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 .
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, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Le Gros et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0253469).
Regarding claims 1, 2, Le Gros et al. disclose (Fig. 2) an optical device for homogenizing and diffusing light, comprising a microlens array element (25), the microlens array element homogenizing and diffusing a light beam in a first direction, a second direction, or a first direction and a second direction, to form a homogeneous light beam, wherein the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular ([0094]) to each other. Le Gros et al. also disclose one microlens element (25a) or two microlens array elements (25a or 25b) as claimed.
Regarding claims 11, Le Gros et al. disclose (Fig. 2) an emitting terminal, comprising: a light source (7), configured to emit a light beam for detecting a target object (intended use); and an optical device (25) for homogenizing and diffusing light, configured to process the light beam emitted by the light source to obtain a diffused homogeneous beam.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Deliwala (U.S. PGPUB 2023/0108409).
Regarding claims 11, 14, 15, Deliwala discloses (Figs.) an emitting terminal, comprising: a light source (101), configured to emit a light beam for detecting a target object (object 117); and an optical device (109, 115; Fig. 5C; [0129]) for homogenizing and diffusing light, configured to process the light beam emitted by the light source to obtain a diffused homogeneous beam. Deliwala also discloses a receiving terminal, comprising a detection array element (119), receiving reflected light of the homogenous beam. The light source can be a laser ([0144]) that emits a single row/column of area light beam.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gros et al. in view of Nomoto et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0070770).
Regarding claims 3, Le Gros et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Le Gros et al. do no specifically disclose the claimed relationship between the radius of curvature. Nomoto et al. teach ([0003]) adjusting radius of curvature along two axes to obtain a desired diffusion. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a relationship in the apparatus of Le Gros et al. in view of Nomoto et al. to obtain a desired optimized diffusion of light as known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12, 13, 16-20 are 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 THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights