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 .
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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (20220086417).
Referring to claim 1, Wang shows an optical interference blocking structure (see figure 8 Ref 810) for a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (see figure 8) including a transmitter that transmits light in one direction (see figure 8 Ref 110) and a receiver that receives light in the one direction (see figure 8 Ref 140), the optical interference blocking structure comprising:
a cover portion which is a window provided in the one direction of the LiDAR system (see the window figure 8 Ref 810 also see paragraph 39); and
a total reflection prevention portion (see figure 8 and 9 note Ref 8102) protruding from the cover portion toward the LiDAR system (see figure 9 Ref 8102 protruding from the cover towards the LIDAR system),
wherein the total reflection prevention portion includes a protrusion (see figure 9 note the protrusion of 8102) and a groove (see figure 8 and 9 note the groove between the protrusion) having a uniform shape and formed to prevent internal total reflection of incident light (see fig 8 and 10 also see paragraph 66-67).
Referring to claim 2, Wang shows wherein the cover portion has a flat surface (see figure 8 note Ref 8103), and
wherein the total reflection prevention portion is formed along an edge of the cover portion (see figure 8 note edge 8104) and include at least one first inclined surface forming a predetermined inclination angle with one surface of the cover portion (see figure 8 Ref 8102 also see the angle shown in figure 10).
Referring to claim 3, Wang shows wherein the at least one first inclined surface of the cover portion and the flat surface of the cover portion form a shape of triangular prism (see figure 10 and 11 Ref 8102).
Referring to claim 4, Wang shows the first inclined surface of the total reflection prevention portion satisfies the following expression:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
63
media_image1.png
Greyscale
>⊖i-⊖c
where
PNG
media_image2.png
42
63
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the inclination angle formed by the first inclined surface and the one surface of the cover portion, θi is an incident angle of the light, and θc is a critical angle of a material of the cover portion (see paragraph 64-65).
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) 5, 6, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (20220086417) in view of Schwalenberg (20200146603).
Referring to claim 5, Wang fails to show but Schwalenberg shows the cover portion has a curved surface (see figure 9 Ref 151), and
wherein the total reflection prevention portion is formed along an edge of the cover portion and includes at least one second inclined surface forming a predetermined inclination angle with the one surface of the cover portion (see Wang figure 10 and 11 Ref 8102 and Schwalenberg figure 9 Ref 145 and 152). It would have been obvious to include the curved surface because this allows for a converging region for detecting light as taught by Schwalenberg (see paragraph 69-70).
Referring to claim 6, Wang shows wherein the at least one second inclined surface of the cover portion and the one surface of the cover portion form a shape of triangular prism (see figure 10 and 11 Ref 8102).
Referring to claim 11, Wang fails to show but Schwalenberg shows a shielding wall installed between the transmitter and the receiver (see figure 9 Ref 134),
wherein the shielding wall contains a material that does not transmit the light (see paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to include the shielding wall as shown by Schwalenberg because this allows optical isolation between the transmitter and receiver.
Referring to claim 12, Wang shows the total reflection prevention portion is formed in a region of the cover portion facing the shielding wall (see figure 8 and 9).
Referring to claim 13, Wang shows the total reflection prevention portion is formed along an edge of the cover portion (see figure 8 and 9 note the edge 8104).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Wang and Schwalenberg shows the total reflection prevention portion is formed in a region of the cover portion facing the shielding wall (see figure 9 Ref 134 of Schwalenberg in view of the placement of a similar shielding wall in figure 8 and 9 of Wang). It would have been obvious to include the total reflection prevention portion facing the shielding wall because this allows for optical isolation between the transmitter and the receiver.
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Wang and Schwalenberg shows the cover portion cover a side of the optical interference blocking structure where the transmitter Tx generates the light and a side of the optical interference blocking structure where the receiver Rx receives light (see figure 5 Ref 134 of Schwalenberg). It would have been obvious to include the placement of the wall because this allows for optical isolation between the transmitter and the receiver.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (20220086417) in view of Schwalenberg (20200146603) and Wang (CN113238203).
Referring to claim 16, neither Wang nor Schwalenberg shows the total reflection prevention portion is formed only at an edge of a region of the cover portion where the transmitter is positioned among regions of the cover portion divided by the shielding wall.
Wang (CN113238203) shows a similar device that includes the total reflection prevention portion is formed only at an edge of a region of the cover portion where the transmitter is positioned among regions of the cover portion divided by the shielding wall (see figure 9 note 1012 on the edge regions of the transmitter portion Ref 30). It would have been obvious to include the total reflection prevention portion formed on an edge region of the cover portion where the transmitter is positioned because this allows for optical isolation between the transmitter and receiver portions as shown by Wang (CN113238203).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-9 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights