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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a spurious “4” is inserted before “wherein” on the second line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “LIDAR” should not be in quotation marks.
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 7, 10 and 17, and claim 8 as dependent on claim 7, 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 claims 7-8 and 10, the phrase "optionally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “replay field constitutes less than 50%”, and the claim also recites “such as less than 30%”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Clarification and correction of the claims are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartlett et al. (US 2017/0003392).
With regard to claim 1, Bartlett et al. disclose (see Fig. 17 & para. [0072]) a LIDAR system for surveying a scene, the system comprising:
A spatial light modulator (1703, DMD which functions as a spatial light modulator, para. [0039]) configured to display a diffractive pattern comprising a hologram of a light footprint, comprising an array of light features;
a light source (laser 1705) configured to illuminate the diffractive pattern to form a holographic reconstruction of the light footprint, wherein the holographic reconstruction of the light footprint is projected onto the scene;
a display driver (processor 1735 or other programmable device coupled to memory 1737, paras. [0049] & [0058]) configured to control the spatial light modulator and change the diffractive pattern with time such that each light feature of the array of light features scans a respective sub-area of a plurality of sub-areas of the scene; and
a detection system comprising a plurality of light detection elements (detectors 1721, 1723, 1724), wherein the detection system is configured such that each light detection element detects light from a respective individual field of view within the scene and each sub-area of the scene contains a plurality of individual fields of view.
With regard to claim 19, Bartlett et al. disclose a method of operating a LIDAR for surveying a scene, the method comprising (see Fig. 17):
dividing a field of view into a plurality of sub-areas of the scene (e. g. individual beam positions covered during the scan, para. [0030]);
displaying a diffractive pattern comprising a hologram of a light footprint on a spatial light modulator, wherein the light footprint comprises an array of light features (para. [0039]);
illuminating the diffractive pattern to form a holographic reconstruction of the light footprint (with laser 1705) and projecting the reconstructed light footprint onto the scene;
controlling the spatial light modulator to change the diffractive pattern with time, such that each light feature of the array of light features scans a respective sub-area of the scene (paras. [0049] & [0058]);
detecting light by a plurality of light detecting elements (detectors 1721, 1723, 1724), wherein each light detecting element is arranged configured to receive light from a respective individual field of view within the scene, and
configuring the plurality of light detecting elements so that each sub-area of the scene contains a plurality of individual fields of view of the light detecting elements.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, the plurality of sub-areas form a substantially continuous area and the light features comprises a scanning line and/or a plurality of parallel scanning lines (scan pattern, Fig. 16).
With regard to claim 4, the laser is operated to be eye safe (para. [0050]).
With regard to claims 5, 10, and 11 the display driver changes the diffractive pattern in order to scan sub-areas of the scene (para. [0062]).
With regard to claims 6 and 9, the replay plan is an x-y (horizontal and vertical) plane separated from the spatial light modulator by a propagation distance, the grating function comprising a horizontal direction grating and vertical direction grating (paras. [0046-0047]).
With regard to claim 13, an optical system such as a lens is configured to magnify sub-areas (afocal lens to expand field of view, para. [0050]).
With regard to claim 14, it is inherent that the first-order holographic replay field is formed from a periodicity of an array of light features.
With regard to claim 15, the detectors are configured to detect light features of the zero-order holographic replay field (central image) and a part of a first order holographic replay field (see Fig. 8C and para. [0051]).
With regard to claim 18, it is inherent that for a hologram such as shown in Fig. 8, an intensity of light features varies with distance from a propagation axis of the projected light.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on Jan. 13, 2023 and July 14, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-8 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cole and Eckstein et al. disclose generated holograms for scanning LIDAR, Sickler discloses free-space beam steering using spatial light modulators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645