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 . Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190313178 (hereinafter Mutlu) in view of US PG PUB 20040202400 (hereinafter Kochergin).
Regarding Claim 1, Mutlu teaches an optical device (proximity sensor 30) for proximity sensing comprising:
a tunable laser source (laser 32, see FIG. 3A) for emitting laser light (light 46), wherein the tunable laser source comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser, VCSEL, ([0028] describes laser 32 as a VCSEL) comprising a microelectromechanical system, MEMS, for wavelength tuning the VCSEL by changing a length of a laser cavity of the VCSEL ([0036] describes the use of a MEMS system to vary the length of the laser cavity); and
a receiver (photodiode 34) configured to receive laser light (5) emitted by the tunable laser source (2) and reflected from an object ([0029] describes how photodiode 34 receives reflected light 50); but fails to specifically teach the final claim limitation,
However, Kochergin teaches wherein the optical device is configured to keep an output power of the tunable laser source constant while tuning the VCSEL ([0038] of Kochergin teaches adjusting the laser power input to provide a constant power output with respect to wavelength using an independent monitor detector 39, see FIG. 1).
Kochergin and Mutlu both describe VCSEL control systems for varying wavelength by changing the cavity length of a VCSEL using a MEMS tuner (see [0039] of Kochergin describing the invention being implemented by a MEMS-tunable VCSEL). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to implement the control scheme described by Kochergin to maintain a constant power output of the laser. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized the value in having a constant power output, in light of [0036] of Multlu which uses the wavelength variation control scheme to maintain parameters of the proximity sensor. Similarly, maintaining the output power at a constant value would help maintain consistent parameters for operation of the proximity sensor.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the optical device is configured to detect the presence of and/or measure a distance to the object when the distance (8) is less than 50 cm (Mutlu is directed primarily to implementation of one or more proximity sensors on the body of an earbud, as is shown in FIG. 2 below at locations 26. [0055] of Multlu describes proximity sensor 30 as being capable of detecting the presence of an object, in this case a user’s inner ear surface or finger in direct contact for detection at a distance of zero with sensor 30 at locations 26).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the optical device (1) is configured to detect the presence of and/or measure a distance (8) to the object (6) when the distance (8) is less than 10 mm ([0055] of Mutlu as applied in the rejection of Claim 2 above).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the receiver (4) is the VCSEL, and the optical device is configured to measure the received laser light using self-mixing interferometry, SMI ([0032]-[0033] of Mutlu describes the use of self-mixing interferometry to measure distance by measuring the interference caused by the received light within the laser cavity at accuracy levels of 0.1 – 0.2mm).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 4, further comprising a monitoring unit for monitoring the power input to the VCSEL to measure the received laser light ([0034]-[0035] of Mutlu describes the use of an Rsense resister for measuring the power input to the laser).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 4, further comprising an optical sensor configured to measure a part of the laser light emitted by the VCSEL to measure the received laser light ([0032]-[0033] of Mutlu describes the use of self-mixing interferometry which measures at least a portion of the incoming received laser light).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the optical device is configured to measure the received laser light using frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) technology ([0036] of Mutlu describes frequency modulation by varying the cavity length. Examiner notes that if a different scope is intended it may be problematic to claim given that the only support for how FMCW would be implemented into the disclosed embodiments is a brief reference to Michelson type measurements).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the MEMS is configured to deflect a reflecting surface at one end of the VCSEL (Mutlu is silent as to structural elements of the MEMS actuator but FIG. 1 of Kochergin shows how this is how a MEMS tunable VCSEL works illustrating movable reflector 32 {i.e. reflecting surface} being configured to deflect in direction 37 by MEMS actuator 33).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 9, wherein the reflecting surface is a Bragg reflector ([0028] of Mutlu teaches the use of a Bragg reflector on the mirrors of laser 32).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 1, wherein the VCSEL is configured to emit laser light having a wavelength in the range of 350 nm to 1600 nm ([0029] of Mutlu teaches an exemplary output wavelength of 850nm).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teach a method of measuring a distance using an optical device according to claim 1 ([0029] & FIG. 3A of Mutlu teaches measurement of a distance X between proximity sensor 30 and target 48).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the method comprises fringe counting or performing a Fast Fourier Transform, FFT ([0046] of Mutlu teaches performing an FFT to calculate target distance).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the method comprises measuring a distance of less than 10 mm ([0055] of Multlu describes proximity sensor 30 as being capable of detecting the presence of an object at a distance of zero between the object and a sensor window associated with sensor 30 at locations 26).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teach the method according to claim 12, further comprising measuring received laser light using self-mixing interferometry, SMI ([0032]-[0033] of Mutlu describes the use of self-mixing interferometry to measure distance by measuring the interference caused by the received light within the laser cavity at accuracy levels of 0.1 – 0.2mm).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutlu and Kochergin in view of Cole et al, “Short-wavelength MEMS-tunable VCSELs”.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin teaches the optical device according to claim 1, Mutlu and Kochergin are both silent as to the amount of change in length of the cavity being applied.
However, Cole teaches changing the length of the laser cavity with a MEMS actuator by at least 30nm (FIG. 8 of Cole describes a change in cavity length of 100nm to achieve a change of 12nm in frequency modulation using a MEMS actuator).
Cole and the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin both teach MEMS-tunable VCSELs. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to implement a cavity length change of at least 30nm for the combination of Mutlu and Kochergin in light of Cole’s teaching that changes in length of 100nm are needed to achieve changes in frequency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights