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 is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 07/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8 " the beam-steering range" should read " the steering range "
In claim 20, lines 6-7 " the beam-steering range" should read " the steering range” and line 10 " the steering engine" should read " the beam-steering engine "
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected because in Fig. 9, “LCPG_12_1244_11_11122.txt” needs to be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,576 in view of Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1); Claims 8-16: ’576 in view of Steinberg and Hall et al. (US 20190075281 A1); Claims 17-18: ’576 in view of Steinberg, Hall, and Osterman et al. (US 2012/0044431 A1); Claim 19: ’576 in view of Steinberg, Hall, Osterman, and He et al. (Liquid Crystal Beam Steering Devices: Principles, Recent Advances, and Future Developments, Crystals 2019, 9, 292, June 5, 2019).
Take claim 1 as an example to show claim 1 (difference in bold) would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined by claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No 12,066,576.
Instant, Application No. 18/763500
U.S. Patent No. 12,066,576
Claim 1
Claims 1 and 12
A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus for scanning a scene, comprising:
A LIDAR apparatus for scanning a scene, comprising:
a transmitter stage configured to generate a light beam;
Claim 1: transmitter stage for generating a light beam,
a receiver stage;
Claim 1: receiver stage,
a beam-steering engine configured to steer the light beam received from the transmitter stage to scan at least a portion of the scene,
Claim 1: beam-steering engine configured to steer the light beam to scan at least a portion of the scene
beam-steering engine including an optical component,
Claim 1: second steering stage includes a polarization selector, polarization grating, and heating layer
the beam-steering engine responsive to a beam-steering signal to steer the light beam in a steering range
Claim 12: controller generates a succession of switching commands applied to the second steering stage
by performing angular deflection of the light beam in discrete steps within the steering range
Claim 1: second steering stage performs stepwise angular deflection within a second steering range
a controller
Claim 12: LIDAR apparatus further comprises a controller
controller comprising a data processor
Claim 12 recites a controller, but does not explicitly require a data processor
controller configured to receive input data describing a sub-portion of the scene to be scanned by the LIDAR apparatus
Claims 1 and 12 do not explicitly require receiving data identifying a selected sub-portion of the scene
controller configured to derive from the input data the beam-steering signal
Claim 12 generates switching commands, but does not explicitly require deriving those commands from the received sub-portion data
beam-steering signal configured to operate the beam-steering engine such that the light beam is directed at the sub-portion of the scene
Claim 1 generally scans at least a portion of the scene; claim 12 applies switching commands to the steering stage, but does not explicitly tie those commands to a sub-portion identified by received input data
Instant claim 1 differs from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,576 in that instant claim 1 further requires the controller to comprise a data processor configured to receive input data describing a sub-portion of the scene and derive from the input data the beam-steering signal such that the light beam is directed at the sub-portion of the scene. The beam-steering engine in the instant claim 1 is broader and the specific optical components of patent claim 1 fall within the broader “optical component” of instant claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of the LIDAR apparatus defined by claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,576 in accordance with Steinberg to configure the controller to receive input data identifying a sub-portion or region of interest of the scene and to derive the beam-steering control therefrom such that the light beam is directed toward the identified sub-portion, because Steinberg teaches that selectively directing increased sensing resources toward an identified region of interest permits more objects and/or more distant objects to be detected in the region of interest and can provide increased spatial and/or temporal resolution in that region.
Regarding claim 2, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,576, which depends from claim 1, further recites that the stepwise steering stage displaces the light beam in multiple discrete steps defining multiple angularly spaced propagation directions. Instant claim 2 further specifies that the multiple angular-deflection steps are provided while the light beam substantially remains within the selected sub-portion of the scene. Steinberg teaches that, after identifying a region of interest, the processor determines multiple instantaneous positions through which the light deflector is moved during a scan of that region. Accordingly, providing the patented multiple discrete steering steps while scanning within the selected sub-portion would have been an obvious variation of the patented beam-steering arrangement in view of Steinberg.
Regarding claim 3, claim 11 of the ’576 patent provides multiple discrete angular-deflection steps. Instant claim 3 further specifies that at least one of the steps is in a substantially horizontal direction. Steinberg teaches horizontal scanning and horizontal deflection of the beam (Fig. 11; [0147], [0259]). Accordingly, implementing one of the patented discrete steering steps in the horizontal direction would have been an obvious implementation for scanning the selected region of interest.
Regarding claim 4, claim 11 of the ’576 patent provides multiple discrete angular-deflection steps. Instant claim 4 further specifies that at least one step is in a substantially vertical direction. Steinberg teaches vertical scanning and vertical deflection of the beam (Fig. 11; [0147], [0259]). Accordingly, implementing one of the patented discrete steering steps in the vertical direction would have been an obvious implementation for scanning the selected region of interest.
Regarding claim 5, instant claim 5 further requires both substantially horizontal and substantially vertical angular-deflection steps. Steinberg teaches a two-dimensional scan in which the light deflector is pivoted about two orthogonal axes to provide horizontal and vertical beam deflection (Fig. 3B; Fig. 11; [0147], [0259]-[0260]). Accordingly, using the patented discrete steering arrangement to provide both horizontal and vertical steps would have been an obvious implementation for scanning different locations of a two-dimensional region of interest.
Regarding claim 6, instant claim 6 further requires the multiple angular-deflection steps to perform a periodic scan of the sub-portion. Steinberg teaches repeated scanning cycles of an identified region of interest and teaches increasing the frame rate to increase temporal resolution of the region of interest ([0374], [0377]). It would have been obvious to periodically repeat the patented stepwise scan of the selected sub-portion according to a frame rate because doing so provides more frequently updated depth information for the selected region.
Regarding claim 7, instant claim 7 further requires the excursion of the light beam to remain substantially within a boundary of the sub-portion. Steinberg teaches that a region of interest may be a defined region or sub-region of the LIDAR field of view and that processor 118 directs projected light toward the identified region and determines the positions through which the deflector moves during the ROI scan ([0360], [0363], [0367]). It would have been obvious to constrain the excursion of the patented beam-steering arrangement substantially within the identified ROI because doing so concentrates the available sensing resources on the selected region and avoids unnecessary projection into regions of lower interest.
Regarding claim 8, claim 12 of the ’576 patent, which depends from claim 1, recites a controller configured to generate a succession of switching commands applied to the stepwise steering stage. Instant claim 8 further specifies that the switching commands place the optical component in selectable operational states. Hall teaches a controller-controlled liquid-crystal half-waveplate and polarization grating that are selectively placed in different operational states by emission instructions (Hall, Fig. 3E; [0048]- [0049]). It would have been obvious to implement the patented switching commands using Hall's selectable operational states because Hall's arrangement provides electronically controllable, non-mechanical beam deflection among different steering states.
Regarding claim 9, the modification discussed for claim 8 is maintained. Claim 8 of the ’576 patent further recites that the second steering stage is configured to alter a polarization of the input light beam and alter a propagation angle thereof. Thus, the additional limitation of instant claim 9 requiring an operational state in which the optical component alters polarization does not patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention. Hall further confirms the predictable use of such a state by teaching that its active liquid-crystal half-waveplate changes the polarization of the incident beam.
Regarding claim 10, claim 9 of the ’576 patent recites that the polarization selector is configured to alter the handedness of circular polarization of an incident light beam. Thus, the additional handedness limitation of instant claim 10 does not patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention. The modification according to Steinberg for the inherited sub-portion limitation does not alter this polarization-dependent steering functionality.
Regarding claim 11, instant claim 11 further requires a second operational state in which the optical component preserves the handedness of circular polarization. Hall teaches that, in the inactive state, liquid-crystal half-waveplate 352 does not change the polarization of the incident light and therefore preserves its circular-polarization handedness (Hall [0048]). It would have been obvious to provide such a polarization-preserving operational state because retaining the incident handedness permits selection of the corresponding polarization-dependent diffraction state without requiring polarization conversion.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of the ’576 patent requires the second steering stage to include a polarization selector. Accordingly, the additional limitation of instant claim 12 is already present in the patented beam-steering arrangement and does not patentably distinguish the instant claimed invention. Steinberg remains relied upon for the inherited sub-portion/data-processing limitation of instant claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 10 of the ’576 patent defines first and second light-beam propagation directions disposed at an angle relative to one another and displacement of the beam from one propagation direction to the other in a discrete step. Instant claim 13 further characterizes this deflection as a selectable operational state of the optical component. Hall teaches that polarization grating 354 has a diffracting operational state producing a controlled non-zero diffraction angle (Hall, Fig. 3E; [0049]- [0050]). It would have been obvious to implement the patented discrete angular displacement using Hall's selectable diffracting state because such a state provides electronically selectable, non-mechanical angular beam steering.
Regarding claim 14, instant claim 14 further requires a second operational state in which the propagation direction is preserved such that the output beam is coincident with the incoming beam. Hall teaches a zero-diffraction operational state in which the incident light propagates through polarization grating 354 without angular deflection (Hall, Fig. 3E; [0049]- [0050]). It would have been obvious to provide the patented steering arrangement with such a pass-through state because it permits the existing beam direction to be maintained when additional angular deflection is not required while retaining selectable non-zero steering states when redirection is desired.
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of the ’576 patent expressly provides that the second steering stage includes a polarization grating. Instant claim 15 further specifies that the optical component includes a polarization grating. Accordingly, the additional limitation of instant claim 15 is already present in the patented claimed invention and does not patentably distinguish the claim; Steinberg remains relied upon for the inherited sub-portion/region-of-interest limitation.
Regarding claim 16, claim 7 of the ’576 patent expressly provides that the polarization grating is a liquid crystal polarization grating. Instant claim 16 further specifies that the polarization grating is a liquid crystal polarization grating. Accordingly, the additional limitation of instant claim 16 is already present in the patented claimed invention and does not patentably distinguish the claim; Steinberg remains relied upon for the inherited sub-portion/region-of-interest limitation.
Regarding claim 17, claim 13 of the ’576 patent, which depends from claim 12, recites a dwell-time interval between successive switching commands. Instant claim 17 further requires the interval to correspond to a time period for the optical component to transition from one operational state to another. Osterman teaches controlling successive switching operations of a liquid-crystal optical device such that sufficient time is provided for the liquid-crystal material to substantially complete its transition before the subsequent switching operation (Osterman, Fig. 4; [0068]- [0071]). It would have been obvious to select the dwell interval of the patented switching-command arrangement according to the transition period taught by Osterman because doing so ensures that the optical component reaches the intended operational state before it is switched again.
Regarding claim 18, claim 13 of the ’576 patent provides the dwell-time interval between successive switching commands, and claim 7 identifies the polarization grating as a liquid-crystal polarization grating. Instant claim 18 further requires the liquid-crystal polarization grating to have a relaxation-time period and requires the interval between successive switching commands to correspond to or be longer than that relaxation-time period. Osterman teaches that a liquid-crystal optical component undergoes a relaxation period and teaches delaying the subsequent switching operation sufficiently to permit the liquid-crystal material to substantially relax before the next switching event (Osterman, Fig. 4; [0010], [0018], [0068]- [0071]). It would have been obvious to select the dwell interval of the patented liquid-crystal beam-steering arrangement to equal or exceed the relaxation period because doing so permits the optical component to complete its relaxation before implementation of the next switching command.
Regarding claim 19, the analysis and modification set forth for claim 18 are maintained. Claim 14 of the ’576 patent further demonstrates that the dwell interval of the patented controller is variable. Instant claim 19 additionally requires varying the interval in accordance with the temperature of the optical component. He teaches that the relaxation time of a liquid-crystal beam-steering optical component varies substantially with temperature, reporting a relaxation time of approximately 7.3 ms at 40°C and approximately 1.1 ms at 60°C and explaining that elevated temperature improves the response time of the liquid-crystal beam-steering device (He, pp. 16-17; Figs. 16-17). It would have been obvious to vary the dwell interval according to temperature because, once the interval is selected to correspond to or exceed the liquid-crystal relaxation time as set forth for claim 18, adjusting that interval as temperature changes would predictably account for the corresponding change in relaxation time, thereby providing sufficient transition time without imposing an unnecessarily long dwell interval.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of the ’576 patent, which depends from method claim 15, recites a method of scanning a scene using a LIDAR transmitter, receiver, and beam-steering engine, including stepwise angular deflection, wherein the second steering stage is responsive to a steering signal to select a step among a finite number of angular steps. Instant claim 20 differs principally in further requiring receiving data describing a sub-portion of the scene and processing that data with a data-processing device to generate the beam-steering signal such that the light beam is directed at the identified sub-portion. Steinberg teaches identifying a region of interest and controlling the light deflector based on that information to direct projected light toward the selected region. It would have been obvious to modify the patented scanning method in accordance with Steinberg to receive data identifying a sub-portion or ROI and derive the steering control therefrom because Steinberg teaches that selectively directing sensing resources toward an identified ROI permits enhanced detection and increased spatial and/or temporal resolution in the selected region.
Accordingly, claims 2- 20 are not patentably distinct from the applicable claimed inventions of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,576 in view of Steinberg and, where specifically indicated above, Hall, Osterman, and He.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1, “Steinberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Steinberg teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus for scanning a scene (At least Fig. 1A, [0110], [0121]), comprising:
a. a transmitter stage configured to generate a light beam ([0114]: projecting unit 102 includes a light source configured to project light, including a solid-state laser/laser diode. [0121], Fig. 1A: projecting unit 102 includes light source 112.);
b. a receiver stage ([0118]- [0119] disclose a sensing unit 106 having at least one sensor configured to detect reflected electromagnetic radiation. [0121] identifies sensing unit 106 and sensor 116. Fig. 1A shows sensing unit 106 opposite the projecting/scanning path.);
c. a beam-steering engine configured to steer the light beam received from the transmitter stage to scan at least a portion of the scene ([0115]: scanning unit 104 includes a light deflector configured to deflect light from the source to scan the FOV. Fig. 1A, [0121]: processor 118 coordinates light source 112 and deflector 114 to scan. Steinberg claim 71 also recites processor control of a light deflector to scan the FOV.),
the beam-steering engine including an optical component ([0115] says the light deflector 114 may include optical components such as reflecting/refracting elements; it also identifies polarization gratings and other electro-optical steering devices. Fig. 3A shows scanning unit 104 with mirror and actuators. Claim 89 further recites that the light deflector includes a pivotable MEMS mirror.),
the beam-steering engine being responsive to a beam-steering signal ([0363]: processor 118 controls angular orientation/rotation of deflector 114 and thereby changes the light deflection angle and directs projected light toward the ROI. Claim 76 recites processor control of the light deflector.) to steer the light beam in a steering range by performing an angular deflection of the light beam in discrete steps within the beam-steering range ([0115]: the deflector changes angular deflection by discrete degrees and can move between predetermined angular settings. [0117]: a scan may span about 30° and the deflector may occupy fixed instantaneous positions/orientations. Steinberg [0477] further teaches movement between a plurality of discrete instantaneous positions rather than a continuous sweep. Claim 76 recites a scanning cycle in which the light deflector is instantaneously located in a plurality of positions.);
d. a controller comprising a data processor ([0120] describes the processor as circuitry capable of performing logic operations on inputs and executing instructions. [0121] identifies processor 118 in processing unit 108. Fig. 1A shows processing unit 108/processor 118.) configured to receive an input data describing a sub-portion of the scene to be scanned by the LIDAR apparatus ([0360]: a region of interest (ROI) may be any region/sub-region of the LIDAR FOV. [0364]- [0365]: processor obtains/identifies an ROI based on sensing information or information received from external systems including GPS/navigation/radar/LIDAR/camera. Fig. 22 shows those external information sources feeding LIDAR system 100/processing unit 108. Claims 81-82 recite obtaining ROI identification from sensor data or GPS/navigation/radar/LIDAR/camera.) and to derive from the input data the beam-steering signal configured to operate the beam-steering engine ([0365]: after identifying the ROI, processor 118 determines the scanning scheme and particular instantaneous positions for deflector 114, plus dwell/movement characteristics. Claim 78 the ROI identification includes an indication of specific light deflector positions associated with the ROI.) such that the light beam is directed at the sub-portion of the scene ([0363]: processor control of deflector 114 directs projected light toward one or more ROIs. Fig. 20, steps 2003-2005: identify ROI → increase light allocation → adjust allocation so more light is projected toward the ROI. Claim 83 similarly requires adjustment such that more light is projected toward the ROI.).
Regarding claim 2, Steinberg teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the beam-steering signal directing the beam-steering engine to provide multiple angular deflection steps to the light beam while the light beam substantially remains within the sub-portion of the scene (Steinberg teaches that, after identifying a region of interest, processor 118 determines particular instantaneous positions through which light deflector 114 is moved during a scan of the region of interest, including dwell times and movement characteristics between the determined positions ([0366]-[0368]); Steinberg further teaches moving the light deflector through a plurality of instantaneous positions during a scanning cycle, each corresponding to a portion of the field of view; Fig. 11; see also claims 76 and 78).
Regarding claim 3, Steinberg teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein the multiple angular deflection steps include at least one deflection step in a substantially horizontal direction (Steinberg: Fig. 11, [0259], scanning may proceed row by row in either or both horizontal directions; [0147], Fig. 3B, dual-axis MEMS mirror 300 is configured to deflect light in a horizontal direction, including an exemplary horizontal deflection range of about 0° to 50°. See also claims 76 and 89).
Regarding claim 4, Steinberg teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein the multiple angular deflection steps include at least one deflection step in a substantially vertical direction (Steinberg: Fig. 11, [0259], scanning may proceed column by column in either or both vertical directions; [0147], Fig. 3B, dual-axis MEMS mirror 300 is configured to deflect light in a vertical direction, including an exemplary vertical deflection range of about 0° to 30°).
Regarding claim 5, Steinberg teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein the multiple angular deflection steps include at least one deflection step in a substantially vertical direction and at least one deflection step in a substantially horizontal direction (Steinberg: Fig. 11, [0259], scanning may proceed row by row horizontally and column by column vertically, and processor 118 may pivot deflector 114 about two orthogonal axes to provide a two-dimensional scan [0260]; [0147], Fig. 3B, dual-axis MEMS mirror 300 is configured to deflect light in both horizontal and vertical directions).
Regarding claim 20, Steinberg teaches a method for scanning a scene (Fig. 1A; [0110], [0121]; claim 91), comprising:
a. generating a light beam ([0114], light source 112 of projecting unit 102 generates/projected laser light);
b. providing a beam-steering engine configured to steer the light beam to scan at least a portion of the scene, the beam-steering engine including an optical component ([0115], scanning unit 104 includes light deflector 114 configured to deflect light from light source 112 to scan FOV 120 and may include optical components including reflecting/refracting elements, active diffraction devices, polarization gratings, or other electro-optical steering devices), the beam-steering engine being responsive to a beam-steering signal to steer the light beam in a steering range by performing an angular deflection of the light beam in discrete steps within the beam-steering range ([0115], light deflector 114 may cause light to deviate by discrete degrees and may change deflection angle between predetermined settings; see also, [0477] and claim 76, wherein the deflector is moved through a plurality of discrete instantaneous positions during a scanning cycle; Fig. 3A further shows actuator 302 responding to electrical control signals) ;
c. receiving data describing a sub-portion of the scene to be scanned by the light beam ([0364]-[0365], Fig. 22, processor 118/processing unit 108 receives information from sensing unit 106, GPS 2207, navigation system 2201, radar 2203, LIDAR 2209, camera 2205, or other sources and uses such information to identify a region or sub-region of interest within FOV 120; see also claims 81-82 and claim 91, “receiving an identification of at least one distinct region of interest”);
d. processing the data with a data processing device to generate a beam-steering signal configured to operate the steering engine such that the light beam is directed at the sub-portion of the scene (After identifying the region of interest, processor 118 processes the data to generate beam-steering control configured to operate light deflector 114, including determining a scanning scheme, particular instantaneous positions through which deflector 114 is moved during the ROI scan, associated dwell times, and movement characteristics ( [0365]-[0368]; see also claim 78). Processor 118 thereafter controls light deflector 114 such that the projected light is directed toward the identified region of interest, thereby scanning the claimed sub-portion of the scene ([0363]; Fig. 20; claim 83).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg.
Regarding claim 6, Steinberg fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein the multiple angular deflection steps perform a periodic scan of the sub-portion of the scene.
Steinberg teaches that an identified region of interest may be scanned in one or more subsequent scans and that a subsequent scanning cycle may include a plurality of subsequent scanning cycles; Steinberg further teaches modifying temporal resolution of the region of interest, wherein higher temporal resolution may be achieved by increasing the frame rate ([0374], [0377]); see also claims 74, 85 and 93). Steinberg does not explicitly characterize those recurring ROI scans as a “periodic scan.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform Steinberg's repeated scans of the identified region of interest periodically according to a frame rate because Steinberg teaches that increasing the frame rate increases the temporal resolution of the region of interest, thereby providing more frequently updated depth information for that region.
Regarding claim 7, Steinberg fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein an excursion of the light beam remains substantially within a boundary of the sub-portion of the scene.
Steinberg ([0360], [0363], and [0367]) teaches that a region of interest may constitute any region or sub-region of the LIDAR field of view and may have a rectangular or other shape; processor 118 controls light deflector 114 to direct projected light toward the identified region of interest; and processor 118 determines particular instantaneous positions through which deflector 114 is moved during a scan of the region of interest, including associated dwell times and movement characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to control the excursion of Steinberg's projected light so that it remains substantially within the boundary of the identified region of interest because Steinberg teaches directing projected light toward the region of interest and avoiding expenditure of light projection resources in regions of lower interest, thereby using the available optical budget more efficiently and concentrating the scan on the selected region.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Hall et al. (US 20190075281 A1, “Hall”).
Regarding claim 8, Steinberg fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the beam-steering signal derived from the input data includes one or more switching commands, each of the one or more switching commands being operative to place the optical component in an operational state selectable among a plurality of operational states.
As indicated in claim 1, Steinberg ([0115], [0360]- [0366] and Figs. 1A/20/22) teaches that processor 118 controls the light deflector (deflector 114) operation based on an identified region of interest. Steinberg does not explicitly teach that the ROI derived beam-steering signal comprises one or more switching commands that place the optical component in one of a plurality of selectable operational states.
However, Hall's controller generates emission instructions and supplies those instructions to components of the transmitter, including the fine and/or coarse steering elements. More specifically, Hall's polarization grating embodiment includes liquid crystal half-waveplate 352 and switchable polarization grating 354. The state of half-waveplate 352 is controlled based on the controller's emission instructions, and the state of polarization grating 354 is likewise controlled by those emission instructions. Thus, Hall's emission instructions correspond to the claimed switching commands, because the instructions selectively place the optical component in different operational states [0008], [0048]- [0049]; Fig. 3E; claims 1, 13–14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg to include the controller controlled polarization grating steering arrangement of Hall, including the switchable liquid crystal half-waveplate and polarization grating, because Hall teaches such components as a non-mechanical beam-steering arrangement capable of selectively providing different beam deflection states based on controller generated emission instructions, thereby providing controllable beam steering over a wide angular range for depth sensing.
Regarding claim 9, Steinberg, in view of Hall, teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the plurality of operational states includes a first operational state in which the optical component alters a polarization of the light beam (Hall [0048] teaches that liquid-crystal half-waveplate 352 is switchable. When in its active state, half-waveplate 352 changes the polarization of the incident light, specifically changing its circular polarization handedness (Fig. 3E, [0048]). Accordingly, Hall's active state of half-waveplate 352 corresponds to the claimed first operational state that alters polarization.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg to include the polarization-controlled optical component of Hall, such that in at least one operational state the optical component alters the polarization of the light beam, because Hall teaches that selectively changing the polarization state of the incident light permits a polarization grating to select different diffraction directions. Such a modification would provide Steinberg’s LIDAR system with a predictable non-mechanical mechanism for selecting among additional discrete steering directions, thereby increasing the angular steering capability available for directing the light beam toward selected regions of interest in the field of view.
Regarding claim 10, Steinberg fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the optical component is configured to alter a handedness of a circular polarization of the light beam.
However, Hall (Fig. 3E, [0048]) teaches that in the active state, liquid crystal half waveplate 352 changes handedness such that right-handed circular polarization becomes left-handed circular polarization, and vice versa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg with the polarization-control arrangement of Hall such that the optical component is configured to alter the handedness of circular polarization of the light beam, because changing the handedness of circularly polarized light incident on a polarization grating permits selection between different diffraction directions. Such a modification would enable Steinberg's beam-steering system to selectively direct the transmitted light beam to different discrete angular positions using the same polarization-grating structure, thereby providing additional non-mechanical steering directions for directing the light beam toward selected portions of the scene.
Regarding claim 11, Steinberg, in view of Hall, teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the plurality of operational states includes a second operational state in which the optical component preserves a handedness of a circular polarization of the light beam such that an output light beam output by the optical component has a circular polarization of the same handedness as the circular polarization of the light beam input into the optical component (Hall [0048] teaches that when liquid crystal half-waveplate 352 is in its inactive state, it does not change polarization of the incident light. Therefore, where the incident beam has a particular circular-polarization handedness, the inactive half-waveplate outputs the beam with that same handedness.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg with the switchable polarization-control arrangement of Hall such that, in a second operational state, the optical component preserves the handedness of the circular polarization of the light beam, because Hall teaches selectively operating a liquid-crystal polarization component in an inactive state that leaves the circular-polarization handedness unchanged. Providing such a polarization-preserving state would allow Steinberg’s beam-steering system to selectively retain the existing polarization state when polarization conversion is not required, thereby enabling controlled selection among the different polarization-dependent diffraction and steering states of the polarization-grating assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Steinberg fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the optical component includes a polarization selector.
However, Hall teaches a switchable liquid-crystal half-waveplate 352 that functions as the claimed polarization selector. Half-waveplate 352 is selectively placed by controller 315 in: an inactive state that does not change polarization; or an active state that changes polarization/handedness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg to include the switchable polarization selector of Hall because Hall teaches that selectively controlling the polarization state of light incident on a polarization grating permits the grating to provide different diffraction directions. Incorporating such a polarization selector into Steinberg’s beam-steering engine would therefore provide an electronically controllable, non-mechanical mechanism for selecting among discrete beam-steering directions, thereby facilitating selective direction of the transmitted light beam toward different portions of the scene
Regarding claim 13, Steinberg, in view of Hall, teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the plurality of operational states includes a first operational state in which the optical component deflects the light beam with relation to a direction of propagation of the light beam toward the optical component such that the light beam output by the optical component is at a non-zero angle with relation to the direction of propagation of the light beam toward the optical component (Hall (Fig. 3E, [0049]) teaches that polarization grating 354 is switchable and, when active, diffracts incident light. Hall ([0050]) further teaches specific positive and negative diffraction angles depending on the handedness of the incident circular polarization, with the grating stack producing diffraction angles on the order of tens of degrees.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg with the polarization-grating arrangement of Hall to provide an operational state in which the optical component deflects the light beam such that the output beam propagates at a non-zero angle relative to the incident beam, because Hall teaches that selectively placing the polarization-grating assembly in a diffracting state produces a controlled non-zero diffraction angle. Such a modification would provide Steinberg with an electronically selectable, non-mechanical steering direction for directing the transmitted light beam toward different portions of the scene during scanning.
Regarding claim 14, Steinberg, in view of Hall, teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 13, wherein the plurality of operational states includes a second operational state in which the optical component preserves a direction of propagation of the light beam toward the optical component such that the light beam output by the optical component is co-incident with the light beam toward the optical component (Hall (Fig. 3E, [0049]) teaches that when polarization grating 354 is inactive, it may not diffract the incident light. Hall [0050] then teaches that in the inactive state the incident light propagates through the polarization grating without being diffracted, i.e., the diffraction angle is zero.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg with the switchable polarization-grating arrangement of Hall to provide an operational state in which the optical component preserves the propagation direction of the incident light beam such that the output beam is coincident with the incident beam, because Hall teaches selectively placing the polarization grating in a zero-diffraction state in which the incident light passes through without angular deflection. Providing such a pass-through state would allow Steinberg’s beam-steering system to selectively maintain the existing beam direction when additional angular deflection is not required, while retaining the ability to switch to non-zero diffraction states for steering the beam toward other portions of the scene.
Regarding claim 15, Steinberg fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the optical component includes a polarization grating.
However, Hall [0047] teaches polarization-grating stack 350 comprising polarization grating 354 coupled to liquid crystal half-waveplate 352. Hall [0049] further describes polarization grating 354 as an optical element that diffracts incident light to generate the second order deflected scanning beams. See also, claim 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg to include the polarization grating of Hall because Hall teaches that a polarization grating provides polarization-dependent diffraction of an incident light beam into selectable propagation directions. Incorporating such a polarization grating into Steinberg’s beam-steering engine would therefore provide an efficient, non-mechanical mechanism for producing discrete angular deflections of the transmitted beam, thereby facilitating selective steering of the beam toward different portions of the scene.
Regarding claim 16 Steinberg, in view of Hall, teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 15, wherein the polarization grating is a liquid crystal polarization grating (Hall [0049] teaches that polarization grating 354 may be implemented as a Pancharatnam-Berry Phase (PBP) liquid crystal grating.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the beam-steering arrangement of Steinberg to implement the polarization grating as the liquid crystal polarization grating taught by Hall because Hall teaches that a PBP liquid-crystal grating provides controlled diffraction of the incident scanning beam and can be incorporated into a switchable polarization-grating stack for non-mechanical beam steering. Such an implementation would provide Steinberg with an electronically controllable optical steering element capable of selectively producing discrete angular deflections of the transmitted beam without requiring mechanical movement, thereby facilitating rapid steering of the beam toward selected portions of the scene.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Hall and Osterman et al. (US 2012/0044431 A1, “Osterman”).
Regarding claim 17, Steinberg, in view of Hall, fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the one or more switching commands is configured such that a time interval between two successive switching commands corresponds to a time period for the optical component to transition from one operational state to another operational state.
Steinberg teaches the LIDAR apparatus and processor-controlled beam-steering optical component as set forth above, but does not teach configuring the time interval between successive switching commands according to the transition period of the optical component. Osterman teaches an electronic drive scheme for switching liquid crystal optical devices between operational states (Osterman: [0068]- [0071], Fig. 4), wherein a drive voltage is changed at t=t1, t1 being selected sufficiently early to permit the liquid crystal material to substantially relax to its equilibrium state before t=t2, and a subsequent switching operation occurs at t=t2 (Osterman: [0069]- [0070], Fig. 4; see also claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the successive control commands of Steinberg's optical beam-steering component such that the interval between successive commands corresponds to the transition period of the optical component, as taught by Osterman, because Osterman teaches allowing sufficient time for a liquid crystal optical device to substantially complete its transition before the subsequent switching operation, thereby ensuring that the optical component reaches the intended operational state before it is switched again.
Regarding claim 18, Steinberg, in view of Hall, teaches a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the optical component includes a liquid crystal polarization grating (Hall [0049] teaches that polarization grating 354 may be implemented as a Pancharatnam-Berry Phase (PBP) liquid crystal grating and is switchable between operational states under control of controller 315; Fig. 3E).).
Steinberg, in view of Hall, fails to explicitly teach the liquid crystal polarization grating characterized by a relaxation time period to switch from one operational state to another operational state, the one or more switching commands is configured such that a time interval between two successive switching commands corresponds to or is longer than the relaxation time period.
However, Osterman teaches that a liquid crystal optical component is characterized by a relaxation period when transitioning from a driven state toward another operational state and teaches controlling successive switching operations such that sufficient time is provided for the liquid crystal material to substantially relax to its equilibrium state before the subsequent switching operation (Osterman: [0010], [0018], [0068]- [0071]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the switching commands of the liquid crystal polarization grating of the modified Steinberg system according to the relaxation timing taught by Osterman, such that the interval between successive commands is at least sufficient for the liquid crystal optical component to complete its relaxation, because Osterman teaches that liquid crystal relaxation should be substantially completed before the subsequent switching operation, thereby ensuring reliable transition to the intended optical state.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Hall, Osterman and He et al. (Liquid Crystal Beam Steering Devices: Principles, Recent Advances, and Future Developments, Crystals 2019, 9, 292, June 5, 2019, “He”).
Regarding claim 19, Steinberg, in view of Hall and Osterman, fails to explicitly teach a LIDAR apparatus as defined in claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to vary the time interval in accordance with a temperature of the optical component.
However, He teaches that the relaxation time of a liquid crystal optical component used for laser beam steering varies with temperature. In particular, He measures the relaxation time following removal of the applied voltage and reports a relaxation time of approximately 7.3 ms at 40°C and approximately 1.1 ms at 60°C, noting that the reduced response time is valuable for laser beam-steering devices (He, section 4.1 p. 15-16, first and second paragraphs; Fig. 16; Eq. (10)). He further reports that increasing temperature from 40°C to 60°C reduces the associated relaxation-time constants and concludes that elevated operating temperature improves the response time of the liquid-crystal device (He, Fig. 17, p. 17: where the first and second terms represent the fast and slow relaxation processes………. As the temperature increased to 60 ◦C, this ratio increased to 93% and the time constants were reduced to τ1 = 0.6 ms and τ2 = 18.0 ms, indicating a weaker double relaxation. Therefore, an elevated operating temperature helps to suppress the double relaxation and improve the response time of the PNLC device. To achieve a sub-millisecond response time, we could increase the monomer concentration to approximately 5 wt%, but the trade-off is an increased voltage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller of Steinberg to vary the time interval between successive switching commands in accordance with the temperature of the liquid-crystal optical component, as suggested by He, because He teaches that the relaxation time of a liquid crystal beam-steering device varies substantially with temperature. Since the interval of claim 18 is selected to correspond to or exceed the relaxation time of the liquid crystal component, adjusting that interval according to temperature would predictably account for the temperature dependent relaxation time, thereby allowing sufficient time for the component to complete its transition while avoiding an unnecessarily long interval when the relaxation time decreases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alexander Shpunt (US 9651417 B2), teaches Scanning Depth Engine
Xu et al. (US 6519022 B1), teaches Optical Routing Switch Using Symmetric Liquid Crystal Cells
Ohta et al. (US 4720717 A), teaches Recording and Waveform Forming Apparatus
Nito et al. (US 6804037 B1), teaches Light Modulation Apparatus and Image Pickup Apparatus, And Drive Method Thereof
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights