DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected in the prior office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection via 35USDC112 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 in an effort to clarify the function of the light beam adjusting apparatus. However, no structure is recited as to how the adjustment according to the focus position occurs. Therefore, the prior rejection applies because one having ordinary skill in the art would enable adjustment of a light beam.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 limitation “the light beam adjusting apparatus adjusts a light beam scanning angle according to the focus position adjusted by the phase adjusting apparatus” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because no structure is claimed as to how this adjustment occurs. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Remaining claims are rejected on the basis of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2023284399 to Zheng et al. in view of US 2021/0302737 to Calafiore et al.
Zheng discloses in figures 1-5, a light beam scanning system, comprising:
A beam splitting apparatus (11) receiving a laser light beam (page 5 of the translation) dividing the laser light beam into a plurality of sub-beams (page 5 of the translation) and emitting the sub-beams;
An optical waveguide array (12) arranged in an outputting direction of the beam splitting apparatus and configured to receive the plurality of sub-beams and transmit the plurality of sub-beams to a predetermined waveguide emergent end (right end of 1220), wherein the optical waveguide array comprises a convergence and transmission region (1220), and each of the sub-beams is focused on the waveguide emergent end (right of 1220) through the convergence and transmission region (1220);
A phase adjusting apparatus (121) connected to the optical waveguide array and adjusting a relative phase distribution of sub-waveguides in the optical waveguide array, so as to adjust a focus position of a combined light beam on the light beam emergent surface and carry out light beam scanning in a first direction (paragraph 5; page 6 of translation).
As to claim 2, a Rowland circle is shown in figures 1-3 and disclosed in paragraph 1 of page 5 of the translation.
As to claim 3, the spacing between the sub-waveguides at the emergent end is less than a wavelength of the laser light beam (paragraph 7; page 4 of translation).
As to claim 4, the beam splitter may be a star coupler is disclosed (paragraph 1; page 4 of attached translation).
As to claim 6, a phase shifter (121) is integrated on each waveguide (120).
As to claim 7, phase modulation is disclosed in page 7 of the translation.
As to claim 8, lithium niobate is used (paragraph 3; page 4 of translation).
As to claim 9, different wavelengths and scanning angles are adjusted (paragraph 5; page 5 of translation).
However, Zheng fails to explicitly disclose:
A light beam adjusting apparatus arranged in an emergent direction of the light beam emergent surface and configured to expand and collimate a light beam emitted from the light beam emergent surface to form a scanning light beam.
As to claim 5, the collimating assemble is not disclosed.
Calafiore discloses in paragraphs 77-82 and figures 10-11, a magnified and collimated beam (1136; figure 11) using a plurality of lenses instead of the shared optical grating emitter (3) configured to expand and collimate a light beam to optimize scanning of a region. Further, the collimating lens assembly is disclosed in figure 11.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a light beam adjusting apparatus as taught by Calafiore in Zheng to optimize a n output light beam for scanning.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Calafiore (hereinafter ZiC) as applied to claims above, and further in view of GB 2640690 to Yin et al.
ZiC discloses the invention as claimed except for a “moving platform” to move the beam apparatus to scan in a second direction. It is noted that no further structure is recited as to the definition of the moving platform. Examiner interprets the moving platform to be a typical LIDAR-based system that has moving parts.
Yin discloses such a moving portion in a beam scanner in paragraph 60 to expand available modes of scanning along a second direction to allow simultaneous independent scanning with additional reflectors that may be tilted (movable).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a secondary scanning direction as taught by Yin in ZiC to obtain larger scanning ranges and reduce sizing of the associated reflectors.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights