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 .
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 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.
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.
(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.
Claims 8 and 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finlayson US 20100111303 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Finlayson teaches a method comprising:
coupling a light source to a reflector (optical source, [0101]; waveguide core, [0018, 61-62]);
activating the light source to generate optical energy ([0101]); and
selecting, with a controller connected to the reflector, a polarization for the reflector (controls polarization, [0018, 61-63, 71-73, 91]); and
passing the optical energy to the reflector to create a light beam ([0101]).
Regarding claim 13, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the polarization is selected by activating a first waveguide portion of the reflector (multiple stage electro-optic waveguide polarization modulators and electrodes in Figs. 7-8, [0089-91]).
Regarding claim 14, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the controller changes to a different polarization for the reflector by activating a second waveguide portion of the reflector (multiple stage electro-optic waveguide polarization modulators and electrodes in Figs. 7-8, [0089-91]).
Regarding claim 15, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the controller changes the polarization by applying a different bias voltage to a waveguide portion of the reflector (multiple stage electro-optic waveguide polarization modulators and electrodes in Figs. 7-8, [0089-91]; modulation voltages adjust the polarization, [0067, 69, 89-91]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Schnarrenberger US 20240111036 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Finlayson teaches an apparatus comprising a light source (optical source, [0101]) coupled to a reflector consisting of a waveguide (waveguide core, [0018, 61-62]), the waveguide tuned to a selected polarization by a controller to block retroreflected photons (controls polarization, [0018, 61-63, 71-73, 91]) and produce a light beam outputted from the reflector ([0091, 101]).
Finlayson does not explicitly teach blocking retroreflected photons.
Schnarrenberger teaches controlling transmitted and received polarizations to attenuate light from retroreflective objects ([0037, 106, 133-135, 140, 143]) attenuating light from retroreflective objects; [0106] requiring less dynamic range at the detector
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 Finlayson such that controlling the polarization blocks retroreflected photons similar to Schnarrenberger with a reasonable expectation of success. This would attenuate light from retroreflective objects and require less dynamic range at the detector (Schnarrenberger: [0135]).
Regarding claim 6, Finlayson as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the waveguide is polarized to a single uniform polarization that corresponds with a selected wavelength of the light beam (chooses polarization and is operated at a wavelength of 1550 nm, [0078, 80, 84]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Schnarrenberger US 20240111036 A1 and further in view of Davis US 20130235441 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Finlayson teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the light source is positioned on a system on chip with the reflector.
Davis teaches light sources, waveguides, and modulators on the same photonics chip ([0023]).
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 Finlayson such that the light source is positioned on a system on chip with the similar to Davis with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of keeping components together and simplifying installation of the apparatus.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Schnarrenberger US 20240111036 A1 and further in view of Valera US 20160041387 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Finlayson as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein a beam splitter is positioned in the reflector and acts to generate the light beam.
Valera teaches a beamsplitter on the waveguide ([0057-60])
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 Finlayson such that a beam splitter is positioned in the reflector and acts to generate the light beam similar to Valera with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping emit desired polarization.
Regarding claim 4, Finlayson as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein a wave plate is positioned in the reflector and acts to generate the light beam.
Schnarrenberg teaches a switchable half-wave plate 634 to help control polarization that is transmitted to the detector ([0142-143]).
Valera teaches wave plate in on the waveguide ([0057-60]).
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 Finlayson such that a wave plate is positioned in the reflector and acts to generate the light beam similar to Schnarrenberg and Valera with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping control polarization emitted and detected (Schnarrenberg: [0142-143]; Valera: [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Finlayson as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein a polarizer is positioned in the reflector and acts to generate the light beam.
Schnarrenberger teaches a polarizer (632 or 618) to attenuate light emitted to and arriving from secondary directions ([0140-141])
Valera teaches polarizer on the waveguide ([0057-60]).
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 Finlayson such that a polarizer is positioned in the reflector and acts to generate the light beam similar to Schnarrenberg and Valera with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping control polarization emitted and detected (Schnarrenberg: [0140-141]; Valera: [0059]).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Schnarrenberger US 20240111036 A1 and further in view of Hu US 20170248760 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Finlayson as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the reflector consists of multiple separate waveguides that are respectively polarized to different wavelengths.
Hu teaches separate waveguides for wavelength and polarizations ([0017, 62, 179])
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 Finlayson such that the reflector consists of multiple separate waveguides that are respectively polarized to different wavelengths similar to Hu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing independent control of polarizations of light of different wave lengths which can help in identification of targets.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Korjus US 20210380119 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the light beam is sensed by the controller to detect a position of a target downrange of the reflector.
Korjus teaches detecting position and distance of an object, direction and speed of movement of an object, and size of an object ([0169]).
Additionally, determining a position of a target is well-known in the art. 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 Finlayson such that the light beam is sensed by the controller to detect a position of a target downrange of the reflector similar to Korjus with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping increase safety by being aware of objects and their movement.
Regarding claim 10, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the light beam is sensed by the controller to detect a size of a target downrange of the reflector.
Korjus teaches detecting position and distance of an object, direction and speed of movement of an object, and size of an object ([0169]).
Additionally, determining a size of a target is well-known in the art. 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 Finlayson such that the light beam is sensed by the controller to detect a size of a target downrange of the reflector similar to Korjus with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping increase safety by being aware of objects and their movement.
Regarding claim 11, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the light beam is sensed by the controller to detect a direction of movement of a target downrange of the reflector.
Korjus teaches detecting position and distance of an object, direction and speed of movement of an object, and size of an object ([0169]).
Additionally, determining a direction of movement of a target is well-known in the art. 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 Finlayson such that the light beam is sensed by the controller to detect a direction of movement of a target downrange of the reflector similar to Korjus with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping increase safety by being aware of objects and their movement.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Schnarrenberger US 20240111036 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the polarization is selected to balance blocking of retroreflected energy with a strength of the light beam.
Schnarrenberger teaches choosing polarizations to balance blocking of retroreflected energy such that the system can distinguish between diffusely and retroreflective objects ([0135, 140-143]; directions of polarizers and waveplates are chosen relative to each other to decrease signal from reflections off of retroreflective objects)
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 Finlayson such that the polarization is selected to balance blocking of retroreflected energy with a strength of the light beam similar to Korjus with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing the dynamic range required by the detector (Schnarrenberger: [0135]).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finlayson US 20100111303 A1 in view of Pinter US 20170262674 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Finlayson teaches the method of claim 8,
Finlayson does not explicitly teach wherein the controller selects the polarization of the reflector in response to at least one previously identified target positioned downrange from the reflector.
Pinter teaches adjusting the polarization of emitted light in response to external changes in scanned objects ([0022])
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 Finlayson such that the controller selects the polarization of the reflector in response to at least one previously identified target positioned downrange from the reflector similar to Pinter with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping detect the object even if environmental conditions change or there are markings on the object not detectable at the current polarization (Pinter: [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maimone US 20200064633 A1 teaches waveplate embedded in a waveguide ([0032])
Lam US 20200064641 A1 teaches wave plate and polarizer with a waveguide to guide transmit light ([0066-67])
Davis Et. Al. (2015 “Liquid Crystal Clad Waveguide Laser Scanner and Waveguide Amplifier for LADAR and Sensing Applications”) teaches controlling polarization in a liquid crystal waveguide for a lidar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645