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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4 and 10 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 4 claims a quarter-wave plate (QWP) between the MOE and optical system. However, Claim 1 already claims an MOE performing the function of a QWP (switching light between linear and circular polarization). Adding a QWP to the invention of Claim 1 would only switch the polarization back to what it was before entering the QWP. Thus, there is no reason to do so. In the specification, it appears this QWP is added when the MOE does not perform polarization (page 11-12) and only collimates light, but that is not what the claim recites, as Claim 4 is dependent on Claim 1, which states the MOE polarizes the light.
Claim 10 recites “wherein […] ranging information is not utilized by the system.” However, both Claim 1 and Claim 10 have already defined the system as “a/the ranging system.” Thus, it is unclear how a ranging system can not use ranging information.
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, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19. rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1) in view of Deng (AcsNano).
Claim 1: Avci teaches a ranging system, comprising:
a source of polarized light configured to generate an emitted light beam (Fig. 2, FMCW LiDAR PIC transmitting to PBS 204 to polarize light and Col 6, lines 25-30);
a metasurface optical element (MOE) positioned to receive the emitted light beam from the source of polarized light and configured to transform the emitted light beam from having linear polarization to having circular polarization of a first handedness (Fig. 2, polarization wave plate (i.e.: quarter wave plate) 209 and Col 6, lines 45-61);
an optical element positioned to receive the emitted light beam from the MOE and direct the emitted light beam toward a target (Fig. 2, scanner 210);
wherein the emitted light beam reflects off the target, and returns as a reflected light beam to be passed by the optical element back through the MOE as having circular polarization of a second handedness opposite to the first handedness (Col 6, lines 45-61);
wherein the MOE is positioned to receive the reflected light beam from the optical element and configured to transform the reflected light beam back to having the linear polarization (Col 6, line 62-Col 7, line 1);
a sensor configured to sense the reflected light beam (Fig. 2 - PWP 212 and Retro-reflector 213).
Avci does not teach an MOE, instead just teaching a polarization wave plate (Fig. 2, plate 209).
Deng teaches a metasurface quarter-wave-plate (PDF, abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metasurface QWP, as taught by Deng, in place of the polarization waveplate, as taught by Avci, because, as Deng teaches, metasurfaces allow for efficient manipulation of light without bulky optics (pg 1).
Claim 2: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system of claim 1, wherein the optical element comprises a scanner positioned to receive the emitted light beam after transmission through the MOE and configured to direct the emitted light beam toward the target and scan the emitted light beam across the target in a scan pattern, and to de-scan the reflected light beam reflected back from the target before transmission through the MOE (Fig. 2, scanner 210 and Col 6, lines 45-67).
Claim 5: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system of claim 1, but not wherein the circular polarization of the first handedness is left-hand circular polarization (LHCP) and the circular polarization of the second handedness is right-hand circular polarization (RHCP).
However, Avci, as modified, teaches the opposite, where the circular polarization of the second handedness is left-hand circular polarization (LHCP) and the circular polarization of the first handedness is right-hand circular polarization (RHCP) (Fig. 2, optical beams 203 and 211).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip the handedness of each polarization in Avci, as modified, to reach the claimed invention because this is simply a reversal of parts as the two polarizations are reversed (See MPEP 2144.04.VI).
Claim 6: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system of claim 1, wherein the circular polarization of the second handedness is left-hand circular polarization (LHCP) and the circular polarization of the first handedness is right-hand circular polarization (RHCP) (Fig. 2, 3 optical beams 203 and 211).
Claims 11, 12, 16, and 17: As Claims 11, 12, 16, and 17 are method claims corresponding to Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, see rejections above.
Claim 19: Avci, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the polarization of the transmitted and reflected light beams is orthogonal in the optical or electromagnetic sense to the polarization of the incident light beam (Fig. 2, light leaving FMCW LiDAR P-polarized and going into PWP 212 S-polarized).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1) in view of Deng (AcsNano), further in view of Sparbert (US 20160223654 A1).
Claim 3: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system according to Claim 2. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Sparbert does teach wherein the scanner comprises a micromirror ([0001] – micromirror scanner).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the micromirror, as taught by Sparbet, in the system as taught by Avci, as modified, because micromirrors are well known in the art as a scanning method (See Sparbet [0003]).
Claim 13: Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 3. Thus, see rejection above.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1) in view of Deng (AcsNano), further in view of Uthoff (US 11567390 B1), further in view of Hoashi (US 20140078489 A1).
Claim 4: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system of Claim 1. Avci, as modified, does not teach further comprising a quarter-wave plate positioned between the MOE and the optical element.
Uthoff teaches wherein the MOE functions as a collimator (Col 6, lines 10-15).
As stated in the above 112(b) rejection, Claim 4 refers to an embodiment in the specification wherein the MOE is not a polarizer, and just a collimator. Thus, this is what will be rejected.
It would be obvious to use the MOE as a collimator as this allows the light to be further refined, and using an MOE allows for further tuning of the light (Uthoff Col 6, lines 10-15).
Avci, as modified, does not teach the MOE (here a collimator) between a quarter wave plate and optical element.
Hoashi teaches an optical radar in which light passes through a colimate lens (Fig. 1, lens 5), a polarizing beam splitter which converts the light to circularly polarized light (Fig. 1, beam splitter 9 and [0033]) and to a scanner (Fig. 1, scanner 12). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the order of these could be changed such that the light passes through the polarizing beam splitter before the collimator, and thus meet the claim limitation (See MPEP 2144.04.VI – rearrangement of parts).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the arrangement, as taught by Hoashi, in the system as taught by Avci, as modified, because different arrangements of such elements would be known in the art to yield predictable results.
Claim 15: As Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 4, see rejection above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1) in view of Deng (AcsNano), in view of Meyer (US 20230018486 A1).
Claim 7: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system of Claim 1. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Meyer does teach, the source of polarized light comprises one or more VCSELs or Edge-Emitting Lasers (EELs) ([0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the VCSELs, as taught by Meyer, in the system as taught by Avci, as modified, because VCSELs are a well known component in the art, commercially available, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1), in view of Deng (AcsNano), in view of Uthoff (US 11567390 B1).
Claim 8: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system according to Claim 1. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Uthoff does teach, wherein the MOE also functions to collimate the emitted light beam (Col 6, lines 10-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the MOE as a collimator, as taught by Uthoff, in addition to the MOE as a polarizer, as taught by Avci, as modified, because, as Avci, as modified, teaches (Specifically Yadong), an MOE allows for polarization control and wavefront shaping (Yadong pg. 1) and collimating is a type of beam shaping that allows for better imaging.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1), in view of Deng (AcsNano), in view of Abe (US 20200081097 A1).
Claim 9: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system according to Claim 1. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Abe does teach wherein the sensor is a line sensor ([0063]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the line sensor, as taught by Abe, in the system as taught by Avci, as modified, since, as line sensors scan multiple pixels at once (in a line), this allows for faster scanning.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1), in view of Deng (AcsNano), in view of Noble (EP 4060978 A1).
Claim 10: Avci, as modified, teaches the ranging system according to Claim 1. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Noble does teach, where only imaging, light detection, or measurement is performed by the system, and time-of-flight or ranging information is not utilized by the system (Abstract, camera and image sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the camera, as taught by Noble, instead of the ranging system, as taught by Avci, as modified, because all components above can easily be used in a camera (MOE, polarizers, etc) and would be known in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1), in view of Deng (AcsNano), in view of Redman (US 3906499 A).
Claim 14: Avci, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Redman does teach wherein the scanning and de-scanning are performed using an acousto-optic modulator (Col 3, lines 9-12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the acousto-optic modulator, as taught by Redman, in place of the scanner as taught by Avci, as modified, because, as Redman states, this is well known in the art (Redman Col 3, lines 9-12).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avci (US 11156715 B1), in view of Deng (AcsNano), in view of Shalita (US 20240319326 A1).
Claim 18: Avci, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11. Avci, as modified, does not teach, but Shalita does teach, wherein the polarization of the transmitted and reflected light beams is diagonal ([0276]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the diagonal polarizations, as taught by Shalita, in the method as taught by Avci, as modified, because different linear polarizations would be well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Also, this partially falls under rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04.VI), as the polarization states are simply being rotated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights