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 § 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.
Claims 4, 9, and 15-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 4, 9, 15, and 17-19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spuler US20170212219.
Regarding independent claim 1, Spuler discloses, in Figure 1,
A LIDAR device (Spuler; Fig. 1; lidar 100),comprising:
an optical path (Spuler; Fig. 1); and
a beam profile redistributor (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304) arranged in the optical path to receive an input light beam and configured to convert the received input light beam into at least one output light beam, wherein, in a cross-section parallel to the optical path, the beam profile redistributor comprises:
a first pair of adjacent refractive surfaces arranged at a first angle with respect to each other (Spuler; Fig. 1; the first/upstream axicon lens of the pair of axicon lenses 304, the pair comprises corresponding pairs of refractive, adjacent surfaces); and
a second pair of adjacent refractive surfaces arranged at a second angle with respect to each other (Spuler; Fig. 1; the second/downstream axicon lens of the pair of axicon lenses 304, the pair comprises corresponding pairs of refractive, adjacent surfaces),
the first pair of adjacent refractive surfaces being arranged between the input light beam and the second pair of adjacent refractive surfaces (Spuler; Fig. 1; the first/upstream axicon lens of the pair of axicon lenses 304), and
the second pair of adjacent refractive surfaces being arranged between the first pair of adjacent refractive surfaces and the at least one output light beam (Spuler; Fig. 1; the second/downstream axicon lens of the pair of axicon lenses 304).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spuler US20170212219 in view of Pierce US20040071398.
Regarding independent claim 1, Spuler discloses, in Figure 1,
A device (Spuler; Fig. 1; lidar 100), comprising:
an optical path (Spuler; Fig. 1); and
a beam profile redistributor (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304) arranged in the optical path to receive an input light beam, and configured to convert the received input light beam so that at least one output light beam of the device comprises:
in a near field and/or at the beam profile redistributor, a redistributed beam intensity profile compared to at least one further output light beam when the beam profile redistributor is not present (Spuler; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces an annular beam);
within a position along the optical path in the near field, a lower output light power compared to the at least one further output light beam (Spuler; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces an annular beam which necessarily yields a lower output light power along the optical path in the near field); and
in a far field, at least substantially the same beam intensity profile compared to the at least one further output light beam (Spuler; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces an annular beam which necessarily yields substantially the same beam intensity profile).
Spuler is silent regarding within a given measuring aperture at a position along the optical path in the near field.
Pierce teaches a given measuring aperture at a position along the optical path in the near field (Pierce; [0039] “a specific measurement aperture, (e.g. 7 mm diameter)”; this is consistent with 18810859 instant applicant’s disclosure in specification [006, 059, and 062-064] that describe a 7-mm measuring aperture for laser eye safety per safety standard).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar device as taught by Spuler to include a given measuring aperture as taught by Pierce for the purpose of complying with laser eye safety regulations.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one output light beam comprises, in the near field and in a bounding box for the at least one output light beam, at least substantially the same boundary compared to the at least one further output light beam (Spuler; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces an annular beam which necessarily yields substantially the same boundary of a corresponding bounding box; this is consistent with 18810859 instant applicant’s disclosure in which the recited “bounding box” appears to be a theoretical box and not an actual physical, structural box).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 2, wherein the bounding box (Spuler; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces an annular beam which necessarily yields substantially the same boundary of a corresponding bounding box; this is consistent with 18810859 instant applicant’s disclosure in which the recited “bounding box” appears to be a theoretical box and not an actual physical, structural box) is situated at a position with respect to the optical path where the at least one output light beam has a waist (Spuler; Fig. 1; lidar 100 yields a light beam with a waist).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor comprises at least one element selected from the group of elements consisting of: a prism, a lens (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304) such as an aspherical lens, a top-hat converter, a diffractive optical element such as a grating, a phase shifter, a meta surface optionally comprising nano-antennas, a liquid crystal display, a liquid crystal on silicon, a reflector such as a digital micromirror device, and a set of reflectors such as at least two mirrors, such as a micromirror array (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor comprises, in a cross-section parallel to the optical path, pairs of refractive surfaces, each pair comprising two refractive surfaces that are adjacent to each other (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304 comprise corresponding pairs of refractive, adjacent surfaces).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor comprises at least one pair of prisms (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 7, wherein the prisms of the pair of prisms are at least substantially centered with respect to each other and/or with respect to the optical path, are at least substantially equally shaped, are arranged at least substantially mirror symmetric with respect to the optical path and/or a plane at least substantially perpendicular to the optical path, and/or comprise respective base surfaces that are parallel to each other and/or are facing away from each other (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304 are placed in a mirrored/symmetric configuration with equal shapes and centered with each other).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor is configured to change an order of light rays in the at least one output light beam, compared to the at least one further output light beam, without substantially changing a light beam boundary and/or without substantially changing a light beam divergence (Spuler; Fig. 1; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 changes the order of the light rays without substantially changing a light beam boundary).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor is configured to invert the input light beam along at least one axis, such that a light ray of the input light beam that is near an edge of the input light beam is redirected to a corresponding light ray of the at least one output light beam that is near a center line of the at least one output light beam, and a light ray of the input light beam that is near a center line of the input light beam is redirected to a corresponding light ray of the at least one output light beam that is near an edge of the at least one output light beam (Spuler; Fig. 1; [0044] the axicon lens 304 inverts the beam).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 11, wherein the closer the light ray of the input light beam is to the center line of the input light beam, the closer the corresponding light ray of the at least one output light beam is to the edge of the at least one output light beam, and wherein the closer the light ray of the input light beam is to the edge of the input light beam, the closer the corresponding light ray of the at least one output light beam is to the center line of the at least one output light beam (Spuler; Fig. 1; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces the annular beam that exhibits the claimed ray configuration).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, further comprising: a light source (Spuler; Fig. 1; laser 202) configured to emit the input light beam; and a collimator (Spuler; Fig. 1; lens 308; [0046] lens 308 “helps collimate the outgoing focused annular transmission beam) arranged in the optical path, wherein the beam profile redistributor is arranged in the optical path between the light source and the collimator (Spuler; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor is arranged in the optical path to receive a divergent input light beam and is configured to: transmit a divergent intermediate light beam comprising at least substantially the same angular span as the received divergent input light beam, and convert a light ray of the input light beam, which comprises an incident angle, into a light ray of the intermediate light beam, such that the light ray of the intermediate light beam comprises an exit angle different from the incident angle, wherein the lower an absolute value of the incident angle is, the higher an absolute value of the exit angle is, and/or wherein the higher an absolute value of the incident angle is, the lower an absolute value of the exit angle is (Spuler; Fig. 1; [0044] the pair of axicon lenses 304 produces the annular beam that exhibits the claimed divergent configuration).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the given measuring aperture is defined by a safety standard such as a Class 1 laser standard, and wherein the device meets the safety standard (Pierce; [0039] “a specific measurement aperture, (e.g. 7 mm diameter)”; this is consistent with 18810859 instant applicant’s disclosure in specification [006, 059, and 062-064] that describe a 7-mm measuring aperture for laser eye safety per safety standard).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 15, wherein, per the safety standard, the given measuring aperture comprises an at least substantially circular or elliptical shape or an at least substantially square/rectangular shape, such as a circular shape of about 5 mm to about 15 mm diameter, such as of about 6 mm to about 9 mm diameter, such as of about 7 mm diameter, or a square shape of about 5 mm to about 11 mm base length, such as of about 5 mm to about 9 mm base length, such as about 7 mm base length, and/or wherein an area of the given measuring aperture is in a range from about 9 mm² to about 121 mm², such as from about 25 mm² to about 81 mm², such as from about 35 mm² to about 50 mm², for example about 38 mm² or about 49 mm² (Pierce; [0039] “a specific measurement aperture, (e.g. 7 mm diameter)”; this is consistent with 18810859 instant applicant’s disclosure in specification [006, 059, and 062-064] that describe a 7-mm measuring aperture for laser eye safety per safety standard).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, further comprising an optical outlet (Spuler; Fig. 1; window 320), wherein the beam profile redistributor is configured such that the redistributed beam intensity profile is at least substantially maintained up to a distance of at least 1 m, such as at least 3 m or at least 5 m, from the beam profile redistributor and/or the optical outlet of the device (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the device further comprises an optical outlet (Spuler; Fig. 1; window 320), and wherein the far field begins at a distance of at least 10 m, such as at least 20 m, from the beam profile redistributor and/or the optical outlet of the device (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the device is a scanning device such as a LIDAR device or a component thereof (Spuler; Fig. 1; lidar 100).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spuler in view of Pierce as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim KR20110101467.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 1, wherein the beam profile redistributor comprises at least one prism (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304 that are trigonal prisms).
Modified Spuler is silent regarding at least one prism selected from the group of prisms consisting of: a right trigonal prism and a right hexagonal prism.
Kim teaches a right trigonal prism (Kim; page 8/17 axicon pair comprising right triangle shape).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the triangular prism angle as taught by Modified Spuler to be a right (90-degree) angle as taught by Kim for the purpose of optimizing the beam profile distribution.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spuler in view of Pierce as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sallee US6371405.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Spuler teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The device according to claim 7, wherein the beam profile redistributor (Spuler; Fig. 1; the pair of axicon lenses 304).
Modified Spuler does not teach wherein the beam profile redistributor comprises two pairs of prisms such as two pairs of prisms that are rotated with respect to each other and/or with respect to the optical path.
Sallee teaches wherein the beam profile distributor comprises two pairs of prisms such as two pairs of prisms that are rotated with respect to each other and/or with respect to the optical path (Sallee; Fig. 1; two pairs of prisms 106a/b and 104a/b and rotation mechanism for the purpose of providing the desired controlled direction of the laser beam towards the desired scanning area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam profile redistributor as taught by Modified Spuler to comprise two pairs of prisms such as two pairs of prisms that are rotated with respect to each other as taught by Sallee for the purpose of providing the desired controlled direction of the laser beam towards the desired scanning area (Sallee; Fig. 1; two pairs of prisms 106a/b and 104a/b and rotation mechanism for the purpose of providing the desired controlled direction of the laser beam towards the desired scanning area).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ichie US5583342 teaches, in Fig. 4, an axicon pair 6 is composed of two axicon prisms 7a, 7b.
Wangler US5675401 teaches two axicons.
Gesner US7859649 teaches, in Fig. 11, adapter optics 1151.
Li US20200182773 teaches, in Fig. 2, an intensity flat top beam 124 compared to a Gaussian beam 122.
Gassend US20200408882 teaches “an engineered diffuser may generate a non-gaussian beam-intensity profile for the light transmitted to the transmit lens from the FAC lens 404 (i.e., the reduced-divergence light)” ([0130]).
Sullivan US7894044 teaches “a Gaussian profile 127 that has been turned inside out 115 through use of an axicon 117 or waxicon 119 as shown in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7”.
Brunsden US4255021 teaches, in Fig. 11-13, input prism 401, output prism 411, and conical faces 53/56.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 9/18/26
Prosecution Insights