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 filed 11/26/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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 19 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 antecedent basis for “the detection signal” appears to be in claim 18, not claim 12.
Therefore, appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon et al (JP 2021060415 A).
With respect to claim 1, Simon et al disclose: A system [ the abstract teaches a light detection and ranging device ], comprising: a light source configured to emit an output beam comprising pulses of light [ page 5 of the translation states, “…Further, the one or more light sources 106 can be configured to emit a plurality of light beams and / or pulses, each having a wavelength within the wavelength range…” ]; a scanner configured to scan the output beam across a field of regard of the system [ page 7 of the translation states, “…In this arrangement, the control system may rotate the turntable 112 on the actuator 114 in various ways in order to obtain information about the environment in various ways. Specifically, the turntable 112 can rotate in any direction to varying degrees. For example, turntable 112 may perform full rotation such that the lidar device 100 provides a 360 ° horizontal FOV of the environment. Therefore, assuming that the receiver 110 can rotate based on the rotation of the turntable 112, the receiver 110 may also have a horizontal FOV (eg, 360 °) and a vertical FOV, as described above…” ]; an optical limiter configured to non-linearly affect a received light based on an intensity of the received light [ page 12 of the translation states, “…In a further aspect, the adaptive filter can be a filter that becomes opaque under threshold high intensity illumination, thereby filtering the light under such threshold high intensity illumination. Specifically, such a filter can be, among other things, an optical power limiter that achieves an opaque state based on the self-focusing principle. With respect to self-focusing, for example, the filter may include a medium having a non-linear index of refraction that increases as the light field intensity increases (eg, due to the Kerr effect). In practice, the index of refraction can be high in areas of high intensity, such as the center of the light beam, which can result in convergence density characteristics (eg, Towns characteristics) that can cause the beam to collapse, thereby becoming opaque. In this way, the optical power limiter can remove the light under high intensity illumination, which can be done with a relatively fast response time…” ]; and a receiver sensor configured to detect at least a portion of the received light exiting the optical limiter [ taught by receiver (110) ], the detected light comprising at least a portion of one of the emitted pulses of light scattered by an object located a distance from the system [ page 6 of the translation states, “…As described, the lidar device 100 may include at least one receiver 110. Each receiver 110 may be configured to detect at least light having a wavelength in the same wavelength range as one of the emitted light from the transmitter 108 (eg, 1525 nm to 1565 nm)…”].
Claim 12 is anticipated by the subject matter of Simon et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 7-9, 16 and 17 are met by the translation of page 12, as applied to claim 1.
Page 10 of the translation states, “…The absorption filter is arranged to absorb light of one or more wavelengths and allow light of one or more other wavelengths to pass through. In an absorption filter, light is blocked based on the absorption characteristics of the substrate used. As a result, the blocked light is not reflected by the filter, but rather is absorbed and contained within the filter…”; thus, anticipating claims 5 and 14.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (JP 2021060415 A) in view of Sick AG (DE 202010007683 U1).
Claim 2 further recites that the optical limiter includes a semiconductor material.
Sick AG teach it was known before the effective filing date of the present application fo have used an optical limiter (14) to protect a detection element (20) wherein page 3 of the translation states, “…As optical limiter elements are z. B. semiconductor materials whose band edge is in the range of the wavelength used. But there are other materials, such. As fullerenes, nanocrystalline materials (eg CdS), liquid crystals or carbon nanotubes possible. As a semiconductor material, for example, ZnSe is suitable…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a semiconductor material as a limiter in the device of Simon et al because Sick AG taught semiconductor materials would have produced the desired function of optical limiting.
Claim 3 would have been obvious in view of Simon et al and Sick AG, as applied to claim 2, because p-doped or n-doped InP or InGaAs were well known semiconductor materials, thus being suggested by Sick AG.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 19 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The cited prior art does not teach or suggest an “…optical limiter configured to provide a detection signal associated with attenuating the return light pulse…, as set forth in the entire context of claim 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights