DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2024, 5/6/2025, 8/6/2025, and 9/2/2025 were considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,667,341 (Kriman).
Regarding claim 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20, Kriman teaches an optical component (optical module 20; see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first active region (Fig. 3B illustrates an active optical area 46 of a diffractive optical element 30); and
an electrically conductive trace comprising at least a first leg and a second leg both on a surface of or embedded in the first active region, the first leg comprising at least substantially straight first, second, and third segments, the second leg comprising at least first, second, and third substantially straight segments (a trace 72 is formed over DOE 30, wherein trace 27 comprises multiple legs each having a zigzag pattern – e.g. Fig. 6 shows 7 legs – and wherein each leg comprises multiple straight segments to form the zigzag pattern; see Fig. 6);
wherein the second segment of the first leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the first leg and to the third segment of the first leg; wherein the second segment of the second leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the second leg and to the third segment of the second leg; wherein the first segment of the first leg is substantially parallel to the first segment of the second leg; wherein the second segment of the first leg is substantially parallel to the second segment of the second leg; and wherein the third segment of the first leg is substantially parallel to the third segment of the second leg (each leg forms a zigzag pattern having a first straight portion connect to a second straight portion at an angle and a third straight portion, and wherein respective straight portions each leg are substantially parallel to one another in an equivalent manner as disclosed in the pending specification for first leg 150 and second leg 160 in Fig. 2; see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Kriman teaches an optical module (optical module 20; see Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (housing 28; see Fig. 1);
a light source disposed in the housing and operable to produce light (emitter 24; see Fig. 1; see col. 4, lines 27-42);
a first active region disposed over the light source so as to intersect a path of the light produced by the light source (Fig. 3B illustrates an active optical area 46 of a diffractive optical element 30); and
an electrically conductive trace comprising at least a first leg and a second leg both on a surface of or embedded in the first active region, the first leg comprising at least substantially straight first, second, and third segments, the second leg comprising at least first, second, and third substantially straight segments (a trace 72 is formed over DOE 30, wherein trace 27 comprises multiple legs each having a zigzag pattern – e.g. Fig. 6 shows 7 legs – and wherein each leg comprises multiple straight segments to form the zigzag pattern; see Fig. 6);
wherein the second segment of the first leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the first leg and to the third segment of the first leg; wherein the second segment of the second leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the second leg and to the third segment of the second leg; wherein the first segment of the first leg is substantially parallel to the first segment of the second leg; wherein the second segment of the first leg is substantially parallel to the second segment of the second leg; and wherein the third segment of the first leg is substantially parallel to the third segment of the second leg (each leg forms a zigzag pattern having a first straight portion connect to a second straight portion at an angle and a third straight portion, and wherein respective straight portions each leg are substantially parallel to one another in an equivalent manner as disclosed in the pending specification for first leg 150 and second leg 160 in Fig. 2; see Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kriman teaches wherein the first active region comprises a lens or a flat optics metasurface (The pending application teaches in [0003] “The active region is the area of the optical component that will diffuse/diffract the light from the light source. Such an active region may be, for example, a lens or a flat optics metasurface.” Kriman teaches wherein the active optical area corresponds to a diffractive optical emitter 30, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the diffractive optical emitter as equivalent to a lens or flat optics metasurface as claimed.).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Kriman does not explicitly state wherein a length and/or a width of the electrically conductive trace that is on the surface of or embedded in the first active region is selected such that an amount of transmission loss caused by blockage of light through the first active region by the electrically conductive trace is less than a predetermined maximum allowable transmission loss, however, the limitation as claimed would be inherent and a manner of common sense. Krisman teaches wherein the conductive trace is transparent and has an index of refraction to minimize a reflection of the optical radiation at the emission wavelength of the emitter by the transparent conductive trace. See col. 2, lines 10-23. If the length and/or width of the conductive trace led to an amount of transmission loss caused by a blockage of light in the active region which exceeds an allowable amount, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the optical module would become inoperable.
Regarding claim 20, Kriman teaches wherein the optical module comprises a time-of-flight sensor or an image sensor (a module with an integrated integrity sensor of this sort also comprises other components, such as a detector for collecting and sensing the projected radiation that is reflected back from a scene to the module, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand includes 3D mapping and/or TOF sensing; see col. 1, lines 18-41; col. 5, lines 36-40).
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,667,341 (Kriman).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kriman teaches wherein the angle at which the second segment of the first leg is positioned relative to the first segment of the first leg and to the third segment of the first leg is substantially equal to a first angle; and the angle at which the second segment of the second leg is positioned relative to the first segment of the second leg and to the third segment of the second leg is substantially equal to an angle substantially equal to the first angle.
Kriman fails to explicitly teach wherein the angle is substantially equal to ninety degrees and does not explicitly teach a specific value for the angle between each straight portions of the zigzag pattern, however, determining a value of the angle to be substantially equal to ninety degrees would be an obvious matter of routine optimization by changing the size/proportion/shape for one of ordinary skill in the art such that changing the angle to ninety degrees between each straight portion of the zigzag pattern would not perform differently than the device of Kriman and would not require any undue experimentation or provide any new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 and 2144.05. Kriman teaches in col. 6, lines 44-55 wherein “Trace 72 is formed in a zigzag pattern, which both increases the baseline resistance of the trace and gives denser coverage of the surface of DOE 70, thus enabling finer detection of small, local defects in the DOE. … Alternatively, traces of other suitable shapes, patterns, densities and extents may be used, depending upon application requirements.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the zigzag pattern to achieve a suitable density of conductive traces for purposes of integrity sensing.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,667,341 (Kriman) in view of US 2021/0273403 (Yang).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kriman fails to teach further comprising wherein the electrically conductive trace further comprises a third leg and a fourth leg, the third leg comprising at least first, second, and third substantially straight segments, the fourth leg comprising at least first, second, and third substantially straight segments; wherein the second segment of the third leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the third leg and to the third segment of the third leg; wherein the second segment of the fourth leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the fourth leg and to the third segment of the fourth leg; wherein the first segment of the third leg is substantially parallel to the first segment of the fourth leg; wherein the second segment of the third leg is substantially parallel to the second segment of the fourth leg; and wherein the third segment of the third leg is substantially parallel to the third segment of the fourth leg (Fig. 6 illustrates 7 legs having zigzag patterns in the equivalent structure as claimed; see Fig. 6; see rejection of claim 1).
Kriman fails to teach a second light source disposed in the housing and operable to produce light; and a second active region; wherein the electrically conductive trace further comprises a third leg and a fourth leg both on a surface of or embedded in the second active region.
Yang teaches a second light source disposed in the housing and operable to produce light; and a second active region (two diodes 310 each comprise an active region of an optical component 350 comprising a micro lens array or diffraction element and a conducting layer; see [0024], [0040]; see Figs. 4E, 4F, 5B, 6A, 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of a second active region as taught in Yang into Kriman in order to gain the advantage of forming multiple electrically conductive traces over active layers of multiple light sources to monitor the function of an optical component based on a current through the conductor.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the electrically conductive trace further comprises a third leg and a fourth leg both on a surface of or embedded in the second active region by merely duplicating the conductor disclosed in Fig. 6 of Kriman for each laser source disclosed in Yang such that each laser source and active region may be monitored.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kriman and Yang fails to teach wherein the angle at which the second segment of the third leg is positioned relative to the first segment of the third leg and to the third segment of the third leg is substantially equal to ninety degrees; and the angle at which the second segment of the fourth leg is positioned relative to the first segment of the fourth leg and to the third segment of the fourth leg is substantially equal to ninety degrees, however, determining a value of the angle to be substantially equal to ninety degrees would be an obvious matter of routine optimization by changing the size/proportion/shape for one of ordinary skill in the art such that changing the angle to ninety degrees between each straight portion of the zigzag pattern would not perform differently than the device of Kriman and would not require any undue experimentation or provide any new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 and 2144.05. Kriman teaches in col. 6, lines 44-55 wherein “Trace 72 is formed in a zigzag pattern, which both increases the baseline resistance of the trace and gives denser coverage of the surface of DOE 70, thus enabling finer detection of small, local defects in the DOE. … Alternatively, traces of other suitable shapes, patterns, densities and extents may be used, depending upon application requirements.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the zigzag pattern to achieve a suitable density of conductive traces for purposes of integrity sensing.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kriman further teaches wherein the electrically conductive trace further comprises a fifth leg on the surface of or embedded in the first active region and a sixth leg on the surface of or embedded in the second active region, the fifth leg comprising at least first, second, and third substantially straight segments, the sixth leg comprising at least first, second, and third substantially straight segments; wherein the second segment of the fifth leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the fifth leg and to the third segment of the fifth leg; wherein the second segment of the sixth leg is positioned at an angle relative to the first segment of the sixth leg and to the third segment of the sixth leg; wherein the first segment of the fifth leg is substantially parallel to the first segment of the sixth leg; wherein the second segment of the fifth leg is substantially parallel to the second segment of the sixth leg; and wherein the third segment of the fifth leg is substantially parallel to the third segment of the sixth leg (see Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,667,341 (Kriman) in view of US 2019/0390838 (Yamaguchi).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kriman fails to teach wherein a position and a spacing of the electrically conductive trace on the surface of or embedded in the first active region is selected such that one or more predetermined shapes having a size corresponding to a predetermined maximum allowable amount of damage that may be incurred by the first active region superimposed anywhere on the first active region would cover at least a portion of the electrically conductive trace.
Yamaguchi teaches wherein a position and a spacing of the electrically conductive trace on the surface of or embedded in the first active region is selected such that one or more predetermined shapes having a size corresponding to a predetermined maximum allowable amount of damage that may be incurred by the first active region superimposed anywhere on the first active region would cover at least a portion of the electrically conductive trace (a virtual crack with a rectangular shape elongated in the horizontal direction and determines an exposure amount of light through which a crack is calculated, the evaluation was done on the basis of a threshold for a (2L+S) value – where L is the width of the wire trace and S is the separation distance – when the exposure amount of light becomes equal to or less than a predetermined value (as determined in accordance with IEC60825-1, called as class 1 of the minor axis length), meaning that the amount of light through a crack having a size equal to or less than the threshold is safe for a driver's eye and thus the (2L+S) value should be designed to have a size equal to or less than the threshold for detecting a crack having such a size. See [0031] – [0036]. See Fig. 1B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Kriman and Yamaguchi to arrive at the limitations as claimed in order to determine a spacing to detect damage such that that the amount of light through a crack having a size equal to or less than the threshold is safe for a driver's eye and thus the (2L+S) value should be designed to have a size equal to or less than the threshold for detecting a crack having such a size. Therefore, Yamaguchi teaches wherein a crack is characterized as having a rectangular shape and the wire width L and spacing S are sized such that the (2L+S) value should be designed to have a size equal to or less than the threshold of a crack that results in the exposure amount exceeding a threshold that is safe for a driver’s eye. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the spacing and width of traces in Kriman to detect a crack which results in an exposure amount exceeding a threshold that is safe for a driver’s eye. As best understood by the examiner, a sensor of Kriman sized to detect a crack which exceeds the threshold exposure amount would inherently be sized such that a shape corresponding to a predetermined maximum allowable amount of damage that may be incurred would cover at least a portion of the electrically conductive trace in order to achieve the intended purpose of detecting a crack which exceeds a threshold of exposure that is safe for a driver’s eye without detecting cracks having a size equal to or less than the threshold safe for a driver.
Regarding claim 8, Kriman fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more predetermined shapes comprise a square, a rectangle, and a circle, however, the claim is rejected in view of Yamaguchi for similar reasons as outlined for claim 7 above.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kriman fails to explicitly teach wherein the position and the spacing of the electrically conductive trace is selected such that a substantially linear line having a size corresponding to the predetermined maximum allowable amount of damage that may be incurred by the first active region superimposed anywhere on the first active region would intersect the electrically conductive trace, however, the claim is rejected in view of Yamaguchi for similar reasons as outlined for claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights