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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on February 19, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim April 20, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bills et al. (US 2018/0062345 - Bills; of record), Lipchak et al. (US 5,126,869 - Lipchak; of record), and Kobayashi et al. (US 2024/0111030 - Kobayashi; of record).
As to claim 1, Bills teaches an optoelectronic device (Bills Fig. 1; Fig. 5) comprising
an array of emitters configured to emit respective beams of optical radiation (Bills Fig. 1 - 20, 22; para. [0047] - VCELS);
a steering module (Bills Fig. 1 - 27, 34) mounted to intercept the emitted beams (Bills Fig. 1) and comprising
a transparent device (Bills Fig. 1 - 23);
an active diffraction grating (Bills Fig. 1 - 34; Fig. 5 - 34; para. [0069]) which is contained in the transparent device (Bills Fig. 5 - 34; para. [0069] - LC diffraction grating in the transparent device) and has a pitch that varies in response to an electrical signal applied thereto (Bills Fig. 1 - 34, 36; para. [0069], [0070] - control circuit (36) varies the diffraction grating pitch/period), so as to deflect the beams of optical radiation by a variable angle dependent upon the pitch (Bills Fig. 1 - 38; para. [0051]; Fig. 5 - 30, 44);
an optical surface (Bills Fig. 1 - 27; para. [0047], [0049]) formed on the transparent device (Bills Fig. 1 - 27, 34; Fig. 5 - 27, 34, 65; para. [0054]) and configured to collimate the beams of optical radiation so that the beams form a pattern of spots on a target scene (Bills Fig. 1 - 27, 28; para. [0047]);
a controller (Bills Fig. 1 - 36) coupled to vary the electrical signal applied to the active diffraction grating so as to shift the pattern of spots across the target scene (Bills Fig. 5 - 34; para. [0069]-[0070]).
While Bills teaches the diffraction grating is a liquid crystal type, Bills doesn’t detail the layers such that the liquid crystal (active diffractive grating) is encapsulated in a transparent envelope, and while Bills states the optical surface is a lens or other collimating elements/surfaces known in the art (Bills para. [0049]), Bills doesn’t specify the collimator is specifically a metasurface.
In the same field of endeavor Lipchak teaches LC active diffraction gratings with a transparent envelope (Lipchack Fig. 1 - 12, 14; col. 1:64-68; col. 2:1-2; col. 4:1-5) and Kobayashi teaches optoelectronic devices for steering beams having a collimator as metasurface (Kobayashi Fig. 2 - 113; para. [0087] - metalens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such transparent envelope since, as taught by Lipchak, such transparent windows allow for encapsulating the LC device (Lipchak Fig. 1 - 12, 14; col. 4:1-5) and to provide such collimating metasurface/metalens since, as taught by Kobayashi, such metalenses are well known in the art as collimating optics for beam steering devices (Kobayashi Fig. 2 - 113; para. [0087]).
As to claim 2, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Bills further teaches the emitters comprise VCSELs (Bills para. [0047]).
As to claim 3, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Bills further teaches the active diffraction grating comprises an electro-optical material (Bills para. [0044], [0069]).
As to claim 4, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Bills further teaches the electro-optical material comprises at least one liquid crystal (Bills para. [0044], [0069]).
As to claim 5, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lipchak further teaches first and second LC diffraction steering elements (Lipchak Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 2 - 10a, 10b; col. 1:65 - col 2:3; col. 4:52-64; col. 5:63-67; col. 6:15-20; col. 6:35-40) to deflect the beams in a first direction and second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Lipchak Fig. 2 - 10a, 10b, 34a, 34b, 36a, 36b).
As to claim 6, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Bills further teaches a receiver (Bills Fig. 5 - 32), which is configured to receive the optical radiation that is reflected from the pattern of spots on the target scene and to measure distances to points in the target scene responsive to the received optical radiation (Bills Fig. 5 - 32; para. [0048], [0050], [0052]).
As to claim 7, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Bills further teaches the receiver has a field of view having a first angular width (Bills Fig. 5 - 28; para. [0012], [0035]), while the pattern of spots extends of a second angular width (Bills Fig. 5 - 44, 52), which is less than half the first angular width (Bills Fig. 5 - 44, 52, 28; para. [0012], [0035]).
As to claim 8, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Bills further teaches the controller is configured to identify an area of interest with the field of view and to set the electrical signal so as to position the pattern of spots on the area of interest (Bills Fig. 1 - 30, 28; Fig. 5 - 30, 28; para. [0052]).
As to claim 9, Bills teaches a method for optical projection (Bills Fig. 1; Fig. 5) comprising;
directing an array of beams of optical radiation to impinge on a steering module (Bills Fig. 1 - 26, 27, 34), which comprises a transparent device (Bills Fig. 5 - 34 ,65; para. [0069]), an active diffraction grating (Bills Fig. 1 - 34; para. [0069]), which has a pitch that varies in response to an electrical signal applied thereto (Bills Fig. 5 - 34; para. [0069], [0070]) and is contained in the transparent device (Bills Fig. 5 - 34; para. [0069] - LC diffraction grating in the transparent device) and
an optical surface (Bills Fig. 1 - 27; para. [0047], [0049]) formed on the transparent device (Bills Fig. 1 - 27, 34; Fig. 5 - 27, 34, 65; para. [0054]) and configured to collimate the beams of optical radiation (Bills Fig. 1 - 27; para. [0047], [0049]) so that the beams form a pattern of spots on a target scene (Bills Fig. 5 - 44, 52, 28);
varying the electrical signal applied to the active diffraction grating so as to deflect the beams of optical radiation by a variable angle dependent on the pitch (Bills Fig. 1 - 34, 36; para. [0069], [0070]), thereby shifting the pattern of spots across the target scene (Bills Fig. 5 - 30, 44, 28).
While Bills teaches the diffraction grating is a liquid crystal type, Bills doesn’t detail the layers such that the liquid crystal (active diffractive grating) is encapsulated in a transparent envelope, and while Bills states the optical surface is a lens or other collimating elements/surfaces known in the art (Bills para. [0049]), Bills doesn’t specify the collimator is specifically a metasurface.
In the same field of endeavor Lipchak teaches LC active diffraction gratings with a transparent envelope (Lipchack Fig. 1 - 12, 14; col. 1:64-68; col. 2:1-2; col. 4:1-5) and Kobayashi teaches optoelectronic devices for steering beams having a collimator as metasurface (Kobayashi Fig. 2 - 113; para. [0087] - metalens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such transparent envelope since, as taught by Lipchak, such transparent windows allow for encapsulating the LC device (Lipchak Fig. 1 - 12, 14; col. 4:1-5) and to provide such collimating metasurface/metalens since, as taught by Kobayashi, such metalenses are well known in the art as collimating optics for beam steering devices (Kobayashi Fig. 2 - 113; para. [0087]).
As to claim 10, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Bills further teaches the beams are emitted by VCSELs (Bills para. [0047]).
As to claim 11, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Bills further teaches the electro-optical material comprises at least one liquid crystal (Bills para. [0044], [0069]).
As to claim 12, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Bills further teaches the electro-optical material comprises at least one liquid crystal (Bills para. [0044], [0069]).
As to claim 13, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Lipchak further teaches first and second LC diffraction steering elements (Lipchak Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 2 - 10a, 10b; col. 1:65 - col 2:3; col. 4:52-64; col. 5:63-67; col. 6:15-20; col. 6:35-40) to deflect the beams in a first direction and second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Lipchak Fig. 2 - 10a, 10b, 34a, 34b, 36a, 36b).
As to claim 14, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Bills further teaches receiving the optical radiation that is reflected from the pattern of spots on the target scene and to measure distances to points in the target scene responsive to the received optical radiation (Bills Fig. 5 - 32; para. [0048], [0050], [0052]).
As to claim 15, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Bills further teaches receiving the optical radiation comprises capturing the reflected optical radiation over a field of view having a first angular width (Bills Fig. 5 - 28; para. [0012], [0035]), while the pattern of spots extends of a second angular width (Bills Fig. 5 - 44, 52), which is less than half the first angular width (Bills Fig. 5 - 44, 52, 28; para. [0012], [0035]).
As to claim 16, Bills in view of Lipchak, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Bills further identifying an area of interest with the field of view and setting the electrical signal so as to position the pattern of spots on the area of interest (Bills Fig. 1 - 30, 28; Fig. 5 - 30, 28; para. [0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chen (US 11,474,410; 2022/0179280); Wu et al. (US 11,733,598; 2021/0173291); Chen et al. (US 2020/0228764); Chen et al. (US 2019/0258134); Chen et al. (US 2019/0101381) are cited as additional optoelectronic devices with beam steering and transparent envelopes.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights