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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/03/25. These drawings are not accepted.
Fig. 1 and 2 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 8, described as the receiver on pages 9 and 10 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 2 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "13" and "15" have both been used to designate the walls of the holder. It appears 15 is intended to be used therefore while 13 was intended to point to the transmitted radiation within the holder. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Fig. 5 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 6, described as the reflective layer on page 11 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the optical axis of the optical fiber." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since an optical axis of the optical fiber was not previously claimed.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the light of which" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the preferred light" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a preferred light is not previously claimed.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "preferred" 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).
The term “essentially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “essentially” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether values outside of the claimed range are within the claim scope and as to how far outside of the wavelength range is still considered to be “essentially” therein. For example, is a range of 450-1000 nm essentially within the range? 400-1100 nm? Clarification is required.
Claim 24 is 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. Claim 24 recites the limitation "the optical axis of the optical fiber." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since an optical axis of the optical fiber was not previously claimed.
Claim 25 is 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the receiver." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a receiver was not previously claimed.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the holder connecting the mounts." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations as neither a holder not more than one mount was previously claimed.
Claim 25 recites wherein the receiver and the main lens are held in a mount in line 2, but then recites a holder connecting the mounts in line 3. It is unclear as whether separate mounts are indeed required for each of the receiver and main lens or if a singular mount is intended. Clarification is required.
Claim 25 is 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 25 is drawn to a process; the claims, however, do not explicitly require active steps, i.e., such as those indicated by utilization of a gerund/ “-ing” form of a verb. Clarification is required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the center of the optical fiber." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a center was not previously claimed.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the central range." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “the reflective layer is removed again.” It is unclear as to how such is intended to be removed again as the claim does not appear to require the removal thereof prior to such a recitation.
Claim 26 is 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 26 is drawn to a process for measuring a distance to an object, however, no active process steps are recited. The actual steps of measuring a distance and how the individual elements that follow the preamble are related thereto is not clear. No active method steps are recited, i.e., such as those indicated by utilization of a gerund/ “-ing” form of a verb. Clarification is required.
Claim 26 is 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. Claim 26 recites the limitation "The process" in the first phrase thereof. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since A process was not previously claimed.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the transmission area." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the reflected laser light." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graf (DE 102020208785 A1 – all citations are to provided English translation).
With respect to independent claim 15, Graf discloses a device for measuring a distance of an object on which laser radiation modulated and emitted by the device are reflected (Abstract), comprising an optical fiber 107/201/703 into which laser radiation can be coupled and a main lens 117 through which the laser radiation can be emitted along an optical axis of the main lens, wherein the optical fiber comprises a de-coupling surface 113, wherein a reflection layer 115 is arranged on the decoupling surface 113.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Graf discloses wherein the decoupling surface 113 has a non-perpendicular angle to an optical axis of the optical fiber (see Fig. 1).
With respect to dependent claim 17, Graf discloses wherein laser radiation 105 can be conducted from the reflection layer to a receiver (p. 2, wherein “…the luminous surface of the decoupling element, via which the laser radiation decoupled from the optical waveguide is emitted, deflects the decoupled laser radiation” and “…the LiDAR system is set up to emit laser radiation…to determine a distance from the scattering, in particular reflective, surface of the radiation reflected back in each case; p. 4, “…the LiDAR system include a reception path for detection of the scattered light).
With respect to dependent claim 19, Graf discloses wherein the optical fiber comprises a coupling device 205 on a coupling surface 201 (p. 5, wherein “The MEMS grid switch 205 can be removed from the optical waveguide 201 so that the coupled-in laser radiations cannot be coupled out).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Graf discloses wherein the device comprises a laser source 103, the light of which can be coupled into the optical fiber and can be generated by the preferred light with a wavelength in a range of essentially 490 to 950 nm (the Examiner notes, since the wavelength is recited as can be, such is not necessarily required and thus Graf provides for the features as claimed).
With respect to dependent claim 22, Graf discloses wherein the main lens 117 is a spherical lens (see Fig. 1).
With respect to dependent claim 24, Graf discloses wherein an optical axis of the main lens is arranged neither coaxially nor parallel relative to the optical axis of the optical fiber, but has an angle in the range as claimed (see Fig. 1).
With respect to dependent claim 27, Graf discloses the process for measuring a distance of an object at which laser radiation modulated and emitted by a device according to claim 15 are reflected, wherein
A laser source 103 generates modulated laser light 105 as transmitted radiation (p. 2, …a laser radiation source which is set up to generate laser radiation and to at least partially couple the generated laser radiation into the optical waveguide),
The transmitted radiation is coupled into the optical fiber 107 (p. 2, …a laser radiation source which is set up to generate laser radiation and to at least partially couple the generated laser radiation into the optical waveguide; p. 4, The laser radiation source 103 is set up to at least partially couple the generated laser radiation 105 into the main optical waveguide branch 109),
The transmitted radiation is coupled out of the optical fiber through the transmission area in the decoupling surface 113 (p. 4, the decoupling element 113…to be decoupled via the gratings),
The transmitted radiation passes through the main lens 117 (p. 5, The optical element 117 images the emitted laser radiation),
The transmitted radiation is reflected by an object (p. 2, …the LiDAR system is set up to emit laser radiation..for scanning the environment in different spatial directions…in particular reflective, surface of the radiation reflected back in each case),
The reflected laser light passes through the main lens as received radiation (p. 5, Fig. 12 description),
The received radiation is at least partially reflected at the reflecting layer of the decoupling surface and directed to a receiver (p. 5, Fig. 12 description, wherein “Through the grid arrangement…branches 111, preferably switchable emitter or receiver).
With respect to independent claim 28, Graf discloses a device for measuring a distance of an object on which laser radiation modulated and emitted by the device are reflected (Abstract), comprising an optical fiber 107/201/703 into which laser radiation can be coupled and a main lens 117 through which the laser radiation can be emitted along an optical axis, wherein laser radiation 105 can be coupled back into the optical fiber through the main lens after reflection at the object and the reflected light can be detected by a receiver after passing through the optical fiber (p. 5, Fig. 12 description, wherein “Through the grid arrangement…branches 111, preferably switchable emitter or receiver).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 10295656).
Graf discloses the device as set forth above with respect to claim 16. The reference, however, fails to specify the type of optical fiber, and, thus, a single mode optical fiber as claimed. Li et al. teaches LiDAR systems wherein optical fibers utilized therein can be single-mode, multi-mode, or large-mode-area fiber (col. 6, l. 64- col. 7, l. 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a single mode optical fiber in the LiDAR device of Graf as such is but one of a finite list of possibilities of optical fibers used for such purposes and thus would be expected to yield predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 10429495).
Graf discloses the device as set forth above with respect to claim 15; in Fig. 1, the main lens is a spherical lens. The reference, however, fails to disclose the main lens as aspherical. Wang et al. teaches LiDAR systems wherein the lens provided therein may be spherical, cylindrical or aspheric (col. 8, l. 26-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try an aspherical lens as the main lens in the device of Graf as such are a known alternative to the spherical lens suggested therein in order to yield the predictable result of imaging the emitted laser radiation therewith as such a type of lens is but one selected from a finite list of possible alternatives to a spherical lens and thus would be expected to yield predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf.
With respect to dependent claim 26, Graf discloses a process for producing an optical fiber for use in a device according to claim 15, wherein the decoupling surface is coated with a reflecting layer (p. 4, The decoupling element 113 comprises, for example, a plurality of gratings (not shown) which are located below the luminous surfaces 115). The reference further discloses wherein the reflective layer is removed from the decoupling surface in a transmission range around the center of the optical fiber (see Fig. 1, wherein areas 115 are not present in the center of optical fibers 111). Although silent to wherein such is removed by introducing UV light into the optical fiber, it would have been an obvious matter of choice and design one having ordinary skill in the art to remove the reflective surfaces by introducing UV light into the optical fiber as such a manner is well known in the art for such purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102017212973 A1 discloses a distance measuring device that includes a decoupling device.
DE 102016118471 A1 discloses an optical detection system that includes decoupling parts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
09/22/26
Prosecution Insights