The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al (US 2024/0329203 A1) in view of Bakker et al (US 2008/0129991 A1), and further in view of Whitlock et al (US 2010/0212717 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Braun discloses (Figs. 1 and 5 – 8; Abstract; para. 0031 – 0033 and 0042 – 0067) a light receiver comprising (with reference to Figs. 7 and 8):
a ball lens 4;
a wavelength separator 18 (a plurality of grating couplers; Fig. 8a; Abstract; para. 0032 and 0055) that wavelength-separates a signal light having a plurality of wavelengths used for spatial optical communication (interrogation of an outside object(s) with an improved signal-to-noise ratio; para. 0006) from a signal light (a multi-wavelength signal light reflected from an outside object(s) with information about its speed and direction; para. 0074) condensed by the ball lens 4, and
a light receiving element group including a plurality of communication light receiving elements (photodetectors receiving the signal light after it is wavelength-demultiplexed by the grating couplers 18; photodetectors 15 are explicitly shown in Figs. 5 and 6) that receive a signal light having the plurality of wavelengths wavelength-separated/demultiplexed by the wavelength separator 18 (“If the refractive index of a ball lens<2, paraxial rays are focused at a point behind the lens (9). Grating couplers, other light collection elements, or source/detector elements can be positioned at the foci” at para. 0050; Fig. 3(9)).
Braun intends a wide field of view (para. 0083), but does not teach that it can be further improved (in addition to using a ball lens) by using an irradiation position detector that detects an irradiation position of the (returned) signal light condensed by the ball lens 4 and outputs an electric signal for a servo-system for compensation of misalignment. However, Bakker discloses (Figs. 1 – 8; Abstract; para. 0043 – 0063) a light receiver comprising:
a (input) lens 120;
an irradiation position detector (comprising detectors 132,134,136,138 in Fig. 2 (para. 0050 – 0052) or detector pixels 140,142,… in Fig. 3 (para. 0053)) that detects an irradiation position of a signal light condensed by the lens 120 (into a spot 186 in a vicinity of an aperture 130, as shown in Fig. 7; para. 0049 and 0062); and
a wavelength separator 118 (spectrometer; para. 0043 – 0046) that wavelength-separates a signal light having a plurality of wavelengths used for spatial optical communication from the signal light condensed by the lens 120.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light receiver of Braun can further comprise, in accordance with the teachings of Bakker, an irradiation position detector that detects an irradiation position of the (returned) signal light condensed by the ball lens. The motivation for such irradiation position detector is that it can output an electric signal for a servo-system 128 (Fig 6 of Bakker; para. 0059) for compensation of misalignment between the (returned) signal light condensed by the ball lens and wavelength separator, e.g., by spatially translating the lens 120 (along directions 178,184) or adjusting a direction of the (returned) signal light by adjustable deflection 176, as possible means shown in Fig. 6 of Bakker (“The control unit 128 in turn is adapted to appropriately manipulate the optical components 120, 114, 112, 106 of the spectroscopic system 100 in order to eliminate the detected misalignment. As indicated by the arrows 174, 176, 184 and 178 the optical components might be translated and/or tilted by means of electrically driven servo devices that are controlled by means of the control unit 128” by para. 0059 of Bakker).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Braun – Bakker combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 5, the Braun – Bakker combination considers that the irradiation position detector (Figs. 1 – 5 of Bakker) includes a light receiving (front) surface facing the lens 120 and a back surface opposed to the light receiving surface, the irradiation position detector having a through hole 130 penetrating the light receiving (front) surface and the back surface, a plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements (comprising detectors 132,134,136,138 in Fig. 2 (para. 0050 – 0052) or detector pixels 140,142,… in Fig. 3 (para. 0053)) arranged around the through hole 130 on the light receiving surface of the substrate (Figs. 2 and 3) with a light receiving part facing the lens 120, and a light guide tube (oblong intermediate tube in Fig. 5) connecting the including a light-receiving-surface-side opening end connected to the through hole and a rear-surface-side opening end connected to the wavelength separator 118.
The following is also noted:
(i) The use of a substrate for supporting plurality of light-receiving elements/detectors is both obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and illustrated (as base 7 in Figs. 5 and 6 of Braun).
(ii) The Braun – Bakker combination considers that the light guide tube can be implemented as a hollow tube (as in Fig. 5) or as a waveguide taper 21 (as in Fig. 8 of Braun).
Regarding claim 6, the Braun – Bakker combination considers that the irradiation position detector includes a plurality of the direction detecting light receiving elements (according to Figs. 2 and 3 of Bakker) associated with the plurality of wavelengths used for the spatial optical communication, and a wavelength filter (corresponding to dichroic filter/mirror 114 in Figs. 1 and 6 of Bakker; para. 0059) that selectively transmits light having a wavelength to be received is arranged in light receiving parts of the plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements.
Regarding claim 7, the Braun – Bakker combination considers that the irradiation position detector includes the plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements (according to Figs. 2 and 3 of Bakker) associated with the plurality of wavelengths used for the spatial optical communication, and each of the plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements is sensitive to light having an associated wavelength (as needed for proper operation of the servo-system 128 which receives an electric signal from the plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements).
Claims 2 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Bakker, and further in view of Whitlock et al (US 2010/0212717 A1).
Regarding claims 2 – 4, the Braun – Bakker combination considers that multiple wavelengths are used in the signal light (para. 0074 of Braun), for example, at least three wavelengths. While Braun teaches, by way of example but not limitation, that wavelength separation/demultiplexing can be performed by diffraction gratings (18 in Fig. 8a), a variety of other wavelength-selective elements, including dichroic mirrors and dichroic prisms, are also well known in the art. For example, Whitlock discloses (Figs. 1 and 2; Abstract; para. 0022 – 0034) a wavelength separator that wavelength-separates a (solar) light having a plurality of wavelengths from the signal light condensed by lenses 114-124 and a light receiving element group including a plurality of light receiving elements 14,16,18 that receive the light having the plurality of wavelengths wavelength-separated by the wavelength separator, wherein the wavelength separation/demultiplexing is performed by dichroic mirrors 24,66,68 (Figs. 1 and 2; para. 0033 and 0034), and a dichroic prism(s) 26 (Fig. 1; para. 27), and wherein a dichroic mirror 24 reflects a signal light having the first wavelength toward a first light-receiving element 14 and transmits a signal light having a second wavelength (and a third wavelength) toward a second light-receiving element 16 (and a third light-receiving element 18). A dichroic prism 26 has the same functionality.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the operation of wavelength separation/demultiplexing in Braun can alternatively or additionally be performed by dichroic mirrors and/or dichroic prisms, as a suitable/workable design choice that is well known in the art and explicitly illustrated by Whitlock.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Bakker, and further in view of Fonneland et al (US 5,103,082).
Regarding claim 8, the Braun – Bakker combination considers a communication device (LIDAR) comprising the disclosed light receiver; a light transmitter 14 (VSCEL array, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 of Braun) that transmits a wavelength-multiplexed spatial optical signal (para. 0074) used for the spatial optical communication, a communication control device 128 (servo-system in Fig. 6 of Bakker) configured to detect an arrival direction of a spatial optical signal according to an irradiation position detected by the irradiation position detector (132,134,136,138 in Fig. 1 of Bakker) included in the light receiver, and cause the light transmitter to transmit a spatial optical signal toward a detected arrival direction interrogation target).
The Braun – Bakker combination considers that the servo-system comprising a processor (para. 0088 of Braun; para. 0030 – 0032 of Bakker), but does not expressly teach a memory storing instructions to which a processor is connected. However, Fonneland discloses (Fig. 1; Abstract; 3:57 – 8:7) an irradiation position detector similar to that in Bakker and a servo-system 26,28,34 using the output of irradiation position detector, wherein the servo-system 26,28,34 comprises a control device 26 including a memory storing instructions, and a processor 34 connected to the memory 26 and configured to execute the instructions to detect an arrival direction of a spatial optical signal 13 according to an irradiation position detected by the irradiation position detector A,B,C,D included in the light receiver, and cause the light transmitter to transmit a spatial optical signal 13 toward a detected arrival direction (by adjusting voltages applied to electro-adjustable positioners 36,38 (“The purpose of the microprocessor 34 is to determine when the drives have positioned the pinhole aperture spatial filter 14 such that the summation network 24 output is at a maximum level. Upon completion of the programmed raster pattern, the microprocessor 34 searches its memory for the pinhole aperture spatial filter 14 coordinates corresponding to the maximum level of light intensity. The microprocessor 34 then commands the mechanical drive mechanisms 30 and 32 to drive the adjustable pinhole aperture spatial filter 14 to the given position” at 7:35 – 45; “The programmed drives 26 and 28 are hardware memory devices that contain programs that are used to output signals to the vertical drive mechanism 30 and the horizontal drive mechanism 32 in order to move the pinhole aperture spatial filter 14 in the predetermined raster pattern” at 8:2 – 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the servo-system of the Braun – Bakker combination can further comprise a control device including a memory storing instructions to which the processor is connected so that a desired direction of the incoming light signal can be restored by retrieving data/instructions from the memory.
Regarding claim 9, the Braun – Bakker – Fonneland combination considers that the light receiver includes a plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements (as taught by Bakker and Fonneland) arranged with a light receiving part facing the ball lens (as detailed above for claims 1 and 8), and the processor of the communication control device is configured to execute the instructions to detect an arrival direction of a spatial optical signal according to a light receiving situation of a signal light by the plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements, and transmit the spatial optical signal including information on a light receiving situation of a signal light by the plurality of direction detecting light receiving elements to the light transmitter toward a detected arrival direction (as detailed above for claims 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 10, the Braun – Bakker – Fonneland combination considers a communication system (an auto LIDAR system installed on a vehicle) comprising a plurality of communication devices, wherein the plurality of communication devices are disposed to transmit and receive spatial optical signals to and from each other: some devices in Braun as used as transmitters and others as receivers.
As an aside, it is noted that the term “communication system” has a broad scope and comprises both LIDAR systems and systems for data transmission (e.g., video signal transmission).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,373,359 Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 10 show a feedback loop with aligning a beam with an aperture 60 followed by a wavelength separator with light receiving elements 90.
US 2013/0335641 A1 Figs. 8 and 9 show a feedback loop with aligning a beam with an aperture.
US 2016/0313179 A1 Figs. 4, 9
US 6,982,792 B1 Fig. 6
US 10,365,211 B2 Figs. 1, 3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights