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 Applicant has cited five information disclosure statements (IDS's) that when combined include approximately 342 Patents/PG Pubs/NPL. In accord with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find "a needle in a haystack" is "probative of bad faith." Id. [The Molins] case presented a situation where the disclosure was in excess of 700 pages and contained more than 50 references. Likewise, the instant application's combined IDS's also include more than 50 references, in fact, more than 340 references. According to MPEP Section 2004 "Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]", "It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance." See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v.Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It should be noted that the Examiner having to consider this many references without identifying statements as to their respective applicability to the patentability of each of the instant application's claims does not properly enable the Examiner to review them with significant depth. The IDS's have been placed in the application file and marked as considered, but the information referred to therein has only been given a cursory review. Examiner formally requests that if any information previously cited by Applicant in the IDS's is known to be truly material for patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, Applicant should present a new IDS outlining them and inclusive of a concise but detailed statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited under 37 CFR § 1.105.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “a coupling device” in the preamble, and at line 2 of the claim another “a couple device”. At line 4 the claim recites “the coupling device.” The claim is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis of the recited coupling device, and further for not rendering clear whether one or two coupling devices exist, how they are intended to be physical and communicatively related, and which is intended to be described by “the coupling device” in the body of the claim.
Claim 7 recites in the preamble “a coupling device” and “the coupling device.” However, the body of the claim appears to present that the coupling device of the preamble is intended to include another coupling device. The body of the claim continues to refer to “the coupling device” multiple times. The claim is rendered indefinite for the following reasons: the claim lacks proper antecedent basis when establishing and distinguishing the recited coupling devices, it is not clear whether the claim requires two coupling devices or only one, and if the former, for not rendering clear whether one or two coupling devices exist, how they are intended to be physical and communicatively related, and which is intended to be described by the recitations of “the coupling device”.
Claims 2 and 8 also recite “the coupling device” and then “the plurality of coupling devices” which lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear whether the multiple coupling devices of claim 1 are intended to be the plurality of coupling devices introduced in claims 2 and 8 or if additional and distinct coupling devices are intended to exist.
Claims 6 and 12 also recite “the plurality of coupling devices” and is lacking antecedent basis, because just as from above, it is unclear as to what coupling devices the plurality refers.
Looking to the specification, the specification also uses the confusing language in which:[Beginning of Summary] “The present disclosure provides a coupling device for photoelectric conversion and a laser radar to improve the coupling efficiency of the signal light of the laser radar, and to reduce the crosstalk during transmission of the signal light. In the first aspect, an embodiment of the present disclosure provides a coupling device for photoelectric conversion, comprising: a light receiving lens, a detector, and a coupling device provided between the light
receiving lens and the detector, the coupling device comprising an optical fiber and a lens group arranged coaxially with each other….”
That is to say, the claims are rendered indefinite for the same reason this passage of the specification is unclear: the language presents that a coupling device comprises a coupling device, and then references to “the coupling device” are made. It is unclear if the initial coupling device is actually intended to include another coupling device, or if the second recited coupling device is intended to refer back to the initial coupling device. And it is further unclear, if each “a coupling device” is intended to be distinct and separate, to which coupling device “the coupling device” refers.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will look to the specification for guidance, without imparting limitations from the specification into the claims, in an effort to presume that all of the recitations of “a” or “the” coupling devices refer to the same coupling device, and that in the situation where “a plurality” of coupling devices are recited, additional of the same initial coupling device are presumed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoppel (US 2020/0200880).
1 and claim 7 mutatis mutandis: Stoppel discloses a coupling device for photoelectric conversion [at least 0011 teaches a lidar sensor employing photodetectors], comprising:
a light receiving lens [0039 (receiver optics 13)], a detector [0039 (detector system 50 including sub-detectors 42)], and a coupling device provided between the light receiving lens and the detector [including all of the following components: 0039 waveguide 4; 0042 waveguides 4, 15, 58; 0041 collimation lens 43 and focusing optics 9], wherein:
the coupling device comprising comprises an optical fiber and a lens group arranged coaxially with each other [0042 waveguides 4, 15, 58 and lens group 43, 9 – illustrated by fig. 7],
the optical fiber is being arranged near an end with the light receiving lens, and the lens group is being arranged near the other end with the detector [illustrated by fig. 7 based on the numerical components established above];
the light receiving lens is configured to converge [[the]] signal light reflected by a target reflector and couple the converged signal light into [[an]]the optical fiber [illustrated by fig. 7],
the lens group is configured to receive the signal light output from the optical fiber [illustrated by fig. 7], and
the detector is configured to receive the signal light that passes through the lens group and perform photoelectric conversion on the received signal light [detector 42 as a photodetector (as in 0011).].
Regarding claim 7: Stoppel discloses a laser radar [at least 0011 teaches a lidar sensor implementing a laser beam, rendering a ladar system (laser radar)].
2 and claim 8 mutatis mutandis: Stoppel discloses the coupling device is one of a plurality of coupling devices provided, and each of the plurality of coupling devices comprises an optical fiber and a lens group arranged coaxially with each other [fig. 7 illustrates multiple, coaxial coupling devices in part as each of waveguide components 4, 15 and 58 as well as lens components 43 and 9].
4 and claim 10 mutatis mutandis: Stoppel discloses the lens group comprises a collimating lens and a convergent lens [fig 7, wherein 43 is a collimation lens and 9 is a focusing lens (i.e. convergent lens)].
5 and claim 11 mutatis mutandis: Stoppel discloses subunits of the detector are arranged separately from each other by means of electrical isolation [fig. 7 illustrates detector system 50 including spatially separated subunits 42].
6 and claim 12 mutatis mutandis: Stoppel discloses the plurality of coupling devices are arranged separately from each other [see fig. 7 illustrating spatially separated coupling devices as defined by the numerical components established in the rejection of claims 1 and 7].
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) 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoppel (US 2020/0200880) in view of Hays (us 2017/0023679).
3 and claim 9 mutatis mutandis: Stoppel explicitly lacks, but Hays teaches the optical fiber has a numerical aperture of > 0.2 [0066 teaches 0.22 numerical aperture].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ladar and coupling disclosed in Stoppel with the specific optical fiber numerical aperture disclosed in Hays with a reasonable expectation of success because such a numerical aperture allows, at least, for better coupling efficiency and larger angle light gathering than a lower numerical aperture optical fiber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights