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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 28 May 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2013/000761 A1 by Christian Thio et al. (herein after “Thio”).
Regarding claim 1, Thio discloses a sensor device (Thio [0002] discloses an optical sensor for optical detection of at least one object [sensor device]); comprising:
a sensor housing (Thio fig. 2 and [0020] discloses a simplified view of the optical sensor, where a housing is seen in the figure surrounding internal components, extending vertically from circuit board 17, see [0022]; [0021] and fig. 1 also disclose a schematic of the device, comprising housing 3);
a printed circuit board coupled to the sensor housing (Thio fig. 2 and [0022] disclose the circuit board 17 which is coupled to the housing, the housing extending vertically from the board 17; the board has soldered components [i.e. a printed circuit board PCB]);
a light emitting device coupled to the printed circuit board configured to emit light at a particular optical power, wherein the light emitting device has an emitter face defining an emission face area (Thio fig. 2 and [0022] discloses an LED chip 2 coupled to the circuit board 17, where the LED chip 2 has a radiation emitting surface 18, where [0023] the surface 18 has a square shape[emitter face – the area of the radiation emitting surface is the emission face area]; [0021] discloses the LED is powered in pulsed operation with an operating current – whatever LED is employed possesses a unique radiant flux [optical power emitted by the LED] based on the source’s specs, and thus the LED is configured to emit light at a particular optical power);
an aperture plate coupled to the sensor housing, the aperture plate defining an aperture having an aperture area (Thio [0022] and fig. 1 discloses optical aperture component 14, the aperture itself seen in fig. 2; fig. 2 shows the aperture component 14 as being coupled to the housing which extends vertically from circuit board 17; the plate defines the aperture, which has an aperture area); and
a lens coupled to the sensor housing (Thio figs 1-2 and [0022] disclose lens 7 shown coupled to the housing 3), the lens having an optical axis extending through the aperture (Thio fig. 1 shows a beam path from the LED which extends through the aperture and through the lens [lens has optical axis extending through the aperture]), wherein the aperture plate is positioned between the lens and the emitter face (Thio figs 1 and 2 show aperture 14 between the radiation emission face 18 and the lens 7) and wherein the aperture plate is configured to reduce the optical power transmitted to the lens from the emitter face (Thio [0025] discloses that the combination of the LED chip 2 and the optical aperture component 14 constitutes a point like source due to the aperture component due to the emission restriction of the LED light by the aperture [aperture plate configured to reduce the optical power transmitted to the lens from emitter face]).
Regarding claim 2, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the light emitting device comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (Thio [0022] discloses the light source being an LED chip 2).
Regarding claim 3, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the aperture area is less than the emission face area of the emitter face (Thio [0023] discloses the square length of the emitter face as 500 µm [yielding an area of 250,000 µm2], and the aperture recess having diameter of 200 µm [yielding an area of ~31,400 µm2] – here the aperture area is less than the emission face area of the emitter face).
Regarding claim 4, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1 and further teaches the device wherein the aperture is less than 1mm from the emitter face in an axial direction (Thio [0023] discloses that the recess 19 of the optical aperture component 14 [aperture] rests on the radiation emitting surface 18 – since the aperture is resting on the radiation emitting surface, the distance must be less than 1mm from the emitter face in the axis of emission by the LED).
Regarding claim 5, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1 and further teaches the device wherein the light emitting device is not fixed to the aperture plate (Thio fig. 2 shows the LED driver 2 being separated [i.e. not fixed] to the aperture component 14).
Regarding claim 10, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1 and further teaches the device wherein the emission face area of the emitter face has a cross-dimension of at least 400 µm (Thio [0023] discloses the square length of the emitter face as 500 µm, meaning that a cross dimension of the emitter face is at least 400 µm).
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thio.
Regarding claim 5, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the device wherein the light emitting device is not fixed to the aperture plate.
However, Thio does suggest this limitation.
Thio suggests or renders obvious the sensor device of claim 1, “wherein the light emitting device is not fixed to the aperture plate” (Thio fig. 2 and [0023] disclose that the aperture component 14 with recess 19 [aperture] which rests on the radiation emitting surface 18 and generates a tension on the emitting surface; [0022] discloses that the LED is attached to the PCB, but not fixed to the aperture plate per se; under the BRI of the claim, the aperture plate “resting” on the radiation emitting surface is not “fixed” to the aperture plate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the light emitting device is not fixed to the aperture plate as suggested by Thio for the advantage of utilizing the aperture component as an electrode to supply current to the LED without any permanent securing means (Thio [0023]), decreasing the complexity of the optical system.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thio in view of US 2017/0160427 A1 by James Costello et al. (herein after “Costello”).
Regarding claim 6, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1 but is silent to the device further comprising an encapsulation material encapsulating the emitter face.
However, Costello does address this limitation. Thio and Costello are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical devices comprising light emitters, apertures, and lenses.
Costello discloses the sensor device of claim 1 “further comprising an encapsulation material encapsulating the emitter face” (Costello fig. 1B and [0028] disclose one or more light sources 108 which are encapsulated by an optical element 148, where the optical element corresponds to a molded lens [molded lens 148 an encapsulation material encapsulating the emitter face]).
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 Thio to incorporate further comprising an encapsulation material encapsulating the emitter face as suggested by Costello for the advantage of helping steer/direct emitted light from the light emitter to its proper destination, and reducing crosstalk between by photodetectors that may be in the vicinity (Costello [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Thio when modified by Costello discloses the sensor device of claim 6. Thio is silent to the sensor device of claim 6, wherein the aperture is spaced from the encapsulation material by 300 µm or less.
However, Costello does address this limitation.
Costello discloses the sensor device of claim 6, “wherein the aperture is spaced from the encapsulation material by 300 µm or less” (Costello fig 1A and [0025] discloses an aperture 140, where a distance between the aperture 140 and light source is minimized by strategically positioning the aperture and light source; while the value of 300 µm is not explicitly disclosed by Costello, the distance between aperture and encapsulation material is a result effective variable, where the optimum value for the result effective variable may well be 300 µm – it has been shown that optimization of a result effective variable requires only routine skill in the art, see MPEP §2144.05 II(A) and II(B), especially given Costello’s disclosure of a minimization of said distance being ideal).
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 Thio to incorporate wherein the aperture is spaced from the encapsulation material by 300 µm or less as suggested by Costello for the advantage of minimizing the overall size of the optical device (Costello [0023]), at least by minimizing the distance between the encapsulation material and the aperture (Costello [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Thio discloses the sensor device of claim 1, and further teaches the device wherein the light emitting device has an emitter axis extending perpendicularly to the emission face area, and the optical axis extends perpendicularly to the aperture area (Thio figs 1 and 2 show emission axis which extends perpendicularly to the planar radiation emission surface 18 and perpendicularly to the aperture area).
Thio is silent to the sensor device of claim 1 but is silent to the device wherein the optical axis is not colinear with the emitter axis.
However, Costello does address this limitation.
Costello discloses the sensor device of claim 1 “wherein the optical axis is not colinear with the emitter axis” (Costello fig. 1A shows light source(s) 108 which are offset from the aperture 140 [optical axis of the emitter axis is not colinear with the optical axis of the aperture] – the combination of the offset between the light source and aperture of Costello with the orientation of the lens within Thio [i.e. the aperture being aligned with the optical axis of the lens] would result in the optical axis of the lens not being colinear with the emitter axis).
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 Thio to incorporate wherein the optical axis is not colinear with the emitter axis as suggested by Costello for the advantage of helping steer/direct emitted light from the light emitter to its proper destination, and reducing crosstalk between by photodetectors that may be in the vicinity (Costello [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Thio when modified by Costello discloses the sensor device of claim 8 and Thio further teaches the device wherein the aperture defines an aperture axis extending perpendicularly to the aperture area (Thio figs 1-2 show the aperture, where the an aperture axis inherently extends perpendicularly to the aperture area, to be parallel with the lens), and the sensor device further comprises a registration structure configured to align the aperture axis and the optical axis of the lens (Thio [0022]-[0023] discloses that the aperture component 14 is designed as a pre-tensioned spring, where the connection of the aperture component 14 to the LED chip enables power transmission between the components – the body of the aperture component is considered as the registration surface, as it enables the recess 19 of the aperture to be aligned with the optical axis of the lens via its connection to the PCB).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,359 B2 (herein after “ ‘359 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, all of the limitations of claim 1 are taught by claim 12 of the ‘359 patent, particularly the limitations regarding the “emitting light at a particular optical power” and “wherein the aperture plate is configured to reduce the optical power transmitted to the lens from the emitter face”.
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 3 are taught by claim 15 of the ‘359 patent.
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 4 are taught by claim 13 of the ‘359 patent.
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by claim 17 of the ‘359 patent.
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 6 are taught by claim 20 of the ‘359 patent.
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 7 are taught by claim 20 of the ‘359 patent.
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 8 are taught by claim 12 of the ‘359 patent.
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by claim 22 of the ‘359 patent.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,359 B2 (‘359 patent) in view of DE 10 2013/000761 A1 to Thio.
Regarding claim 2, most of the limitations of claim 2 are taught by claim 21 of the ‘359 patent, except for “wherein the light emitting device comprises a light emitting diode (LED)”. However, Thio, as shown in the prior art rejections above, does disclose the use of an LED light source (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 for claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the light emitting device comprises a light emitting diode for the advantage of reducing the cost associated with building the sensor device, as LEDs are cheap and widely used on the emitter markets.
Regarding claim 9, most of the limitations of claim 9 are taught by claim 21 of the ‘359 patent, except for “the registration surface configured to align the aperture axis and the optical axis of the lens”. However, Thio, as shown in the prior art rejections above, does disclose the registration surface (configured as the aperture component 14) which aligns the recess 19 (aperture) and the optical axis of the lens (seen in figs. 1 and 2 of Thio, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 for claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the registration surface configured to align the aperture axis and the optical axis of the lens for the advantage of simplifying the alignment of optical components within the system, since the aperture component automatically aligns the aperture with the lens, and enables power to be received by the LED via electrical conduction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination. In particular, a thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests all limitations of the invention disclosed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 11, the concept of “a sensor device comprising:
a sensor housing;
a printed circuit board coupled to the sensor housing;
a light emitting device coupled to the printed circuit board configured to emit light at a particular optical power, wherein the light emitting device has an emitter face defining an emission face area and an emitter axis extending perpendicularly to the emission face area;
an aperture plate coupled to the sensor housing, wherein the aperture plate defines an aperture defining an aperture area and an aperture axis extending perpendicularly from the aperture area, and wherein the aperture axis is not colinear with the emitter axis; and
a lens coupled to the sensor housing, wherein the aperture plate is positioned between the sensor housing and the emitter face, wherein the lens has an optical axis that is substantially colinear with the aperture axis, and wherein the sensor device defines a boresighting angle that is reduced by the aperture plate wherein the aperture plate is configured to reduce the optical power transmitted to the lens from the emitter face” is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is generally regarded to be Thio in view of Costello, which discloses a sensor device (Thio [0002] discloses an optical sensor for optical detection of at least one object [sensor device]); comprising:
a sensor housing (Thio fig. 2 and [0020] discloses a simplified view of the optical sensor, where a housing is seen in the figure surrounding internal components, extending vertically from circuit board 17, see [0022]; [0021] and fig. 1 also disclose a schematic of the device, comprising housing 3);
a printed circuit board coupled to the sensor housing (Thio fig. 2 and [0022] disclose the circuit board 17 which is coupled to the housing, the housing extending vertically from the board 17; the board has soldered components [i.e. a printed circuit board PCB]);
a light emitting device coupled to the printed circuit board configured to emit light at a particular optical power, wherein the light emitting device has an emitter face defining an emission face area (Thio fig. 2 and [0022] discloses an LED chip 2 coupled to the circuit board 17, where the LED chip 2 has a radiation emitting surface 18, where [0023] the surface 18 has a square shape [emitter face – the area of the radiation emitting surface is the emission face area]; [0021] discloses the LED is powered in pulsed operation with an operating current – whatever LED is employed possesses a unique radiant flux [optical power emitted by the LED] based on the source’s specs, and thus the LED is configured to emit light at a particular optical power) and an emitter axis extending perpendicularly to the emission face area (Thio figs 1 and 2 show emission axis which extends perpendicularly to the radiation emission surface 18);
an aperture plate coupled to the sensor housing an aperture plate coupled to the sensor housing, the aperture plate defining an aperture having an aperture area and an aperture axis extending perpendicularly from the aperture area (Thio [0022]-[0023] and fig. 1 discloses optical aperture component 14, with recess 19 [aperture] seen in fig. 2; fig. 2 shows the aperture component 14 as being coupled to the housing which extends vertically from circuit board 17; the plate defines the recess 19, which has an aperture area [aperture has an aperture area], and figs 1-2 show the recess 19, where the an aperture axis inherently extends perpendicularly to the aperture area, to be parallel with the lens) wherein the optical axis is not colinear with the emitter axis (Costello fig. 1A shows light source(s) 108 which are offset from the aperture 140 [optical axis of the emitter axis is not colinear with the optical axis of the aperture] – the combination of the offset between the light source and aperture of Costello with the orientation of the lens within Thio [i.e. the aperture being aligned with the optical axis of the lens] would result in the optical axis of the lens not being colinear with the emitter axis).; and
a lens coupled to the sensor housing (Thio figs 1-2 and [0022] disclose lens 7 shown coupled to the housing 3), wherein the aperture plate is positioned between the sensor housing and the emitter face (Thio fig 1 shows that the aperture component 14 is between the LED chip and the top portion of the housing, closest to the lens [aperture plate is positioned between the sensor housing and the emitter face]) wherein the lens has an optical axis that is substantially colinear with the aperture axis (Thio figs 1 and 2 shows the lens and its optical axis being colinear with the axis of the recess 19 [lens has optical axis colinear with aperture axis), wherein the aperture plate is configured to reduce the optical power transmitted to the lens from the emitter face (Thio [0025] discloses that the combination of the LED chip 2 and the optical aperture component 14 constitutes a point like source due to the aperture component due to the emission restriction of the LED light by the aperture [aperture plate configured to reduce the optical power transmitted to the lens from emitter face]).
The combination of Thio in view of Costello is silent to wherein the sensor device defines a boresighting angle that is reduced by the aperture plate, as had been indicated within the allowable subject matter recited within App. No. 17/855,338, now patented as US 12,326,359 B2, which the current application claims as Domestic Benefit via Continuation. Neither Thio, Costello, nor the references Lindmark (US 2019/0285769 A1) or Droz (US 2018/0156659 A1) recited in the Notice of Allowance of 17/855,338 dated 19 February 2025. Boresighting angle is not mentioned anywhere within the cited references with respect to their light emission optical devices, let alone in combination with an aperture plate which reduces said boresighting angle.
Claims 12-20 are allowed due to their dependence on the allowable subject matter within claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights