DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claim 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, recites the limitation “the input facets of the lightguides in the second two-dimensional array at the output of the three-dimensional structure are arranged in a staggered fashion".
Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification discloses “the input facets of the lightguides in the second two-dimensional array at the output of the three-dimensional structure are arranged in a staggered fashion” (Par. [0036]). However, the specification does not explain in clear and concise terms by which “the input facets of the lightguides in the second two-dimensional array at the output of the three-dimensional structure are arranged in a staggered fashion”. Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11, 13, 15-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2015/0171124 A1 by Temil et al. (herein after Temil) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2014/0098558 A1 by Vasylyev (herein after Vasylyev).
Regarding Claim 1, Temil teaches a lightguide array (Fig. 1 @ 120, Par. [0013], Fig. 2 @ 210a, Par. [0024]) device for sampling an intermediate image plane of an optical system (Fig. 1 @ 100, Abstract), comprising (Fig. 1-4):
a plurality of lightguides (Fig. 2A @ 210a, Par. [0024-0025]) configured as a three-dimensional structure (Fig. 2A, illustrates such configuration) having an input end (Fig. 2A @ 212a, Par. [0025]) and an output end (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]), each lightguide extending from the input end (Fig. 2A @ 212a, Par. [0025]) to the output end and having an input facet (Fig. 2A @ 212a, Par. [0025]) that is configured to receive light at the input end (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]) of the three-dimensional structure and an output facet (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]) at the output end (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]) of the three-dimensional structure, wherein:
the input facets (Fig. 2A @ 212a, Par. [0025]) of the plurality of lightguides form a first two-dimensional array at the input end of the three-dimensional structure with no spacing or a first spacing between each of the lightguides (Par. [0025, 0029]),
the output facets (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]) of the plurality of lightguides form a second two-dimensional array at the output end of the three-dimensional structure with a second spacing between each of the lightguides that is larger than the spacing of the first three-dimensional array (Par. [0026, 0029]), and
at least one of the input end or the output end is shaped as a curved surface (Par. [0030]: curved) but does not explicitly teach each lightguide comprising a material that allows propagation of light from the input facet to the output facet without a cladding layer.
However, Vasylyev teaches each lightguide (Fig. 3 @ 4, Abstract) comprising a material that allows propagation of light from the input facet to the output facet without a cladding layer (Par. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Temil by Vasylyev as taught above such that each lightguide comprising a material that allows propagation of light from the input facet to the output facet without a cladding layer is accomplished such that light could propagate in the waveguide in some of the broadest possible range of propagation angles with respect to its longitudinal axis, as defined by the refractive index of the waveguide in order to improve/enhance the energy efficiency and utility of the device (Vasylyev, Par. [0012, 0067]).
Regarding Claim 2, Temil teaches one or both of the input end and the output end is shaped as a curved surface (Par. [0030]: curved).
Regarding Claim 5, Temil teaches either the input end or the output end is shaped as a plane surface (Par. [0030]: Flat).
Regarding Claim 6, Temil teaches the curved surface is a concave surface or a convex surface (Par. [0030]: Concave, convex).
Regarding Claim 9, Temil teaches the input facet of each lightguide has (a) a square shaped shape, or (b) circular shape (Par. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 11, Temil teaches the output facet of each lightguide has (a) a square shaped shape, or (b) circular shaped (Par. [0029-0030]: some or all such waveguide ends may include edges having a circular, elliptical or other geometric shape, thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 13, Temil teaches the input end (Fig. 2A @ 212a, Par. [0025]) is perpendicular to the surface (Fig. 2A, illustrates such configuration) of the input end (Fig. 2A @ 212a, Par. [0025]), and the output facet (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]) of each lightguide is perpendicular to the surface (Fig. 2A, illustrates such configuration) of the output end (Fig. 2A @ 214a, Par. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 15, Temil teaches the material of each of the lightguides is glass (Par. [0027]: glass).
Regarding Claim 16, Temil teaches each of the lightguides in the first two-dimensional array contact each other (Fig. 2A, illustrates such configuration), and a diameter of each of the lightguides is as small as 2 pm (Fig. 2A @ w2, Fig. 2E @ w2, Fig. 2F @ fa, Par. [0029, 0043-0047]).
Regarding Claim 18, Temil teaches the first two-dimensional array is one of a square, a rectangular or a circular array (Par. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 19, Temil teaches one or more lightguides of the lightguide array device has a curvature along a length of the lightguide (Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Temil teaches a direction of propagation of light in the lightguide array device is in z-direction (Fig. 2A, orientation of the fiber array illustrates the z-direction of the light propagation), and wherein the lightguides are separated from one another in the second two-dimensional array at the output end of the three-dimensional structure in both x- and y-directions at distances (Fig. 2A @ 214a) that are greater (Fig. 2A, illustrates such configuration. Also see Par. [0012, 0026, 0029]) than x- and y-direction separations of the lightguides in the first two-dimensional array at the input of the three-dimensional structure (Fig. 2A @ 212a).
Regarding Claim 21, Temil teaches the input facets of the lightguides in the second two-dimensional array at the output of the three-dimensional structure are arranged in a staggered fashion (Fig. 2A, illustrates such configuration).
7. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Temil in view of Vasylyev as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent No. 5125064 by Naselli et al. (herein after Naselli).
Regarding Claim 7, Temil as modified by Vasylyev teaches the input end has a curvature and the lightguide array in the optical system (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach that is designed to correct a field curvature of one or more optical components positioned before the lightguide array in the optical system.
However, Naselli teaches the input end has a curvature (Fig. 4 @ 20a, FO, Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13) that is designed to correct a field curvature of one or more optical components (Fig. 4 @ A, Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13) positioned before the lightguide array (Fig. 4 @ 20, FO, Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13) in the optical system (Fig. 4 @ Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Temil as modified by Vasylyev by Naselli as taught above such that the input end has a curvature that is designed to correct a field curvature of one or more optical components positioned before the lightguide array in the optical system is accomplished in order to obtain a correct output image, lacking curvature distortion. In particular to provide for field curvature correction which does not introduce unwanted other effects into the optical system thus improve image quality (Naselli, Col. 1, line 27-37, line 61-68 - Col 2, line 1-2; Col 3, line 2-13).
Regarding Claim 8, Temil as modified by Vasylyev teaches the output end has a curvature and the lightguide array in the optical system (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach that is designed to correct a field curvature of one or more optical components positioned after the lightguide array in the optical system.
However, Naselli teaches the output end has a curvature (Fig. 4 @ 20b, FO, Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13) that is designed to correct a field curvature of one or more optical components (Fig. 4 @ B, Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13) positioned after the lightguide array (Fig. 4 @ 20, FO, Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13) in the optical system (Fig. 4 @ Col. 2, line 46-68 - Col. 3, line 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Temil as modified by Vasylyev by Naselli as taught above such that the output end has a curvature that is designed to correct a field curvature of one or more optical components positioned after the lightguide array in the optical system is accomplished in order to obtain a correct output image, lacking curvature distortion. In particular to provide for field curvature correction which does not introduce unwanted other effects into the optical system thus improve image quality (Naselli, Col. 1, line 27-37, line 61-68 - Col 2, line 1-2; Col 3, line 2-13).
8. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Temil in view of Vasylyev as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of US Patent No. 5442439 by Battey et al. (herein after Battey).
Regarding Claim 22, Temil as modified by Vasylyev teaches lightguide array (Fig. 1 @ 120) device is positioned in the optical system (Fig. 1 @ 100) (Also see Claim 1 rejection above), the optical system including:
an imaging lens (Fig. 1 @ 110, Par. [0014]) positioned to receive light from an object of interest (Fig. 1 @ 105, Par. [0014]),
the lightguide array (Fig. 1 @ 120) device positioned to sample light received from the imaging lens (Fig. 1 @ 110, Par. [0014]) at an intermediate image plane (Par. [0014]: lens 110 may variously direct focused light 115 toward a focal point, where an interface 122 of WGB 120 is located at or near the focal point to receive focused light 115), but does not explicitly teach:
one or more collimating lenses positioned to receive light output from the lightguide array device, one or more dispersion elements positioned to receive light from the one or more collimating lenses, and
one of more focusing lenses positioned to receive spectrally dispersed light from the one or more dispersion elements, wherein the focusing lens is positioned to direct light to an image plane.
However, Battey teaches one or more collimating lenses (Fig. 2 @ 28, Col. 3, line 52-60) positioned to receive light output from the lightguide array device (Fig. 2 @ 22, Col. 3, line 52-60), one or more dispersion elements (Fig. 2 @ 32, Col. 3, line 60-65) positioned to receive light from the one or more collimating lenses (Fig. 2 @ 28, Col. 3, line 52-60), and
one of more focusing lenses (Fig. 2 @ 50, Col. 4, line 24-28) positioned to receive spectrally dispersed light from the one or more dispersion elements (Fig. 2 @ 32, Col. 3, line 60-65), wherein the focusing lens (Fig. 2 @ 50, Col. 4, line 24-28) is positioned to direct light to an image plane (Claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Temil as modified by Vasylyev by Battey as taught above such that one or more collimating lenses positioned to receive light output from the lightguide array device, one or more dispersion elements positioned to receive light from the one or more collimating lenses, and
one of more focusing lenses positioned to receive spectrally dispersed light from the one or more dispersion elements, wherein the focusing lens is positioned to direct light to an image plane is accomplished in order to enhance the spectral resolution (Battey, Col. 1, line 49-68 - Col 2, line 1-2).
Regarding Claim 23, Temil as the optical system includes a pixelated detector positioned at the image plane (Par. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 24, Temil as modified by Vasylyev as modified by Battey teaches a plurality of collimating lenses (Battey, Fig. 2 @ 28, Col. 3, line 55-60), a plurality of dispersion elements (Battey, Fig. 2 @ 32, Col. 3, line 60-65) and a plurality of focusing lenses (Battey, Fig. 2 @ 50, Col. 4, line 24-28) configured, respectively as corresponding a collimating lens array (Battey, Fig. 2 @ 28, Col. 3, line 55-60), a dispersion element array (Battey, Fig. 2 @ 32, Col. 3, line 60-65) and a focusing lens arrays array (Battey, Fig. 2 @ 50, Col. 4, line 24-28), but does not explicitly teach wherein each set of collimating lens, dispersion element and focusing lens elements of said arrays is configured to receive light from a corresponding individual lightguide.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each set of collimating lens, dispersion element and focusing lens elements of said arrays is configured to receive light from a corresponding individual lightguide, based on routine experimentation, to enhance resolution of the system (Battey, Col 2, line 15-19: The present invention builds upon previous spectrographic concepts and solves prior art limitations through the use of holographic transmission gratings and a two-dimensional detector array which, in combination, extend spectral range and/or resolution) (Also see Temil, Fig. 1-2, Par. [0024-0026], which illustrates receiving light from a corresponding individual lightguide)).
9. Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Temil in view of Vasylyev and further in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2015/0197062 A1 by Shinar et al. (herein after Shinar).
Regarding Claim 25, Temil as modified by Vasylyev teaches a lightguide array device for sampling an intermediate image plane of an optical system (See Claim 1 rejection above), comprising:
a plurality of lightguides configured as a three-dimensional structure having an input end and an output end, each lightguide extending from the input end to the output end and having an input facet at the input end of the three-dimensional structure and an output facet at the output end of the three-dimensional structure, each lightguide comprising a material that allows propagation of light from the input end to the output end without a cladding layer (See Claim 1 rejection above), wherein:
the input facets of the plurality of lightguides form a first two-dimensional array at the input end of the three-dimensional structure with no spacing or a first spacing between each of the lightguides (See Claim 1 rejection above),
the output facets of the plurality of lightguides form a second two-dimensional array at the output end of the three-dimensional structure with a spacing between each of the lightguides that is larger than the first spacing that is greater than the spacing between the lightguides of the first two-dimensional array (See Claim 1 rejection above), but does not explicitly teach the material of each lightguide is three-dimensional (3D) printed glass.
However, Shinar teaches the material of each lightguide is three-dimensional (3D) printed glass (Par. [0006, 0273]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Temil as modified by Vasylyev by Shinar as taught above such that the material of each lightguide is three-dimensional (3D) printed glass is accomplished in order to improve reliability (Shinar, Par. [0013-0014, 0194, 0275]).
Regarding Claim 26, Temil as modified by Vasylyev as modified by Sjinar teaches a method for producing a lightguide (Temil, Claim 17. See Claim 1 rejection above. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim), comprising:
wherein:
the three-dimensional structure has an input end and an output end, each lightguide extends from the input end to the output end, each lightguide has an input facet at the input end of the three-dimensional structure and an output facet at the output end of the three-dimensional structure, each lightguide allows propagation of light from the input end to the output end without a cladding layer, the input facets of the plurality of lightguides form a first two-dimensional array at the input end of the three-dimensional structure with a first spacing between each of the lightguides (See Claim 1 rejection above),
the output facets of the plurality of lightguides form a second two-dimensional array at the output end of the three-dimensional structure with a second spacing between each of the lightguides that is larger than the first spacing (See Claim 1 rejection above), and
at least one of the input end or the output end is shaped as a curved surface (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach using a three-dimensional printer (3D) printer to print a three-dimensional structure that includes focusing light from a laser onto the printing material to form a plurality of lightguides as part of a three-dimensional structure; and
allowing the printed structure to cure.
However, Shinar teaches using a three-dimensional printer (3D) printer to print a three-dimensional structure that includes focusing light from a laser onto the printing material to form a plurality of lightguides as part of a three-dimensional structure (Par. [0006, 0273]); and
allowing the printed structure to cure (Par. [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Temil as modified by Vasylyev by Shinar as taught above such that using a three-dimensional printer (3D) printer to print a three-dimensional structure that includes focusing light from a laser onto the printing material to form a plurality of lightguides as part of a three-dimensional structure; and
allowing the printed structure to cure is accomplished in order to improve reliability (Shinar, Par. [0013-0014, 0194, 0275]).
Additional Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of plurality of optical waveguides.
WO2006007388A1 by Henson (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights