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 .
This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 7/20/2026.
Cancellation of claim 11, filed 7/20/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification and to claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16, 18-20, filed 7/20/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
The reply filed on 7/20/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the 7/14/2026 interview.
Pg. 9 of the Remarks states
“Applicant and Examiner discussed the objections to the specification, claims, and drawings, and agreed that the suggested amendments to the specifications and claims would be sufficient to overcome the respective objections.”
However, this is incorrect – no specification corrections were discussed during the interview.
Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of THREE (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a), but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133).
Due to the amendments, the previous drawing objections, claim objections, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
The specification objections are maintained due to a number of remaining issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues amended limitations for claims 1 and 15, stating that
“during the Interview, the Examiner and Applicant agreed that the amendment to claim 1 would be sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, neither Schumtz nor Raeker teach or suggest amended claim 1”.
This is incorrect. As noted in the Examiner Interview Summary, filed 7/17/2026, Examiner noted that, while previous grounds of rejection may be overcome, Schumtz provides other teachings/ embodiments which were not previously relied upon, but which may yet apply to the amended limitations for claims 1 and 15. Examiner maintains this position – see updated rejections below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to, because of at least the following informalities:
In ¶ 24, line 2, “wherein: first metasurface is” should read “wherein: the first metasurface is”
In ¶s 37 and 38, “another embodiments” should read “another embodiment” or “other embodiments”
In ¶ 46, “may be referred as” should read “may be referred to as”
In ¶ 47, the first sentence is malformed and unclear
Examiner notes that the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is further advised that, in response to the above objections, a substitute specification excluding the claims will be required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a), because the number or nature of the amendments (through multiple rounds of revision) will render it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5-7, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz and Schiller (US 5581408, hereinafter “Schumtz”) in view of Raeker and Grbic (US 20210063605, hereinafter “Raeker”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Schumtz discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; col. 4 line 28 to col. 8 line 32) a system (10) and a method for deflecting an optical beam (30), the system (10) comprising:
a first substrate (22);
a first microlens array (or microlens module, MLM, 14) fabricated on a surface of the first substrate (22);
a second substrate (26) parallel with the first substrate (22);
a second microlens array (MLM 16) fabricated on a surface of the second substrate (26); and
an actuator configured to translate one of the first substrate (22) and the second substrate (26) relative to the other of the first substrate (22) and the second substrate (26) by a first translation distance (Dx or Δx in the cited text, Δχ in FIG. 2) in a first direction parallel to the surface of the first substrate (22) and the surface of the second substrate (26) (col. 6 lines 37-41: “MLM 16 [associated with substrate 26] is displaced laterally in the Figure relative to MLM 14 [associated with substrate 22]”; note that such lateral displacement necessarily implies an actuator is present to supply the movement),
wherein the first translation distance (FIG. 2’s Δχ) corresponds to a first target deflection angle (J or θ in the cited text) of the optical beam (30) (col. 6 lines 30-33: “If, however, the second MLM is displaced slightly, each ray will then be deviated through some angle determined by the relative displacement of the two MLM's.”).
Schumtz, in the first/Galilean embodiment (optical system 10) cited above, does not disclose a first metasurface and a second metasurface (as noted above, Schumtz details beam steering methods using microlens arrays – which precede more modern approaches involving metasurfaces), nor do they disclose wherein the first metasurface and the second metasurface are provided in a confocal arrangement to provide a focal plane between the first metasurface and the second metasurface.
Schumtz, in a second/Keplerian embodiment (micro-optical multiplet, MOM, 66), discloses (see FIG. 6; col. 9 lines 16-59) wherein the first microlens array (unlabeled, opposite to MLM 72 in FIG. 6) and the second microlens array (MLM 72) are provided in a confocal arrangement to provide a focal plane between the first microlens array and the second microlens array (MLM 72). (In the cited text, Schumtz’s notes their disclosure encompasses “telescopes [which] may be Galilean or Keplerian”, i.e. which may be confocal as well).
Schumtz and Raeker commonly relate to beam steering optical systems.
Raeker discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 30-35) beam steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (¶ 31: “A compound metaoptic is a collection of individual metasurfaces arranged along an axis, analogous to an optical compound lens”, “two paired metasurfaces can be used to achieve both phase control (beam steering) and amplitude control (beam shaping) in a low-loss, low-profile manner”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Schumtz’s teachings in a confocal arrangement, in order to provide convenient/reliable access to the intermediate focal plane.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Schumtz and Raeker, in order to perform beam steering in a low-loss, low-profile manner (Raeker ¶ 31).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15.
Schumtz, in the first embodiment (optical system 10) cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; col. 4 line 28 to col. 8 line 32) wherein: the first microlens array (MLM 14) is separated from the second microlens array (MLM 16) by an optical gap (M or d in the cited text) extending in a third direction orthogonal to the first microlens array (MLM 14) and the second microlens array (MLM 16).
Recall also that Raeker described beam-steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (See regarding claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 5 and the method of claim 17.
Schumtz, in the first embodiment (optical system 10) cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 1-2; col. 4 line 28 to col. 8 line 32) wherein the optical gap (M or d in the cited text) between the first microlens array (MLM 14) and the second microlens array (MLM 16) corresponds to a sum of a focal length of the first substrate (22) with the first microlens array (MLM 14) and a focal length of the second substrate (26) with the second microlens array (MLM 16). (See especially eqns. 3-4 or 22-23)
Recall also that Raeker had described beam-steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (See regarding claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 6.
Raeker further discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 30-35) wherein the optical gap (L) is less than 50 microns. (¶ 34: “wavelength-scale distance L”. See also the Abstract: “the metaoptic can operate without lenses and be low profile: potentially having a thickness on the order of a few wavelengths or less.” Thus metasurfaces 11 and 12 of compound metaoptic 10 are separated by an optical gap of ~
O
[1 micron])
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wen et al (NPL entitled High-NA achromatic metalenses by inverse design, hereinafter “Wen”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Schumtz does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface is patterned such that each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface has optical characteristics equivalent to characteristics of cylindrical lenses.
Schumtz and Wen commonly relate to wavefront manipulation for beam control.
Wen discloses wherein each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface is patterned such that each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface has optical characteristics equivalent to characteristics of cylindrical lenses. (See Abstract through Methods on pgs. 1-3, including FIGs. 1-2; Wen provides a multifunctional metasurface that combines nanofeatures associated with either spherical and cylindrical lens types, such that the resulting “metasurface lens can work either as a spherical lens or a cylindrical lens, depending on the polarization state of the incident light” (pg. 1). This demonstrates a high degree of customizability in designing metasurfaces to impart desired phase profiles and perform controlled wavefront transformations associated with different lens types/functionalities.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Schumtz and Wen, in order to design metasurfaces that replicate cylindrical lens behavior and support line focus, as well as directional beam conditioning and aberration control along a major axis.
Regarding claim 3, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Schumtz does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface is patterned such that each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface has optical characteristics substantially equivalent to characteristics of either spherical lenses or aspherical lenses.
Schumtz and Wen commonly relate to wavefront manipulation for beam control.
Wen discloses wherein each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface is patterned such that each of the first metasurface and the second metasurface has optical characteristics equivalent to characteristics of either spherical lenses or aspherical lenses. (See Abstract through Methods on pgs. 1-3, especially FIGs. 1-2; Wen provides a multifunctional metasurface that combines nanofeatures associated with either spherical and cylindrical lens types, such that the resulting “metasurface lens can work either as a spherical lens or a cylindrical lens, depending on the polarization state of the incident light” (pg. 1). This demonstrates a high degree of customizability in designing metasurfaces to impart desired phase profiles and perform controlled wavefront transformations associated with different lens types/functionalities.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Schumtz and Wen, in order to design metasurfaces that replicate spherical lens behavior and support full-field focus, as well as symmetric beam conditioning and aberration control across the aperture.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker and Wen, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view Diaz et al (US 20220317438 A1, hereinafter “Diaz”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1.
Schumtz, in the first embodiment (optical system 10) cited above, further discloses wherein
there is a parallel relationship between the surface of the first substrate (22) and the surface of the second substrate (26)
translation distances (FIG. 2’s Δχ) determined based on associated target deflection angles (J or θ in the cited text) of the optical beam (30) (col. 6 lines 30-33: “If, however, the second MLM is displaced slightly, each ray will then be deviated through some angle determined by the relative displacement of the two MLM's.”).
Modified Schumtz does not explicitly disclose wherein
the actuator is further configured to translate one of the first substrate and the second substrate relative to the other of the first substrate and the second substrate by a second translation distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and parallel to the surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate; and
the second translation distance is determined based on a second target deflection angle of the optical beam.
Schumtz and Diaz commonly relate beam steering optical systems.
Diaz explicitly discloses (see FIG. 1B, ¶s 24-29) wherein
the actuator (steering actuator 195) is further configured to translate one of the first substrate and the second substrate (i.e. of metasurface 190, which “may be formed in a refractive layer. The refractive layer may include a refractive semiconductor layer, a refractive insulator […]” – ¶ 24) relative to the other of the first substrate and the second substrate (i.e. of metasurface 190) by a second translation distance in a second direction (“e.g. y-axis”) orthogonal to the first direction (“e.g. x-axis”) and parallel to the surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate (i.e. of metasurface 190); and
the second translation distance (i.e. along the y-axis) is determined based on a second target deflection angle of the optical beam (laser light 153).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Schumtz and Diaz, in order to provide a full two-dimensional domain of translations and maintain access to a wide range of beam steering/shaping configurations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chung and Miller (NPL entitled High-NA achromatic metalenses by inverse design, hereinafter “Chung”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1.
Schumtz, in the first embodiment (optical system 10) cited above, further discloses wherein a numerical aperture of the first microlens array (14) and a numerical aperture of the second microlens array (16) are tuned to influence optical artifacts, aberrations, etc. (Note the general statement on col. 8 lines 59-61: “The relative speeds of the positive and negative lenses can be chosen to minimize vignetting and crosstalk”; note also that the “speed” of a lens is directly related to the aperture)
Recall also that Raeker described beam-steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (See regarding claim 1 above).
Modified Schumtz does not disclose a numerical aperture of about 0.2 and a numerical aperture of about 0.6.
Schumtz and Chung commonly relate to beam steering optical systems.
Chung discloses a numerical aperture of about 0.2 and a numerical aperture of about 0.6. (See secs. 4, 6.4-6.5 and FIGs. 8-9,10-11; metalenses with numerical apertures NA = {0.1, 0.2, …, 0.9} are detailed)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Schumtz and Chung, in order to customize numerical apertures for managing beam shapes, aberration, artifacts, etc., while mitigating typical efficiency-aperture tradeoffs (Chung Abstract) and preserving optical power throughput.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view McManamon and Ataei (WO 2021211163 A1, hereinafter “McManamon”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15.
Modified Schumtz does not disclose the further comprising:
a memory storing a lookup table including amounts of translations of the first substrate or the second substrate and corresponding deflection angles of the optical beam; and
a processor programmed to determine the first translation distance based on the first target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table.
Schumtz and McManamon commonly relate to beam steering optical systems.
McManamon discloses the further comprising:
a memory storing a lookup table including amounts of translations of the first substrate or the second substrate and corresponding deflection angles of the optical beam; and
a processor programmed to determine the first translation distance based on the first target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table.
(see ¶ 124; regarding operating diagram 3202 that “maps actuator positions [i.e. amounts of translations] to logical steering axes values [i.e. deflection angles]” and “may be utilized to determine actuator positions to provide selected steering solutions”
Note also that “information such as the operating diagram 3202 may be stored on a computer readable medium, for example, as an equation, look-up table […]” with “execution by a controller, circuit, processor […]”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Schumtz and McManamon, in order to implement beam steering in two dimensions with sufficient steering angle capability while accommodating installation tolerances, accommodating actuator position options, etc. (McManamon ¶s 124, 122).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, Wen, and Diaz, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view McManamon and Ataei (WO 2021211163 A1, hereinafter “McManamon”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 4.
Modified Schumtz does not disclose further comprising:
a memory storing a lookup table including amounts of translations of the first substrate or the second substrate and corresponding deflection angles of the optical beam; and
a processor programmed to:
determine the first translation distance based on the first target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table; and
determine the second translation distance based on the second target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table.
Schumtz and McManamon commonly relate to beam steering optical systems.
McManamon discloses the further comprising:
a memory storing a lookup table including amounts of translations of the first substrate or the second substrate and corresponding deflection angles of the optical beam; and
a processor programmed to:
determine the first translation distance based on the first target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table; and
determine the second translation distance based on the second target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table.
(see ¶ 124; regarding operating diagram 3202 that “maps actuator positions [i.e. amounts of translations] to logical steering axes values [i.e. deflection angles]” and “may be utilized to determine actuator positions to provide selected steering solutions”
Note also that “information such as the operating diagram 3202 may be stored on a computer readable medium, for example, as an equation, look-up table […]” with “execution by a controller, circuit, processor […]”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Schumtz and McManamon, in order to implement beam steering in two dimensions with sufficient steering angle capability while accommodating installation tolerances, accommodating actuator position options, etc. (McManamon ¶s 124, 122).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 1.
Modified Schumtz, incorporating Schumtz’s first and second embodiments (optical system 10, MOM 66) cited above, does not disclose the further comprising: an intermediate lens array disposed between the first metasurface and the second metasurface.
Schumtz, in a third embodiment (optical system 34), discloses (see FIGs. 3-4, col. 8 line 33 to col. 9 line 8) the further comprising: an intermediate lens array (MLM 42,44) disposed between the first microlens array (MLM 40) and the second microlens array (MLM 46).
Recall also that Raeker had described beam-steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (See regarding claim 1 above).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Schumtz’s embodiments, in order to adjust beam trajectories and accommodate, e.g., desirable beam profiles or size requirements via additional optical interfaces (see also Schumtz col. 8 line 56 to col. 9 line 8, describing a greater beam fill factor for optical system 34 than for system 10).
Regarding claim 14, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 12.
Schumtz, in the third embodiment (optical system 34) cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 3-4, col. 8 line 33 to col. 9 line 8) wherein the lens array (MLM 42,44) is configured to deflect beamlets from the first microlens array (MLM 40) to be incident upon the second microlens array (MLM 46).
Recall also that Raeker had described beam-steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (See regarding claim 1 above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Watson et al (NPL entitled Implementing Optical Phased Array Beam Steering with Cascaded Microlens Arrays, hereinafter “Watson”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Schumtz discloses the system of claim 12.
Modified Schumtz does not disclose wherein the lens array is disposed in the focal plane between the first metasurface and the second metasurface.
Schumtz and Watson commonly relate to beam steering optical systems.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watson discloses wherein the lens array is disposed in the focal plane between the first microlens array and the second microlens array. (See FIG. 1, annotated below. Note the crossing/focusing of light rays occurring at the intermediate (micro)lens array. )
Recall also that Raeker had described beam-steering with a compound metaoptic having a first metasurface (11) and a second metasurface (12), rather than with microlens arrays (See regarding claim 1 above).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Schumtz and Watson, in order to provide a high fill factor for efficient beam steering (Watson sec. 2) (and as Schumtz also discusses for system 34 of the third embodiment cited above, see col. 8 line 56 to col. 9 line 8)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view Diaz et al (US 20220317438 A1, hereinafter “Diaz”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Schumtz discloses the method of claim 15.
Schumtz, in the first embodiment (optical system 10) cited above, further discloses:
there is a parallel relationship between the surface of the first substrate (22) and the surface of the second substrate (26)
translation distances (FIG. 2’s Δχ) determined based on associated target deflection angles (J or θ in the cited text) of the optical beam (30) (col. 6 lines 30-33: “If, however, the second MLM is displaced slightly, each ray will then be deviated through some angle determined by the relative displacement of the two MLM's.”).
Modified Schumtz does not explicitly disclose the further comprising:
translating, by the actuator, one of the first substrate and the second substrate relative to the other of the first substrate and the second substrate by a second translation distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and parallel to the surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate; and
the second translation distance is determined based on a second target deflection angle of the optical beam.
Schumtz and Diaz commonly relate beam steering optical systems.
Diaz explicitly discloses (see FIG. 1B, ¶s 24-29) the further comprising:
translating, by the actuator (steering actuator 195), one of the first substrate and the second substrate (i.e. of metasurface 190, which “may be formed in a refractive layer. The refractive layer may include a refractive semiconductor layer, a refractive insulator […]” – ¶ 24) relative the other of the first substrate and the second substrate (i.e. of metasurface 190) by a second translation distance in a second direction (“e.g. y-axis”) orthogonal to the first direction (“e.g. x-axis”) and parallel to the surface of the first substrate and the surface of the second substrate (i.e. of metasurface 190); and
the second translation distance (i.e. along the y-axis) is determined based on a second target deflection angle of the optical beam (laser light 153).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Schumtz and Diaz, in order to provide a full two-dimensional domain of translations and maintain access to a wide range of beam steering/shaping configurations.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumtz in view of Raeker and Diaz, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view McManamon and Ataei (WO 2021211163 A1, hereinafter “McManamon”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Schumtz discloses the method of claim 16.
Modified Schumtz does not disclose the further comprising:
determining the first translation distance based on the first target deflection angle of the optical beam and a lookup table including amounts of translations of the first substrate or the second substrate and corresponding deflection angles of the optical beam; and
determining the second translation distance based on the second target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table.
Schumtz and McManamon commonly relate to beam steering optical systems.
McManamon discloses the further comprising:
determining the first translation distance based on the first target deflection angle of the optical beam and a lookup table including amounts of translations of the first substrate or the second substrate and corresponding deflection angles of the optical beam; and
determining the second translation distance based on the second target deflection angle of the optical beam and the lookup table.
(see ¶ 124; regarding operating diagram 3202 that “maps actuator positions [i.e. amounts of translations] to logical steering axes values [i.e. deflection angles]” and “may be utilized to determine actuator positions to provide selected steering solutions”
Note also that “information such as the operating diagram 3202 may be stored on a computer readable medium, for example, as an equation, look-up table […]” with “execution by a controller, circuit, processor […]”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Schumtz and McManamon, in order to implement beam steering in two dimensions with sufficient steering angle capability while accommodating installation tolerances, accommodating actuator position options, etc. (McManamon ¶s 124, 122).
Conclusion
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights