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
Claims 18-43 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 30 July 2026 overcomes the prior objections and rejections. However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 1, “stage” should perhaps read --engine--.
In claim 22, line 1, “stage” should perhaps read --engine--.
In claim 23, line 1, “stage” should perhaps read --engine--.
Claims 24-26 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18-43 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.
Claim 18 recites “a heating element that is configured to control a temperature of the coarse steering stage so that the switching on time and the relaxation time are in respective optimal ranges.” The phrase “respective optimal ranges” uses the relative term “optimal,” whose scope is unclear because neither the claim nor the specification provides an objective standard for determining what constitutes an optimal range for the switching on time and the relaxation time. Accordingly, the scope of the claim depends on a subjective assessment of what is considered “optimal,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites the same “respective optimal ranges” limitation and is therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Claims 19-27 and 29-43 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 18-23, 27-33, 37-41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich (US 20180003805 A1) in view of Escuti (US 20120188467 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Popovich discloses a light beam-steering engine (Fig. 4, SBG columns 54 through 56 and the MEMS scanner within module 58), comprising:
a. a coarse steering stage (Fig. 4, SBG columns 54 through 56) configured to steer a light beam across a Field of View (FoV) in discrete angular steps (¶ 52, SBG columns steer beam 1200 into unique angular ranges having principal ray directions 1202 through 1204), wherein the FoV defines a plurality of tiles (¶ 52, “defines a unique FOV tile”), each tile is associated with a respective angular step of the light beam (¶ 52, each SBG column has respective k vector, principal ray direction, angular range, and FOV tile), the coarse steering stage is configured with a switching on time and a relaxation time (¶ 5, “SBG Elements are switched clear in 30 µs. With a longer relaxation time to switch ON”), the switching on time defines a period during which a director pattern of the coarse steering stage is arranged to not diffract light (¶ 5, applying the electric field changes orientation of the liquid crystal droplets and causes diffraction efficiency to fall, where sufficiently high voltage produces zero diffraction efficiency), and the relaxation time defines a period during which the director pattern of the coarse steering stage is arranged to diffract light (¶ 5, SBG has longer relaxation time to return to optical on state and high diffraction efficiency with no applied voltage), and [...];
b. a fine steering stage configured to angularly displace the light beam in a plurality of positions within a first tile of the plurality of tiles (Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶ 52, MEMS scanner sweep selected SBG element to define unique field of view tile; ¶ 47).
Popovich does not teach: “the coarse steering stage comprises a heating element that is configured to control a temperature of the coarse steering stage so that the switching on time and the relaxation time are in respective optimal ranges.” However, Escuti teaches the limitation in ¶ 22 and Fig. 2B, resistive ITO layer 120b corresponding to the heating element; ¶ 23, controller 270 controls duration and frequency of heat application and temperature feedback regulates applied heat; ¶¶ 4, 38, PDLC heated to desired temperature range to maintain consistent operational speed and constraining the voltage applied switching time and voltage removed relaxation time to desired response ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coarse steering stage of Popovich with the teachings of Escuti with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the switching and relaxation, thereby yielding a system with consistent and predictable operational speed across varying temperature environments (Escuti, ¶¶ 4, 16, 23, 38, 42).
Regarding claim 19, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 18, and further teaches: wherein the fine steering stage is configured to impart a continuous angular motion to the light beam between the plurality of positions (Popovich, Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶¶ 47, 50, 52, a sweep of MEMs scanner defines a unique FOV tile, where the sweep across an angular FOV constitutes continuous angular motion between scanned positions).
Regarding claim 20, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 19, and further teaches: the fine steering stage includes a moveable optical component (Popovich, Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶¶ 50, 52, MEMS scanner is a mechanical deflector producing the beam sweep).
Regarding claim 21, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 20, and further teaches: wherein the moveable optical component includes a Micro Electrical Mechanical System (MEMS) (Popovich, Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶¶ 50, 52).
Regarding claim 22, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 19, and further teaches: wherein the coarse steering stage includes an optical element that steers the light beam in discrete angular steps without mechanical movement of the optical element (Popovich, ¶ 52, SBG columns have grating vectors for deflecting scanned beams into unique angles; ¶ 5, applied electric field changes liquid crystal orientation and controls diffraction efficiency; ¶ 47, “It is not necessary to rotate the waveguides”).
Regarding claim 23, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 22, and further teaches: wherein the optical element is switchable between a first operational mode and a second operational mode (Popovich, ¶ 5, electrical control switches SBG between a diffracting state having high efficiency and a clear state having no diffraction efficiency), in the first operational mode the optical element is configured to output the light beam along a first propagation direction (Popovich, ¶ 52, column 56 deflects beam 1200 out of waveguide 51 into “a unique direction 1204”), in the second operational mode the optical element is configured to output the light beam along a second propagation direction (Popovich, ¶¶ 5, 52, high voltage produces zero diffraction, where beam 1200 continues along path 1201 rather than deflected to direction 1204).
Regarding claim 27, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 18, and further teaches: wherein the fine steering stage is configured to angularly displace the light beam in an angular range of travel such that at any position of the light beam in the angular range of travel the light beam remains within boundaries of the first tile (Popovich, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 47, 52, for each SBG grating vector wherein the MEMS scanner sweep defines a unique FOV tile, the angular positions traversed during the sweep remain within the corresponding tile boundaries as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, Popovich discloses a method for steering a light beam, comprising:
a. providing a coarse steering stage (Fig. 4, SBG columns 54 through 56) configured to steer a light beam across a Field of View (FoV) in discrete angular steps (¶ 52, SBG columns steer beam 1200 into unique angular ranges having principal ray directions 1202 through 1204), wherein the FoV defines a plurality of tiles (¶ 52, “defines a unique FOV tile”), each tile is associated with a respective angular step of the light beam (¶ 52, each SBG column has respective k vector, principal ray direction, angular range, and FOV tile), the coarse steering stage is configured with a switching on time and a relaxation time (¶ 5, “SBG Elements are switched clear in 30 µs. With a longer relaxation time to switch ON”), the switching on time defines a period during which a director pattern of the coarse steering stage is arranged to not diffract light (¶ 5, applying the electric field changes orientation of the liquid crystal droplets and causes diffraction efficiency to fall, where sufficiently high voltage produces zero diffraction efficiency), and the relaxation time defines a period during which the director pattern of the coarse steering stage is arranged to diffract light (¶ 5, SBG has longer relaxation time to return to optical on state and high diffraction efficiency with no applied voltage), and [...];
b. providing a fine steering stage configured to angularly displace the light beam in a plurality of positions within a first tile of the plurality of tiles (Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶ 52, MEMS scanner sweep selected SBG element to define unique field of view tile; ¶ 47).
c. steering the light beam with the coarse steering stage and the fine steering stage (Fig. 4 and ¶ 52, the MEMS scanner sweeps beam 1200 and active column 56 deflects the scanned beam from TIR path 1201 into direction 1204; ¶ 47).
Popovich does not teach: “the coarse steering stage comprises a heating element that is configured to control a temperature of the coarse steering stage so that the switching on time and the relaxation time are in respective optimal ranges.” However, Escuti teaches the limitation in ¶ 22 and Fig. 2B, resistive ITO layer 120b corresponding to the heating element; ¶ 23, controller 270 controls duration and frequency of heat application and temperature feedback regulates applied heat; ¶¶ 4, 38, PDLC heated to desired temperature range to maintain consistent operational speed and constraining the voltage applied switching time and voltage removed relaxation time to desired response ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coarse steering stage of Popovich with the teachings of Escuti with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the switching and relaxation, thereby yielding a method having consistent and predictable operational speed across varying temperature environments (Escuti, ¶¶ 4, 16, 23, 38, 42, 67-71).
Regarding claim 29, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method as defined in claim 28, and further teaches: wherein the fine steering stage is configured to impart a continuous angular motion of the light beam between the plurality of positions (Popovich, Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶¶ 47, 50, 52, a sweep of MEMs scanner defines a unique FOV tile, where the sweep across an angular FOV constitutes continuous angular motion between scanned positions).
Regarding claim 30, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method as defined in claim 29, and further teaches: wherein the fine steering stage includes a moveable optical component (Popovich, Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶¶ 50, 52, MEMS scanner is a mechanical deflector producing the beam sweep).
Regarding claim 31, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method as defined in claim 30, and further teaches: wherein the moveable optical component includes a Micro Electrical Mechanical System (MEMS) (Popovich, Fig. 4, MEMS scanner within module 58; ¶¶ 50, 52).
Regarding claim 32, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method as defined in claim 28, and further teaches: wherein the coarse steering stage includes an optical element that steers the light beam in the discrete angular steps without mechanical movement of the optical element (Popovich, ¶ 52, SBG columns have grating vectors for deflecting scanned beams into unique angles; ¶ 5, applied electric field changes liquid crystal orientation and controls diffraction efficiency; ¶ 47, “It is not necessary to rotate the waveguides”).
Regarding claim 33, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method as defined in claim 32, and further teaches: wherein the optical element is switchable between a first operational mode and a second operational mode (Popovich, ¶ 5, electrical control switches SBG between a diffracting state having high efficiency and a clear state having no diffraction efficiency), in the first operational mode the optical element is configured to output the light beam along a first propagation direction (Popovich, ¶ 52, column 56 deflects beam 1200 out of waveguide 51 into “a unique direction 1204”), in the second operational mode the optical element is configured to output the light beam along a second propagation direction (Popovich, ¶¶ 5, 52, high voltage produces zero diffraction, where beam 1200 continues along path 1201 rather than deflected to direction 1204).
Regarding claim 37, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method as defined in claim 28, and further teaches: wherein the fine steering stage is configured to angularly displace the light beam in an angular range of travel such that the light beam at any position of the angular range of travel remains within the boundaries of the first tile (Popovich, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 47, 52, for each SBG grating vector wherein the MEMS scanner sweep defines a unique FOV tile, the angular positions traversed during the sweep remain within the corresponding tile boundaries as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 38, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the beam-steering engine of claim 18, and further teaches a LIDAR apparatus comprising the beam-steering engine of claim 18 (Popovich, Fig. 4, LIDAR system 50 comprising SBG columns 54 through 56 and the MEMS scanner within module 58).
Regarding claim 39, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the LIDAR of claim 38, and further teaches: a transmitter to generate the light beam (Popovich, ¶ 47, LIDAR includes “a pulsed laser”; Fig. 4, pulsed laser generating scanned laser beam 1200; ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 40, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the LIDAR of claim 39, and further teaches: a receiver (Popovich, Fig. 4, detector portion of module 58; ¶ 52, return signal 1206 is “relayed to the beam scanner and detector module 58”; ¶ 47, receiver means comprises optics and a detector).
Regarding claim 41, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the LIDAR of claim 39, and further teaches: an optical path between the transmitter and the coarse and fine steering stages (Popovich, Fig. 4, the outgoing optical path extending from the pulsed laser through the MEMS scanner within module 58, then along beam 1200 through prism 57 and TIR path 1201 to SBG columns 54 through 56; ¶¶ 47, 52).
Regarding claim 43, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the LIDAR of claim 39, and further teaches: wherein the fine steering stage resides between the transmitter and the coarse steering stage (Popovich, ¶¶ 47, 52, optical sequence follows the pulsed laser, the MEMS scanner within module 58, scanned beam 1200, prism 57, TIR path 1201, and SBG columns 54 through 56).
Claims 24-26 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich in view of Escuti further in view of Roes (US 20050041020 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 23. Although Popovich in ¶ 6 teaches the SBG has different diffraction efficiencies for P polarized and S polarized light, Popovich does not expressly identify the SBG optical element as either one of a polarization grating and a polarization selector. However, Roes teaches the limitation in Figs. 13A-13F, LCPG 1301; ¶ 133, “liquid crystal polarization gratings” of LCPG 1301. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical element of Popovich in view of Escuti with the polarization grating of Roes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to electrically control both beam polarization and propagation direction, thereby yielding a beam-steering system having greater diffraction efficiency and wider steering angles (Roes, ¶¶ 127,132-133,136-137).
Regarding claim 25, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 23. Although Popovich in ¶ 6 teaches the SBG has different diffraction efficiencies for P polarized and S polarized light, Popovich in view of Escuti does not expressly teach: wherein the optical element includes a polarization grating, in the first operational mode the polarization grating is configured to alter a polarization of the light beam and alter a propagation angle thereof, wherein the first propagation direction forms a first non-nil angle with a direction of incidence of the light beam on the polarization grating. However, Roes teaches: the optical element includes a polarization grating (Figs. 13A-13F, LCPG 1301; ¶ 133, element 1301 as a liquid crystal polarization grating), in the first operational mode the polarization grating is configured to alter a polarization of the light beam (Figs. 13D-13E, LCPG 1301 in voltage removed diffracting state; ¶ 136, “the handedness of circular polarized light is changed to the opposite state”) and alter a propagation angle thereof (Figs. 13D-13E, LCPG 1301 directing light into a first diffraction order; ¶ 135), wherein the first propagation direction forms a first non-nil angle with a direction of incidence of the light beam on the polarization grating (Figs. 13D-13E, first order output from LCPG 1301; ¶ 137, 10 degree diffraction angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the optical element of Popovich in view of Escuti with the polarization grating of Roes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to electrically control both beam polarization and propagation direction, thereby yielding a beam-steering system having greater diffraction efficiency and wider steering angles (Roes, ¶¶ 127,132-133,136-137).
Regarding claim 26, Popovich in view of Escuti further in view of Roes teaches a light beam-steering engine as defined in claim 25, and further teaches: wherein the polarization grating in the second operational mode is configured to preserve a polarization of the light beam incident on the polarization grating, wherein the second propagation direction defines a non-zero angle with the first propagation direction (Roes, Fig. 13F & ¶ 133, incident light transmitted on axis in the zero order direction when LCPG 1301 is in the on state; ¶ 137, applied voltage removes grating and permits incident light to pass directly through LCPG 1301 “without any change of polarization state”).
Regarding claim 34, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the method of claim 33. Although Popovich in ¶ 6 teaches the SBG has different diffraction efficiencies for P polarized and S polarized light, Popovich does not expressly identify the SBG optical element as either one of a polarization grating and a polarization selector. However, Roes teaches the limitation in Figs. 13A-13F, LCPG 1301; ¶ 133, “liquid crystal polarization gratings” of LCPG 1301. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical element of Popovich in view of Escuti with the polarization grating of Roes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to electrically control both beam polarization and propagation direction, thereby yielding a method with greater diffraction efficiency, lower scattering, and wider steering angles (Roes, ¶¶ 127, 132-133, 136-137).
Regarding claim 35, Popovich in view of Escuti further in view of Roes teaches the method of claim 34, and further teaches: wherein the optical element includes a polarization grating, in the first operational mode the polarization grating is configured to alter a polarization of the light beam and alter a propagation angle thereof, wherein the first propagation direction forms a first non-nil angle with a direction of incidence of the light beam on the polarization grating (Roes, Figs. 13A-13F, LCPG 1301; ¶ 133, element 1301 as a liquid crystal polarization grating), in the first operational mode the polarization grating is configured to alter a polarization of the light beam (Roes, Figs. 13D-13E, LCPG 1301 in voltage removed diffracting state; ¶ 136, “the handedness of circular polarized light is changed to the opposite state”) and alter a propagation angle thereof (Roes, Figs. 13D-13E, LCPG 1301 directing light into a first diffraction order; ¶ 135), wherein the first propagation direction forms a first non-nil angle with a direction of incidence of the light beam on the polarization grating (Roes, Figs. 13D-13E, first order output from LCPG 1301; ¶ 137, 10 degree diffraction angle).
Regarding claim 36, Popovich in view of Escuti further in view of Roes teaches the method of claim 35, and further teaches: wherein the polarization grating in the second operational mode is configured to preserve a polarization of the light beam incident on the polarization grating, wherein the second propagation direction defines a non-zero angle with the first propagation direction (Roes, Fig. 13F & ¶ 133, incident light transmitted on axis in the zero order direction when LCPG 1301 is in the on state; ¶ 137, applied voltage removes grating and permits incident light to pass directly through LCPG 1301 “without any change of polarization state”).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovich in view of Escuti further in view of Hall (US 20190075281 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Popovich in view of Escuti teaches the LIDAR of claim 40, further teaches: including an optical path between the receiver and the coarse [stage] (Popovich, ¶ 52). However, Popovich in view of Escuti does not teach: [an optical path between the receiver] “and fine steering stages.” On the other hand, Hall teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 67-68 & Fig. 4A, routing reflected light from coarse element 428 through fine element 418 and then to detector 436. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver optical path topology of Popovich in view of Escuti with the teachings of Hall with a reasonable expectation of success in order to route received light through both the coarse and fine steering stages along a common transmit and receive path, thereby yielding a system with fewer components, reduced background ambient light, and improved detector sensitivity (Hall, ¶¶ 56, 67, 72).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: English (US 20200271841 A1) which discloses a hybrid beam steering architecture in which liquid crystal polarization gratings provide coarse, discrete steering across a field of view while a MEMS raster scanner provides finer steering within narrower angular regions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights