to the particular structure of the switch (6), only describing, “[t]he 1×N optical switch 6 is a binary tree structure, or a series structure or a combination structure of the two.” (see [0039]).
US2 describes a switchable light source (see Fig 6B, [0160]-[0162]), for a scanning sensing system (see Figs 1A-1C, [0119]-[0123], [0131]). The switchable light source includes optical distribution tree comprising at least first and second trees (see Fig 6B), which are coupled to convey the coherent radiation in at least first and second wavelength bands, respectively, to at least first and second sets of the optical transceiver cells simultaneously for coupling between the optical transceiver cells and the target (see [0120]-[0123], [0131]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the switchable structure of US2 for the switch of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to make a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 40 and 52 describe methods substantially embodied by the above-discussed devices of Claims 2 and 14. Therefore, 42 and 52 are rejected in view of US1 for substantially the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-10, 41-43, and 45-48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 describes the switches comprising semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOAs), which are coupled between one or more of the passive splitters and the waveguides constituting the branches of the tree, and wherein the controller is configured to actuate and deactuate the SOAs in order to select the subsets of the optical transceiver cells that are to receive the coherent radiation from the optical distribution tree.
Claim 7 describes a second tree coupled to convey a second portion of the coherent radiation from the radiation source to the optical transceiver cells to serve as the local part for mixing with the received optical radiation.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Claims 4-5 and 8-10 depend from Claims 3 and 7, respectively, and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Claims 41-43 and 45-48 describes methods substantially embodied by the above-discussed device of Claims 3-5 and 7-10. Therefore, Claims 41-43 and 45-48 contain allowable subject matter for substantially the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights