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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/05/24 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toshihiko et al. (JP 2018180116).
a. Re claim 1, Toshihiko et al. disclose a light deflecting device, comprising: a plurality of waveguides (there are four wave guides on fig. 1 separated by cores 12Aa to 12Ac, each wave guide being a collection of holes 11 extending in the x directions as per annotated fig. 1 below; see figs. 1-4 and related text as well as remaining of disclosure for more details) that extends in a first direction (x direction) in parallel to each other and is provided in a semiconductor layer 10 (see last paragraph of pg. 4), and is capable of emitting light to an external space of the semiconductor layer and receiving light from the external space (explicit on figs. 1-4 and related text); and an optical system 4 that is provided on a substrate 13&10 (see first paragraph of pg. 5) including the semiconductor layer and converts light deflected and emitted from the plurality of waveguides in the first direction into a light beam substantially parallel to a second (vertical) direction orthogonal to the first direction (explicit on figs. 1-4 and related text; see especially pg. 5-8; in the alternative to the precedent, the light bean out of the waveguide widen by also spreading in the y direction, so the second direction can in the alternative be the y direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
1171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. Re claim 2, the optical system includes a module lens provided over the plurality of waveguides (figs. 1a-b, pg. 6).
c. Re claim 16, the plurality of waveguides is arranged in the second direction in such a manner as to have a higher density in a central portion than in a peripheral portion (on fig. 1, there are two waveguides delimited by 12Aa and 12Ac in a central portion of element 1A and one waveguide on each peripheral side, and as such, the plurality of waveguides is arranged in the second direction in such a manner as to have a higher density in a central portion than in a peripheral portion).
d. Re claim 18, light emitted from the plurality of waveguides is frequency-modulated (see pg. 8).
e. Re claim 19, the light emitted from the plurality of waveguides is light belonging to a near infrared region (see last paragraph of pg. 9).
f. Re claim 20, Toshihiko et al. disclose a distance measuring device, comprising: a plurality of waveguides (there are four wave guides on fig. 1 separated by cores 12Aa to 12Ac, each wave guide being a collection of holes 11 extending in the x directions as per annotated fig. 1 below; see figs. 1-4 and related text as well as remaining of disclosure for more details) that extends in a first (x) direction in parallel to each other and is provided in a semiconductor layer 10, and is capable of emitting light to an external space of the semiconductor layer and receiving light from the external space (explicit on figs. 1-4 and related text); and an optical system 4 that is provided on a substrate 13&10 (see first paragraph of pg. 5) including the semiconductor layer and converts light deflected and emitted from the plurality of waveguides in the first direction into a light beam substantially parallel to a second (vertical) direction orthogonal to the first direction (explicit on figs. 1-4 and related text; see especially pg. 5-8; in the alternative to the precedent, the light bean out of the waveguide widen by also spreading in the y direction, so the second direction can in the alternative be the y direction).
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(s) 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshihiko et al. (JP 2018180116).
a. Re claim 3, Toshihiko et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 2 except explicitly that the module lens is an annular lens in which a circumferential body is rotated on a rotation axis extending in the second direction. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the module lens to be an annular lens in which a circumferential body is rotated on a rotation axis extending in the second direction for an application requiring such a lens design (see MPEP 2144.04.I).
b. Re claim 4, Toshihiko et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 2 except explicitly that the module lens is a metalens having a planar structure with a period smaller than a wavelength of light emitted from the plurality of waveguides. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the module lens to be a metalens having a planar structure with a period smaller than a wavelength of light emitted from the plurality of waveguides for an application requiring such a lens design (see MPEP 2144.04.I).
c. Re claims 5 and 6, curvature condensing or slope condensing characteristics are characteristics of metalenses, and as such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the metalens to have curvature condensing or slope condensing characteristics are characteristics of metalenses for an application requiring such any of those metalens design characteristics (see MPEP 2144.04.I).
d. Re claim 7, Toshihiko et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 2 except explicitly that the optical system further includes a linear diffraction grating provided between the module lens and the substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the optical system to further include a linear diffraction grating provided between the module lens and the substrate, and this as a non-inventive step of providing such a known essential working part in the art for an application requiring such a diffraction grating for improved optical performance of the light deflecting device (see MPEP 2144.I&I).
e. Re claim 8, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the linear diffraction grating to diffract light emitted from the plurality of waveguides to a side opposite to a light traveling direction of the plurality of waveguides, and this as necessary based on design necessity and desired optical performance of the light deflecting device.
f. Re claim 9, Toshihiko et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1 including that the optical system includes an on-chip lens (4a1, 4a2, … 4an; see fig. 1b and related text) provided for each of the waveguides (note that each waveguide has a corresponding lens 4a1…4an) or for each of the plurality of waveguides, except explicitly for a module lens provided over the plurality of waveguides. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a module lens over the on-chip lenses, thus provided over the plurality of waveguides, and this as necessary based on design necessity and/or desired/improved optical performance of the light deflecting device (see MPEP 2144.I&II).
g. Re claim 10, the on-chip lens is a cylindrical lens (each of lens 4a1…4an is a cylindrical lens in the sense of being at least partially cylindrical).
h. Re claim 11, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art (who, according to MPEP 2141.03, is not an automaton but is a person of ordinary creativity who would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art) before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the on-chip lens is a metalens having a planar structure with a period smaller than a wavelength of light emitted from the plurality of waveguides, and this as necessary based on design necessity and/or desired/improved optical performance of the light deflecting device (see MPEP 2144.I&II).
i. Re claim 12, the on-chip lens is a concave lens (each of lens 4a1…4an is a concave lens).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crouch et al. (US 2019/0383913) disclose a structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights