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
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 11/26/2025 in which claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 12, and 18 have been amended. Currently claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending for examination in this application. Based on this reply:
The previous 112(b), and 12(d) rejections are withdrawn.
The previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
The 112(a) rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025, regarding the 112(a) rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has presented arguments regarding, for example, what is common general knowledge in the art, without providing evidence as to these facts. See MPEP 2145 (I.), “Argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary”.
The applicant correctly points out that “thin-film geometric phase optics” are no longer explicitly recited in the claims, and further questions the specific claim limitations to which the 112(a) rejections are directed. To address the latter concern, specific claim limitations are explicitly highlighted in the rejection below, notably, the “[first/second] optical element” in independent claims 1, 9, and 18. Regarding the former point, as outlined in previous office actions, the claims are being rejected for, in view of the specification, including the concept of “thin-film geometric phase optics” within their scope, even if not recited in the claims explicitly.
Regarding the structure of the thin-film geometric phase optical elements, the examiner thanks the applicant for pointing out the locations in the specification which comment on the layer-structure of the optical element, however, the structure and character of the phase profile being imprinted into the optic has not been expanded on, and this is the aspect of the optical element that arguably provides the most substantial impact as to the optical function. Further comment regarding the lack of guidance with respect to the desired phase profile has been added to the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, and 14-20 cover the inventive concept of thin-film geometric phase optics having a non-zero angle with respect to a normal to the light beam ([0004, 0018]). This concept is contained within the scope of both the claim limitation “a first optical element” as well as “a second optical element”, found in independent claims 1 and 18, and the claim limitation “an optical element” found in independent claim 9.
The specification as originally filed fails to describe the thin-film geometric phase optic, and its incorporation into the claimed systems and methods, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude the applicant had possession of the full breadth of the claimed invention.
The specification discloses the structure of the invention at a high level of generality and lacks a meaningful direction on how to make the claimed invention. The applicant discloses a substrate, an alignment layer of 50-100 nm with a generically disclosed imprinted polarization phase hologram “with a desired optic pattern”, and a mesogen layer ([0022-0023]). The specific structure which performs the claimed functions, and how such specific structure is made, including the choice of a suitable optical phase pattern and method of imprinting a such, is not disclosed. While there are figures which present the intended function of the invention, the figures do not present the full structure of the claimed invention at the point of novelty.
Further, the specification fails to disclose a sufficient reduction to practice at the point of novelty. For example, an important nuance of geometric phase optics is the interaction with the polarization of a light beam. See Escuti et al. (Escuti, Michael J., Jihwan Kim, and Michael W. Kudenov. "Controlling light with geometric-phase holograms." Optics and Photonics News 27.2 (2016): 22-29.) (“Regardless of the input wave polarization, the primary and conjugate waves have fixed (usually circular), mutually orthogonal polarizations, while the leakage wave retains the input polarization” (Page 25, column 1)). The specification does not disclose any constraints on or interaction with the polarization state of the light beams in the disclosed invention.
As a second example, FIG. 1C appears to provide the sole example for the desired phase profiles for an off-axis lens. However, the description surrounding this figure does not give a clear indication of the specifics of the profile. The phase profile is described as, “The phase profile 100C corresponds to an example of a combination of a lens profile and a uniform deflection angle in thin-film optics” ([0027]), which refers to the phase profiles in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, which are described as, “The phase profile 100A corresponds to an example spherical lens in thin-film optics. The thin- film spherical lens provides a focal point set by the parabolic profile for the phase.” ([0025]) and “The phase profile 100B corresponds to an example uniform deflection angle in thin-film optics with the phase wrapped to 2π radians.” ([0026]), respectively. Phase profile 100A is described as having a parabolic profile, and phase profile 100B obviously has a one-dimensional linear profile. Returning now to phase profile 100C; based on the description “a combination of a lens profile and a uniform deflection angle”, one of ordinary skill in the art may expect the phase profile 100C to result from a summation of the two profiles 100A and 100B. However, the summation of a parabolic profile with a linear profile does not appear to generate the profile indicated by 100C – the summation of a parabolic arc with a linear curve produces a new parabolic arc with the same curvature as the original, just offset in amplitude and along the axis. To see this, consider the example of summing
x
2
with
B
*
x
:
z
=
x
2
+
B
x
can be rewritten as,
z
=
x
+
B
2
2
-
B
2
2
, which is simply the same parabolic arc,
x
2
, displaced along the x-axis by
B
2
and offset in the Z-axis by
B
2
2
. Thus the curvature of the parabola in the x-axis does not change, nor would one expect the curvature in the orthogonal axis to change, for the case of a two-dimensional parabola (e.g. Z(x, y)), as a result of a linear addition in the x-axis (e.g.
z
=
x
2
+
B
x
+
y
2
=
x
+
B
2
2
-
B
2
2
+
y
2
). The two-dimensional situation would still result in a radially-symmetric parabola, unlike the asymmetric profile shown in FIG. 1C.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are further rejected for lack of written description by virtue of claim dependency.
Claims 1-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for conventional , does not reasonably provide enablement for thin-film geometric phase optics. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
An enabling specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The undue experimental test is a weighing of multiple factors, including but not limited to the following: (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the level of one of ordinary skill; (5) the level of predictability in the art; (6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (7) the existence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737.
Regarding claims 1-12, and 14-20, the disclosure fails to enable the full scope of the claimed inventions. In particular, the scope of both the claim limitation “a first optical element” as well as “a second optical element”, found in independent claims 1 and 18, and the claim limitation “an optical element” found in independent claim 9.
Factor 1: the nature of the invention.
The invention is directed to the field of light manipulation and control, with an interest towards "canted optics to reduce backscatter by leveraging advances in the field of thin-film optics" ([0004]). In particular, the invention is directed to geometric phase mesogen-based thin-film optics ([0018]).
Factor 2: the breadth of the claims.
The full scope of independent claims 1, 9, and 18 each encompass thin-film geometric phase optics having a non-zero angle with respect to a normal to the light beam.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-20 do not include any limitation which narrows the scope to exclude the thin-film geometric phase optics having a non-zero angle with respect to a normal to the light beam.
Factor 3: the state of the prior art.
At the time of the invention, bulk refractive optics as well as a variety of reflector technologies, such as MEMS mirrors, are well-known, as noted by the applicant ([0018, 0020]). On the other hand, thin-film geometric phase optics are in active development (“… leveraging recent advances in the field of thin-film optics…” ([0018])). Research into the use of geometric phase optics at oblique incident angles, in particular, was still being published after the filing date of the claimed invention. See Momosaki et al. (Ryusei Momosaki, Kazunari Ashikawa, Kentaro Ohkoshi, Moritsugu Sakamoto, Kohei Noda, Tomoyuki Sasaki, Nobuhiro Kawatsuki, Yoshichika Tanaka, Takeya Sakai, Yukitoshi Hattori, and Hiroshi Ono, "Wavefront aberration correction utilizing liquid crystal alignment in geometric-phase lens," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 37, 3222-3228 (2020)).
Accordingly, factor 3 weighs strongly towards a finding of non-enabling disclosure.
Factor 4: the level of ordinary skill.
The level of ordinary skill in the field of optical engineering is high based on the fact that a college degree is required. Factor 4 favors less disclosure.
Factor 5: the level of predictability in the art.
As discussed in the factor 3 analysis, at the time of the invention, the development of thin-film geometric phase optics is still in development. This leads to a low level of predictability, and accordingly factor 5 weighs towards a finding that undue experimentation is required.
Factor 6: the amount of direction provided by the inventor.
The specification discloses the structure of the invention at a high level of generality and lacks a meaningful direction on how to make the claimed invention. The applicant discloses a substrate, an alignment layer of 50-100 nm with a generically disclosed imprinted polarization phase hologram “with a desired optic pattern”, and a mesogen layer ([0022]). The specific structure which performs the claimed functions, and how such specific structure is made, including the choice of a suitable optical phase pattern and method of imprinting a such, is not disclosed.
For example, FIG. 1C appears to provide the sole example for the desired phase profiles for an off-axis lens. However, the description surrounding this figure does not give a clear indication of the specifics of the profile or how to arrive at the profile. The phase profile is described as, “The phase profile 100C corresponds to an example of a combination of a lens profile and a uniform deflection angle in thin-film optics” ([0027]), which refers to the phase profiles in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, which are described respectively as, “The phase profile 100A corresponds to an example spherical lens in thin-film optics. The thin- film spherical lens provides a focal point set by the parabolic profile for the phase.” ([0025]) and “The phase profile 100B corresponds to an example uniform deflection angle in thin-film optics with the phase wrapped to 2π radians.” ([0026]). Phase profile 100A is described as having a parabolic profile, and phase profile 100B obviously has a one-dimensional linear profile. Returning now to phase profile 100C; based on the description “a combination of a lens profile and a uniform deflection angle”, one of ordinary skill in the art may expect the phase profile 100C to result from a summation of the two profiles 100A and 100B. However, the summation of a parabolic profile with a linear profile does not appear to generate the profile indicated by 100C – the summation of a parabolic arc with a linear curve produces a new parabolic arc with the same curvature as the original, just offset in amplitude and shifted along the axis. To see this, consider the example of summing
x
2
with
B
*
x
:
z
=
x
2
+
B
x
can be rewritten as,
z
=
x
+
B
2
2
-
B
2
2
, which is simply the same parabolic arc,
x
2
, displaced along the x-axis by
B
2
and offset in the Z-axis by
B
2
2
. Thus the curvature of the parabola in the x-axis does not change, nor would one expect the curvature in the orthogonal axis to change, for the case of a two-dimensional parabola (e.g. Z(x, y)), as a result of a linear addition in the x-axis (e.g.
z
=
x
2
+
B
x
+
y
2
=
x
+
B
2
2
-
B
2
2
+
y
2
). The two-dimensional situation would still result in a radially-symmetric parabola, unlike the asymmetric profile shown in FIG. 1C.
Accordingly, factor 6 weighs towards a finding of a non-enabling disclosure.
Factor 7: the existence of working examples.
As outlined in the 112(a) rejection above, the specification does not provide working examples showing consideration of nor figures showing structure of the full scope of the claimed invention at the point of novelty.
Accordingly, factor 7 weighs towards a finding of non-enabling disclosure.
Factor 8: the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The claimed invention is directed to a technology that is under active development and the level of predictability is low. See factors 3 and 5 analysis. The disclosure is insufficient as to the disclosure of specific structure for performing the claimed function, nor does it present a working example for the claimed invention at the point of novelty. See factors 6 and 7. A skilled person in the art, facing all the challenges and predictability, would require a large amount of experimentation in order to practice the claimed invention.
In sum, the following factors favor less disclosure: the level of ordinary skill in the art is high. The following factors favor more disclosure: the state of the art is in active development, the level of predictability is low, the amount of direction provided by the inventor is presented at a high level of generality, the existence of working examples at the point of novelty is not disclosed, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention is large based on the content of the disclosure. On balance, the Wands factors show a lack of enablement.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are further rejected for lack of enablement by virtue of claim dependency.
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.
Claims 12, and 14-16 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the optical element is further configured to collimate a return light beam from the target into the fiber optics” is unclear in view of both the surrounding claim language and the disclosure. Claim 9, from which claim 12 indirectly depends, contains the limitations “the optical element is configured to… focus the return light beam into the fiber optics to generate an image of the target” as well as “fiber optics configured to… generate a diverging beam”. This combination of limitations would appear to create an optical situation that is at least unintuitive, if not impossible. Note too that the drawing associated with this embodiment, FIG. 4B, neither indicates a collimated beam being delivered to the fiber optics nor shows structure which would obviously result in such a function. The relevant section of the specification also does not indicate how such a claim limitation may be achieved, notably only indicating “The second optical element420 can be an off-axis reflector element with an embedded positive lens that is used as a collimator for the [outgoing] fiber beam404. In a receive path, a return beam406 from the target is reflected and focused, by the second optical element420, into the fiber optics434” ([0033]).
As a note, based on both the specification and drawings, as well as the context of claim 12 being dependent upon claim 10, the examiner suspects that the intention of claim 12 was likely to be, “wherein the optical element is further configured to collimate the TX beam received from the fiber optics”, or similar. See, for example, FIG. 4B and [0033].
Claims 14-16 are further objected to by claim dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuse (US 6324015 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Fuse teaches:
A method comprising: receiving, by a first optical element and from an optical source, a light beam at a first width (FIG.1; Note the light beam represented by the three steepest parallel lines on the left side of the figure, also the light beam which is focused onto the uppermost point on the right hand side of the figure. Said beam is incident upon lens L_2 at a first width.),
the first optical element positioned at a first non-zero angle relative to a normal incident on the first optical element (FIG. 1; said beam is incident upon lens L_2 at a non-normal angle, thus lens L_2, from the perspective of the beam is tilted at a non-zero angle.);
providing, in a first direction by the first optical element and based on the light beam passing through the first optical element, the light beam at a second width greater than the first width (FIG. 1; [Col. 28, Lines 13-27] “The second lens group consists of a negative refractive power lens L.sub.2 (G.sub.2)”);
receiving, by a second optical element and from the first optical element, the light beam at the second width, the second optical element positioned at a second non-zero angle, different from the first non-zero angle, relative to the normal (FIG. 1; Lens L_3 receives the beam from L_2. The light beam can be visually seen to be incident upon the lens L_3 at a different angle than it was incident upon lens L_2, and thus from the perspective of the light beam, lens L_3 is tilted at an angle different from that of L_2.); and
providing, by the second optical element and in a second direction and based on the second non-zero angle, an output beam based on the light beam, the second direction different from the first direction (FIG. 1, said beam leaves lens L_3 with a visually distinct direction from which it enters lens L_3.).
Regarding claim 20, Fuse teaches the method of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches:
further comprising diverging and directing the light beam onto the second optical element by using the first optical element, wherein: the first optical element comprises a diverging optical element having a negative lens (FIG. 1; [Col. 28, Lines 13-27] “The second lens group consists of a negative refractive power lens L.sub.2 (G.sub.2)”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20200025608 A1), hereinafter Kramer, in view of Schwerdt et al. (US 3214596 A), hereinafter Schwerdt.
Regarding claim 1, Kramer teaches:
An optical system, comprising:
a first optical element positioned at a first […] angle relative to a normal incident on the first optical element ([0059] “FIG. 4 depicts an example of implementation of the second embodiment depicted in FIG. 2. In this example, the expansion device 30 is implemented as a diverging lens with a very short focal length.” Note that the ‘first angle’ of the optic in this case is zero degrees.), the first optical element configured to:
receive via an optical source, a light beam at a first width, widen the received light beam to a second width greater than the first width, and provide, in a first direction, the widened light beam at the second width ([0014] “The expansion device is configured in such a way as to increase the angle range of the laser beam. A diameter of the laser beam propagated on the receiving surface of the radiation sensor is greater than a diameter of the laser beam in the area of the expansion device.”; FIG. 4, laser beam 10 is visually widened by diverging lens 30.); and
a second optical element positioned at a second non-zero angle, different from the first […] angle, relative to the normal ([0061] “One additional example of implementation of the second embodiment of the invention is depicted in FIG. 6, Similarly to FIG. 5, the expansion device 30 is realized, in this example, as a lens array. The second embodiment additionally has a collimation device 36. The collimation device 36 is realized, in this example, as a concave mirror”; The concave mirror is visually aligned at a non-zero angle relative to the normal, and is thus different than the diverging lens.), configured to:
receive, from the first optical element, the light beam at the second width, and provide, in a second direction and based on the second non-zero angle, an output beam based on the light beam, the second direction different from the first direction (FIG. 6, visually, laser beam 10 is received at a widened state and is deflected in a new, different direction.).
Note that while the diverging lens and concave mirror are presented here in two different embodiments, Kramer contemplates that the individual parts of the embodiments can be assembled in different combinations ([0103] “The invention can be further developed, corresponding to the embodiments listed in the following and the additionally listed characteristics, in the most varied manner and advantageously, without leaving the scope and the task of the invention. Additional embodiments of the invention are provided by different combinations of the described characteristics, even if not every possible embodiment is described or depicted in the figures.”).
Kramer does not teach:
a first optical element positioned at a first non-zero angle relative to a normal incident on the first optical element
a second optical element positioned at a second non-zero angle, different from the first non-zero angle, relative to the normal
Schwerdt teaches, in the field of optical object detection, “inclining the axis of symmetry of the lens 49 downward slightly from the axis of the passage 14” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-43]).
The examiner notes that neither the claimed first angle nor the claimed second angle have numerical restrictions beyond being non-zero.
The selection of angles being different is a reasonable design choice of the modified apparatus, with a predictable outcome.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the optical system of Kramer with the lens tilt of Schwerdt to reduce stray light from backscatter (Schwerdt: [Col. 3, Lines 14-43]).
Regarding claim 2, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the second optical element comprises a combined deflection and lens profile (Kramer: FIG. 6; [0061] “The collimation device 36 is realized, in this example, as a concave mirror” The concave mirror both deflects the laser beam and provides a focusing affect to collimate the converging beam.).
Regarding claim 3, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the first optical element comprises a diverging optical element configured to diverge and direct the light beam onto the second optical element (Kramer: [0059] “FIG. 4 depicts an example of implementation of the second embodiment depicted in FIG. 2. In this example, the expansion device 30 is implemented as a diverging lens with a very short focal length.”; FIG. 4, laser beam 10 is directed to the collimation device 36 following the diverging lens.).
Regarding claim 4, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein: the first optical element comprises a negative lens arranged at the first non-zero angle (Kramer: [0059] “FIG. 4 depicts an example of implementation of the second embodiment depicted in FIG. 2. In this example, the expansion device 30 is implemented as a diverging lens with a very short focal length.”).
Regarding claim 5, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein: the first optical element is tilted in a first direction, and the second optical element is tilted in a second direction different from the first direction.
The selection of tilt direction is simply choosing from a finite number of implementations with predictable outcomes. Thus, the selection of angle direction being different is a reasonable design choice of the modified apparatus, with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 6, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 4, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the first non-zero angle has a different direction from the second non-zero angle.
The selection of tilt direction is simply choosing from a finite number of implementations with predictable outcomes. Thus, the selection of angle direction being different is a reasonable design choice of the modified apparatus, with a predictable outcome.
Regarding claim 7, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the first optical element is configured to suppress backscattered light ([Col. 3, Lines 14-43] “Another way in which this stray light is prevented from reaching the photocell is by inclining the axis of symmetry of the lens 49 downward slightly from the axis of the passage 14. This has the effect of causing the light reflected from the back surface of the lens to take a different path from the light which is passing from the lamp 31”).
Regarding claim 8, Kramer in view of Schwerdt teaches the optical system of claim 7, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein a change of the first non-zero angle of the first optical element allows variation of a level of suppression of the backscattered light.
It is naturally understood that the level of backscatter changes with the angle of incidence on a reflecting surface (Harvey, James E. "Light-scattering characteristics of optical surfaces." Stray Light Problems in Optical Systems. Vol. 107. SPIE, 1977.).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (US 20200326427 A1), hereinafter Crouch, in view of Diaz (US 20200333441 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Crouch teaches:
A remote sensing system (FIG. 2D, LIDAR system 200'), the system comprising:
an optical transmitter configured to generate a transmit (TX) light beam (FIG. 2D, laser source 212);
a transmit-receive switch (FIG. 2D, circulator 226);
fiber optics configured to i) receive, via the transmit-receive switch, the TX light beam from the optical transmitter ([0076] "… that transmits the carrier wave 201 along a single-mode optical waveguide 225 over a transmission path 222, through a circulator 226 and out a tip 217 of the single-mode optical waveguide 225") and ii) generate a diverging beam ([0076] "… out a tip 217 of the single-mode optical waveguide 225" It is naturally understood that light emerging from a single-mode fiber is diverging. See also FIG. 2D, a cone of light representing a diverging light beam leaving the fiber.);
an optical element […] ([0076] "The carrier wave 201 exiting the optical waveguide tip 217 can be shaped by the optic 229 into a collimated target beam 205′ which is scanned over a range of angles 227 by scanning optics 218."; FIG. 2D),
wherein the optical element is configured to:
direct the diverging beam from the fiber optics to a target ([0076] "The carrier wave 201 exiting the optical waveguide tip 217 can be shaped by the optic 229 into a collimated target beam 205′ which is scanned over a range of angles 227 by scanning optics 218."; FIG. 2D).,
receive, from the target, a return light beam (FIG. 2D; [0077] "Return beams 291 from an object can be directed by the scanning optics 218 and focused by the collimation optics 229 onto the tip 217 so that the return beam 291 is received in the single-mode optical waveguide tip 217."), and
focus the return light beam into the fiber optics to generate an image of the target (FIG. 2D; [0077] "Return beams 291 from an object can be directed by the scanning optics 218 and focused by the collimation optics 229 onto the tip 217 so that the return beam 291 is received in the single-mode optical waveguide tip 217." Note that “generate an image of the target” is broadly presented here and any capture of light from the target would apply.); and
a receiver configured to receive, via the transmit-receive switch, the light beam from the fiber optics ([0077] "the return beam 291 is combined with the reference beam 207b"; [0063] “De-chirping can be performed by directing both the reference optical signal and the returned optical signal to the same optical detector.”).
Crouch is not relied upon for:
an optical element oriented at an angle with respect to the diverging beam such that the optical element is non-normal to the diverging beam;
Diaz, in the same field of lidar, teaches that parabolic mirrors are known alternatives for collimating optics ([0076] “In another embodiment the collimating element 210 is a parabolic mirror, as shown in FIG. 7. In one arrangement a 90-degree parabolic mirror may be used as the collimating element 210. In other arrangements the parabolic mirror may have other reflection angles, such as 45 degrees. The parabolic mirror can collimate the light while ensuring that reflections do not travel back into the system.”).
By replacing the collimating lens of Crouch with the collimating parabolic mirror of Diaz, the remaining limitation would be met:
an optical element oriented at an angle with respect to the diverging beam such that the optical element is non-normal to the diverging beam ([0076] “In another embodiment the collimating element 210 is a parabolic mirror, as shown in FIG. 7. In one arrangement a 90-degree parabolic mirror may be used as the collimating element 210.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the LIDAR system of Crouch with the parabolic mirror of Diaz to minimize back reflections (Diaz: [0076]).
Regarding claim 10, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches:
Wherein the fiber optics are configured to guide the TX light beam to the optical element (Crouch: [0076] "The carrier wave 201 exiting the optical waveguide tip 217 can be shaped by the optic 229 into a collimated target beam 205′”).
Regarding claim 12, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the optical element is further configured to collimate a return light beam from the target into the fiber optics (The parabolic mirror, which is envisioned as focusing a returned collimated beam, would also collimate a return light beam which had an appropriate diverging structure, as is naturally understood in the field of optics.).
Regarding claim 14, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 12, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the receiver is configured to receive the return light beam and generate an electrical signal corresponding to optical characteristics of the target (Crouch: [0077] "the return beam 291 is combined with the reference beam 207b"; [0063] “De-chirping can be performed by directing both the reference optical signal and the returned optical signal to the same optical detector.”; Distance, R: Equations 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 15, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 14, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the TX light beam comprises a modulated light beam (Crouch: [0077] "In some embodiments, the carrier wave 201 is phase or frequency modulated in a modulator 282a").
Regarding claim 16, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 14, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the receiver further comprises a demodulator configured to demodulate the received return light beam ([0063] “De-chirping can be performed by directing both the reference optical signal and the returned optical signal to the same optical detector.”; [0077] "the return beam 291 is combined with the reference beam 207b").
Regarding claim 17, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the optical element comprises an element having a combined deflection and lens profile (Diaz: [0076] “In one arrangement a 90-degree parabolic mirror may be used as the collimating element 210.” The parabolic mirror both deflects and collimates.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Diaz and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 11, Crouch in view of Diaz teaches the remote sensing system of claim 10, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the fiber optics comprises optical fiber and one or more optical elements.
The examiner takes official notice of the fact that the use of additional optics are well-known in the field, for example, to provide beam shape control, wavelength filtering, or polarization control.
The examiner notes the breadth of the claim, as neither the specification nor the claims provide any indication as to what the additional optics may be nor what function they may serve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the LIDAR system of Crouch in view of Diaz with additional optics to control the parameters of the light beam.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuse in view of Schwerdt.
Regarding claim 19, Fuse teaches the method of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the first optical element comprises an element having a combined deflection and lens profile (FIG. 1; said beam is deflected upon passing through lens L_2. It is further understood that lens L_2 has a lens profile.),
[…]
Fuse does not explicitly teach:
the first optical element is configured to suppress backscattered light, and
a change of a first angle of the first optical element allows variation of a level of suppression of the backscattered light.
Schwerdt teaches tilting of a lens axis to reduce stray light ([Col. 3, Lines 14-43]). Thus teaching the limitation:
the first optical element is configured to suppress backscattered light
Further, it is naturally understood that the level of backscatter changes with the angle of incidence on a reflecting surface (Harvey, James E. "Light-scattering characteristics of optical surfaces." Stray Light Problems in Optical Systems. Vol. 107. SPIE, 1977.). Thus, the final limitation would also be understood as covered by Schwerdt, as Schwerdt reasonably covers some range of tilt angles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the optical system of Fuse with the lens tilt of Schwerdt to reduce stray light from backscatter (Schwerdt: [Col. 3, Lines 14-43]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (Jihwan Kim, Yanming Li, Matthew N. Miskiewicz, Chulwoo Oh, Michael W. Kudenov, and Michael J. Escuti, "Fabrication of ideal geometric-phase holograms with arbitrary wavefronts," Optica 2, 958-964 (2015)) discloses a thin film geometric phase hologram lens.
Choi et al. (US 10422863 B2) discloses a scanning lidar system for which the transmission/receive lens is tilted with respect to the light beam of some light sources.
Hegg (US 9122039 B2) discloses optical switching of the field of view.
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 SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. 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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645