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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 ln. 1: “further comprising…” appears instead of “wherein the beam-steering device further comprises…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 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 13 recites “applying voltage to the third switchable liquid crystal layer and the third switchable liquid layer”. The “third switchable liquid crystal layer” and the “third switchable liquid layer” lack antecedent basis and it is unclear what these elements are. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret as “a third switchable liquid crystal layer included in the third polarization selector.” and “a fourth switchable liquid crystal layer included in the fourth polarization selector.”
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 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olivier US 20220026540 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Olivier teaches a LiDAR system comprising:
a light detector having a field of view (receiving stage 12 and receiver 34 with APDs , Fig. 11, [0031, 41-44, 72]);
a beam-steering device (beam-steering engine 28, Figs. 3-7, [0032]); and
a light emitter aimed at the beam-steering device (transmitting stage 14 and laser 30 in Figs. 2-3, [0031, 41-44]);
the beam-steering device being aimed to emit light from the light emitter into a field of illumination overlapping the field of view (Fig. 11, [0039, 72]);
the beam-steering device including two beam-steering stages each having a polarization grating, the polarization gratings being designed to diffract light from the light emitter based on the polarization state of the light received by the polarization grating (second (22) and third (24) beam steering stages can be identical, Figs. 3-5, [0002-7, 36, 40, 46-48]);
the beam-steering device including a switchable polarization selector designed to change the polarization state of the light to move the field of illumination relative to the field of view (polarization selection 46, Fig. 5a, [0002-7, 36, 46]).
Regarding claim 2, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 1, wherein each switchable polarization selector includes a switchable liquid crystal layer operable to be switched between a first state that does not substantially affect the polarization of light traveling therethrough and a second state that alters the polarization of the light traveling therethrough based on voltage applied to the switchable liquid crystal layer ([0002, 46, 48, 76]).
Regarding claim 3, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 2, further comprising a controller programmed to selectively apply voltage to the switchable liquid crystal layers of the switchable polarization selectors ([0043, 48-49, 66-67, 76]).
Regarding claim 4, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 2, wherein each polarization grating include a switchable liquid crystal layer that diffracts incident light based on applied voltage to the polarization grating ([0002, 40, 46-48, 58]).
Regarding claim 5, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 4, further comprising a controller programmed to selectively apply voltage to the switchable liquid crystal layers of the switchable polarization selectors and to selectively apply voltage to the switchable liquid crystal layers of the polarization gratings ([0043, 46-49, 66-67, 76]).
Regarding claim 6, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 2, wherein the switchable polarization selector is a wave plate ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the polarization grating includes a passive liquid crystal layer (polarization gratins can be liquid polarization gratings and can be passive, [0038, 46, 54]).
Regarding claim 8, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the beam-steering stages includes two switchable wave plates and polarization gratings in alternative arrangement (each stage has a polarization selector which can be a waveplate and a polarization grating in that order and the third stage can be identical to the first stage, [0040, 46, 48, 56]).
Regarding claim 10, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the field of illumination is smaller than the field of view (light directed to only a portion of the field of view in Fig. 11, [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Olivier teaches a method comprising:
adjusting the aim of a beam-steering device relative to a field of view of a light detector ([0072-76]) by
adjusting a first polarization selector of a first beam-steering stage of the beam-steering device and/or adjusting a second polarization selector of a second beam-steering stage of the beam-steering device ([0043, 46-49, 66-67, 72-76]);
activating a light emitter aimed at a beam-steering device to emit light into the field of view of a light detector (laser 30 in Fig. 3, [0041, 48, 64, 70-76, 89]); and
detecting light returned from the field of view with the light detector (APDs 34 in Fig. 3, [41, 64, 70-76]).
Regarding claim 12, Olivier teaches the method as set forth in claim 11, wherein the first polarization selector includes a first switchable liquid crystal layer and the second polarization selector includes a second switchable liquid crystal layer and wherein adjusting the aim of the beam-steering device includes selectively applying voltage to the first switchable liquid crystal layer and the second switchable liquid crystal layer (each stage has a polarization selector with a switchable liquid crystal layer and controller adjusts direction of emitted light based on input signals, [0002, 46, 48, 72-76, 83-84]).
Regarding claim 13, Olivier teaches the method as set forth in claim 12, further comprising a first polarization grating adjacent the first polarization selector and including a third polarization selector, and a second polarization grating adjacent the second polarization selector and including fourth polarization selector, and wherein adjusting the aim of the beam-steering device includes selectively applying voltage to the third switchable liquid crystal layer and the third switchable liquid layer (beam-steering stages can each include a polarization selector and a polarization grating adjacent to the selector, [0040, 46, 48, 56]; more than three or less than three steering stages can be used, [0033]; controller adjusts direction of emitted light based on input signals, [0002, 46, 48, 72-76, 83-84]).
Regarding claim 14, Olivier teaches the method as set forth in claim 11, further comprising adjusting the aim of the beam-steering device relative to the field of view to various discrete positions and detecting light returned from the field of view with the light detector at each of the discrete positions (controller adjusts direction of emitted light based on input signals, [0002, 46, 48, 72-76, 83-84]).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier US 20220026540 A1 in view of Baribault US 20220229190 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Olivier teaches the LiDAR system as set forth in claim 1,
Olivier does not explicitly teach but Baribault teaches wherein the light detector includes a 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional array of photodetectors ([0090]).
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 Olivier such that the light detector includes a 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional array of photodetectors similar to Baribault with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping increase the size of the field of view.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier US 20220026540 A1 in view of Shapira US 20210389431 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Olivier teaches the method as set forth in claim 14, further comprising generating a scene at each discrete position based on the light detected by the light detector ([0075])
Olivier does not explicitly teach but Shapira teaches combining the scenes (combining data from different scanning angles to create a larger scene, [0003]).
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 Olivier to include combining the scenes similar to Shapira with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of producing a more complete view of the field of view and objects nearby.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Escuti US 20120188467 A1 teaches series of liquid crystal polarization selectors and gratings (Figs. 2, 6-10, 16-18)
Hohmann US 20230243929 A1 teaches beam steering with liquid crystal polarization selectors and grating ([0121])
Baribault US 20220026576 A1 teaches beam steering with liquid crystal polarization selectors and grating (Figs. 5-10, [0116, 135]; [0135] teaches at least 5 steering stages)
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