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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as used in the current rejection.
In response to the amendment of “a threshold level of the digital comparator is set based on a predetermined threshold level corresponding to a peak intensity of the reflected light signal,” newly found reference Matsuura is looked to. Matsuura discloses signal processing and the use of a signal peak as a threshold.
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.
Claim 1, 7, 9, 11, 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer et al (US 9450670) in view of Matsuura (US 20050179581).
In regards to claim 1, Fleischer discloses an optical system comprising:
a rotatable mirror (Fleischer Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C ref. 302, C3:32 “The mirror 302 is mounted in the beam steering assembly 220 so that it can be rotated in real time”), wherein the rotatable mirror is configured to rotate about a rotational axis (C3:32 “The mirror 302 is mounted in the beam steering assembly 220 so that it can be rotated in real time”, C5:14 “The gimbal assembly is capable of rotating the mirror 302 around two separate axes simultaneously and independently”);
a light-emitter device configured to emit emission light along an optical axis (Fleischer Fig. 3B ref. 352), such that the emission light interacts with a reflective surface of the rotatable mirror to provide reflected light (Fleischer as seen in Fig. 3B and below path of emitted light, ref. 382 reflected from mirror ref. 302);
a detector device configured to receive at least a portion of the reflected light (Fleischer ref. 354), wherein the detector device is configured to provide a reflected light signal indicative of a rotational angle of the rotatable mirror with respect to the rotational axis (Fleischer as seen in Fig. 3B and below path of emitted light reflected from mirror ref. 302, to detector ref. 354 provide signal indicative of angle of mirror, abstract “The position sensor reflects sensor light off of the mirror to determine the position of the mirror along two different axes”); and
a detector readout circuit (Fleischer C5:60 “The position sensor 370 includes a light source 352, a detector 354, a printed circuit board (PCB) 350,”), wherein the detector readout circuit comprises:
a digital comparator configured to provide a digital signal (Fleischer ref. 804), wherein the digital signal comprises information indicative of rising and falling edges of an analog signal based on a current pulse from the detector device (Fleischer C9:35 discloses a digital converter/comparator which provides a digital signal which is indicative of an analog signal from the detector comprising peaks and troughs from a current pulse of the detector).
Fleischer does not expressly disclose:
wherein a threshold level of the digital comparator is set based on a predetermined threshold level corresponding to a peak intensity of the reflected light signal.
Matsuura teaches signal processing whereby a threshold level of a detector is set which corresponds with a peak of a reflected light signal (abstract “A threshold value is set based on signal intensity at the extracted peak”, [0020] “the threshold setting means is for setting a threshold value based on signal intensity at the peak extracted by the peak extracting means”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleisher with Matsuura by providing for the means for the digital comparator to ensure a threshold level of the digital comparator is set based on a predetermined threshold level corresponding to a peak intensity of the reflected light signal in order to allow the most highest signal is recorded to avoid false positives from signals having weak return signals.
In regards to claim 7, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein the rotational angle corresponds to an orientation of the rotatable mirror such that the reflective surface of the rotatable mirror is perpendicular to the optical axis (suggested in Fig. 3B of Fleischer, optical axis along ref. 382 light path, which is perpendicular to ref. 302 mirror).
In regards to claim 9, Fleischer disclose the optical system of claim 1, further comprising: a spacer (Fleischer Fig. 3B rectangle at ref. 360), wherein the spacer comprises a light-emitter cavity and a detector cavity (Fleischer as seen in Fig. 3B rectangle comprises internal space/cavity for detector and light emitter).
In regards to claim 11, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, wherein the reflected light comprises primary reflection light (Fleischer ref. 382), wherein the primary reflection light corresponds to a first portion of emission light that reflects directly from the reflective surface of the rotatable mirror toward the detector device (Fleischer ref. 382 discloses path of reflected light).
In regards to claim 17, Fleischer as combined discloses the optical system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the analog signal comprises a 1.5 volt peak-to-peak signal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the analog signal comprises a 1.5 volt peak-to-peak signal in order to avoid order signals that are outside of the detector range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 18, Fleischer discloses a method comprising:
causing a light-emitter device to emit emission light along an optical axis toward a rotatable mirror (Fleischer Fig. 3B ref. 352 emitted light along axis ref. 382 in Fig. 3A), such that the emission light interacts with a reflective surface of the rotatable mirror to provide reflected light (Fleischer C9:35 “the light source 352 illuminates the mirror 302, and the detector 354 reads out the amount of light impinging on each quadrant of the detector's 354 quad cell”), wherein the rotatable mirror is configured to rotate about a rotational axis (Fleischer C5:14 “The gimbal assembly is capable of rotating the mirror 302 around two separate axes simultaneously and independently”);
receiving, from a detector device, a reflected light signal (Fleischer C8:62 “sensor light 382 spots as received by a detector 354 in the position sensor”); and determining, by a detector readout circuit (Fleischer C5:60 discloses circuit) and based on the reflected light signal, a rotational angle of the rotatable mirror (C8:62 “The angle of the mirror 302 along two different axes, for example an X axis and a Y axis, can be determined based on the amount of sensor light 382”), wherein determining the rotational angle of the rotatable mirror comprises: providing, by a digital comparator (Fleischer ref. 804), a digital signal comprising information indicative of rising and falling edges of an analog signal based on a current pulse from the detector device (Fleischer C9:35 discloses a digital converter/comparator, ref. 804, provides a digital signal which is indicative of an analog signal from the detector comprising peaks and trough from a current pulse of the detector),
Fleischer does not expressly disclose: wherein a threshold level of the digital comparator is set based on a predetermined threshold level corresponding to a peak intensity of the reflected light signal.
Matsuura teaches signal processing whereby a threshold level of a detector is set which corresponds with a peak of a reflected light signal (abstract “A threshold value is set based on signal intensity at the extracted peak”, [0020] “the threshold setting means is for setting a threshold value based on signal intensity at the peak extracted by the peak extracting means”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleisher with Matsuura by providing for the digital comparator a threshold level of the digital comparator is set based on a predetermined threshold level corresponding to a peak intensity of the reflected light signal in order to allow the most highest signal is recorded to avoid false positives from signals having weak return signals.
In regards to claim 19, Fleischer discloses the method of claim 18, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising: determining, based on the reflected light signal, a lens offset, wherein determining the rotational angle of the rotatable mirror is further based on the lens offset.
However, Fleischer discloses a method of adjusting the mirror based upon the detected position of mirror (Fleischer C3:64 “the beam steering assembly 220 also includes a position sensor for detecting the position of the mirror 302, as shown in FIGS. 3A-3C. Accurate knowledge of the current position of the mirror 302 is important for determining how the mirror 302 should be repositioned to achieve and/or maintain transceiver alignment”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the means of Fleischer to correct the angle of the mirror based upon differences detected in the mirror as these obtain similar results of correction of the mirror angle for maintaining scanning accuracy.
Claim 2, 5, 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer, Matsuura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reitsema (US 4709146).
In regards to claim 2, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the detector device comprises a lens, and wherein the lens is configured to collimate the emission light and the reflected light.
Reitsema teaches a collimating lens for a detector device (Fig. 3 ref. 20, emitted and reflected light path through ref. 20, “The diverging light from light source 100 is collimated by lens system 20”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleischer with Reitsema by providing comprises a lens configured to collimate the emission light and the reflected light in order to allow maintain accuracy and provide a compact device.
In regards to claim 5, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the light-emitter device and the detector device are disposed along a substrate.
Reitsema teaches a light emitter and detector disposed on a common substrate surface (C4:35 “light source 100 such as, for example, a photodiode formed or otherwise disposed on the same substrate 80 which carries photosensitive detectors 70”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleischer with Reitsema by providing the light-emitter device and the detector device are disposed along a substrate in order to provide a compact structure.
In regards to claim 6, Fleischer as combined discloses the optical system of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose: the light-emitter device and the detector device are separated along the substrate by a separation distance between 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the light-emitter device and the detector device are separated along the substrate by a separation distance between 0.8 mm to 1.5 mm in order to avoid reflected light upon the emitter in order to provide a stronger return signal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3, 4, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer, Matsuura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onda et al (US 20230305113).
In regards to claim 3, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the light-emitter device comprises a single mode vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL).
Onda teaches light detection device comprising VCSEL emitter (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleischer with Onda by providing the light-emitter device comprises a single mode vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) in order to provide an energy efficient emitter as is well known in the art.
In regards to claim 4, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the detector device comprises a silicon PIN photodiode.
Onda teaches light detection device comprising a silicon PIN photodiode ([0054] “a normal avalanche photodiode, other photodiodes, etc. can be adopted as the light-receiving element”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleischer with Onda by providing light detection device comprising a silicon PIN photodiode as these devices are well known in the art.
In regards to claim 8, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the rotatable mirror comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces, wherein the rotatable mirror has a triangular prism shape or a rectangular prism shape.
Onda teaches a rectangular prism shape ([0119] “The scanning mirror may be a mirror that performs two-dimensional scanning, such as a polygon mirror or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleischer with Onda by providing the rotatable mirror has a rectangular prism shape in order to increase scanning range.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer, Matsuura as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Meylan (US 20210199769).
In regards to claim 10, Fleischer discloses the optical system of claim 9, wherein the spacer comprises a rectangular cavity with openings along a first surface of the spacer (Fleischer as suggested in Fig. 3B, openings for beams), Fleischer does not expressly disclose: openings along an opposing second surface of the spacer.
Meylan teaches a space comprising openings in a forward and rear portion of the spacer (Fig. 10 ref. 10a, similar to that of figure 2b ref. 1050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleischer with Meylan by providing openings along an opposing second surface of the spacer in order to provide clear path for covers, lens for the emitted light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-16, 20 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights