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 June 20, 2024 (x3); September 9, 2024 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bills et al. (US 2018/0062345 - Bills) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2024/0111030 - Kobayashi).
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
an optical substrate (Bills Fig. 1 - 23);
an active diffraction grating (Bills Fig. 1 - 34; Fig. 5 - 34; para. [0069]), which is fixed to the optical substrate (Bills Fig. 1) 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]) disposed on the optical substrate 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 optical surface is a lens or other collimating elements/surfaces known in the art (Bills para. [0049]), Bills doesn’t specify the collimator is specfically a metasurface.
In the same field of endeavor 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 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 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 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 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 6, Bills in view of 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 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 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 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 fixed to an optical substrate (Bills Fig. 1 - 23), and an optical surface disposed on the substrate 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 substrate is a lens or other collimating elements/surfaces known in the art (Bills para. [0049]), Bills doesn’t specify the collimator is a metasurface.
In the same field of endeavor 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 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 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 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 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 14, Bills in view of 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 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 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]).
Claims 5 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bills and Kobayashi as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Lipchak et al. (US 5,126,869 - Lipchak).
As to claims 5 and 13, Bills in view of Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 4 and 12, but doesn’t specify the liquid crystal grating is a first LC grating and second LC grating to deflect the beams in perpendicular directions.
In the same field of endeavor Lipchak teaches beam steering devices with 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide perpendicular deflection since, as taught by Lipchak, such steering allows for controlling the vertical and horizontal deflection (Lipchak Fig. 2; col. 25-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Remez et al. (US 12,313,812); Diaz et al. (US 12,025,771; 2022/0317438); Chen et al. (US 10,362,295; 2018/0084241); Mor et al. (US 2016/0025993); Ovadia et al. (US 2025/0321472) are cited as additional examples of beam steering devices.
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).
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, 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 January 22, 2026