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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 will be read as “a detector comprising at least one detector unit configured to detect light emitted by the light source, [[
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "an optical unit" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riza et al. (US 2004/0125361 A1) in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 2020/0256960 A1) and Pertierra et al. (US 2022/0191440 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Riza discloses a light beam characterization system for characterizing a light beam emitted by a light source, the light beam characterization system comprising:
a detector comprising at least one detector unit (Figure 1: element 14 is a 2-D photodetector; [0025]) configured to detect light (implicit for a photodetector to detect light) emitted by the light source (Figure 1: element 18 is an optical beam, interpreted to be emitted by a light source (not shown); [0025]), and
a micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 1: element 12 is a 2-D small tilt micromirror device; [0025]) comprising an array of mirrors ([0033] “an array of 2-D small tilt micromirrors”), each respective mirror being switchable between a first switching state and at least a second switching state (Figure 1; [0025] “Each micromirror 16 a, 16 b, and 16 c, of the micromirror device 12 may have two states of operation: +θ and −θ mirror positions”), wherein, in the first switching state, the respective mirror reflects the light onto the detector (Figure 1; [0025] “when the desired micromirrors are set to +θ position (for example, as shown by the angular position of micromirrors 16 a and 16 b) the corresponding part of the optical beam 18 is reflected to the photodetector 14”), and in the second switching state, the respective mirror reflects the light away from the detector (Figure 1; [0025] “the optical beam 18 can be directed to an absorber 20 when the specified micromirrors are set to the −θ position (for example, as shown by the angular position of micromirror 16 c)”, wherein “directed to an absorber” is interpreted as away from the detector), but does not specifically teach:
a controller configured to cause a beam profile measurement to be performed on the light detected by the at least one detector unit while selectively switching the mirrors in the array of mirrors between the first switching state and the second switching state, and
an optical unit configured to direct the light in a form of at least two different input light beams onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system,
wherein the controller is configured to cause the beam profile measurement to be performed on each of the at least two input light beams.
However, LaChapelle, in the same field of detector arrays, teaches a controller (Figure 11: element 150 is a controller; [0088] “a processor (e.g., controller 150)”) configured to cause a beam profile measurement to be performed on the light detected by the at least one detector unit (Figure 20: shows an amplitude profile of an input beam 135 incident on the detector array 500; [0121] “The amplitude of the input beam 135 may correspond to the energy, power, or intensity of a received pulse of light plotted versus distance or location along the detector array 500”) while selectively switching the mirrors ([0098] “the processor may switch particular micromirrors 402 from active-on to active-off and may switch other particular micromirrors 402 from active-off to active-on”) in the array of mirrors (Figure 11: element 400 is a digital micromirror device (DMD); [0089] “A DMD 400, which may be referred to as a spatial light modulator (SLM), may include a two-dimensional array of electrically addressable micromirrors 402”) between the first switching state and the second switching state ([0098] “from active-on to active-off and … from active-off to active-on”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of LaChapelle, for a controller configured to cause a beam profile measurement to be performed on the light detected by the at least one detector unit while selectively switching the mirrors in the array of mirrors between the first switching state and the second switching state, because “By diverting most of the ambient light 410 away from the detector array 500, the amount of background optical noise received by the detector array 500 may be reduced, which may improve the sensitivity of the receiver 140 (e.g., by improving the ability of the detector array 500 to detect relatively weak optical pulses).” (LaChapelle, para 97)
Riza is also silent with respect to: an optical unit configured to direct the light in a form of at least two different input light beams onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system,
wherein the controller is configured to cause the beam profile measurement to be performed on each of the at least two input light beams.
However, Pertierra, in the same field of digital micromirror devices, teaches an optical unit (Figure 3: PBS element 110, LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit) configured to direct the light in a form of at least two different input light beams (Figure 3; [0044] “polarized beams 182 and 286”) onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 3: element 230 is a digital micromirror device; [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of Pertierra, for an optical unit configured to direct the light in a form of at least two different input light beams onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system, wherein the controller is configured to cause the beam profile measurement to be performed on each of the at least two input light beams, because using two beams incident on a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) for beam profile measurement is an advanced technique often employed for high-power laser profiling, spatial gain-shaping, and wavefront manipulation, allowing for high-precision, dynamic, and non-destructive measurement.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, wherein the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 1: element 12 is a 2-D small tilt micromirror device; [0025]) includes a digital micromirror device ([0027] “a VGA format design 2-D digital micromirror device (DMD)”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, wherein the optical unit is configured to generate the at least two input light beams from the light (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the optical unit is configured to generate the at least two input light beams from the light such that different axial beam positions of the at least two input light beams are imaged onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system simultaneously or sequentially.
However, Pertierra, in the same field of digital micromirror devices, teaches that the optical unit (Figure 3: PBS element 110, LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit) is configured to generate the at least two input light beams (Figure 3; [0044] “polarized beams 182 and 286”) from the light (Figure 3: element 180 is laser light; [0021]) such that different axial beam positions of the at least two input light beams are imaged onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system simultaneously (Figure 3; [0044] “The angles of incidence of polarized beams 182 and 286 onto DMD 230 may differ from each other by an angle 364 that is less than ten degrees”, whereby it is understood that the axis of each beam is different and separated by “less than ten degrees”) or sequentially.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of Pertierra, wherein the optical unit is configured to generate the at least two input light beams from the light such that different axial beam positions of the at least two input light beams are imaged onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system simultaneously or sequentially, because this technique allows for complex, dynamic control over light distribution.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, wherein the optical unit is configured to direct the at least two input light beams simultaneously onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the detector comprises at least two detector units, each detector unit being configured to detect a different one of the at least two input light beams reflected by the mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system in the first switching state.
However, Riza, in the embodiment of Figure 9, teaches that the detector comprises at least two detector units (Figure 9: two detectors, PD1 42 and PD2 54; [0047]), each detector unit being configured to detect a different one of the at least two input light beams (Figure 9: PD1 42 detects a portion of input laser beam 48, and PD2 54 detects the other portion of input laser beam 48; [0047]) reflected by the mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 9; [0046] “micromirrors in the DMD 44” reflect portions of input laser beam 48) in the first switching state (Figure 9; [0046] “processor 46, such as a computer” is interpreted to control switching states).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the embodiment of Figure 9, wherein the detector comprises at least two detector units, each detector unit being configured to detect a different one of the at least two input light beams reflected by the mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system in the first switching state, because “the power fluctuations in the input beam 48 can be canceled, leading to source power level insensitive beam profiling.” (Riza, para 47)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 4, wherein the optical unit is configured to direct the at least two input light beams simultaneously along different incidence beam paths onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (see claim 4 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system reflect the at least two input light beams in the first switching state simultaneously along different reflexion beam paths onto the at least two detector units.
However, Riza, in the embodiment of Figure 9, teaches that the mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 9; [0046] “micromirrors in the DMD 44”) reflect the at least two input light beams (Figure 9: a portion of input laser beam 48, and the other portion of input laser beam 48; [0047]) in the first switching state (Figure 9; [0046] “processor 46, such as a computer” is interpreted to control switching states) simultaneously along different reflexion beam paths (Figure 9: two different reflection paths – DMD 44 to PD1 42, and DMD 44 to PD2 54 – are marked with arrows) onto the at least two detector units (Figure 9: two detectors, PD1 42 and PD2 54; [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the embodiment of Figure 9, such that the mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system reflect the at least two input light beams in the first switching state simultaneously along different reflexion beam paths onto the at least two detector units, because signal-to-noise ratio for each beam can be increased and crosstalk can be avoided.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, and the optical unit (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the optical unit comprises a beam splitter configured to generate a first input light beam of the two input light beams by transmitting the light, and to generate a second input light beam of the two input light beams by reflecting the light.
However, Pertierra, in the same field of digital micromirror devices, teaches that the optical unit (Figure 3: PBS element 110, LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit) comprises a beam splitter (Figure 3: element 110 is a polarization beam splitter; [0046]) configured to generate a first input light beam (Figure 3: element 184 is a polarized beam; [0046]) of the two input light beams (Figure 3; [0044] “polarized beams 182 and 286”) by transmitting the light (Figure 3: polarized beam 184 is generated via transmission through PBS 110), and to generate a second input light beam (Figure 3: element 182 is a polarized beam; [0044]) of the two input light beams (Figure 3; [0044] “polarized beams 182 and 286”) by reflecting the light (Figure 3: polarized beam 182 is generated via reflection at PBS 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of Pertierra, wherein the optical unit comprises a beam splitter configured to generate a first input light beam of the two input light beams by transmitting the light, and to generate a second input light beam of the two input light beams by reflecting the light, because a beamsplitter is essential in beam profile measurement for safely sampling high-power laser beams, allowing for real-time monitoring and analysis without damaging the detector or interrupting the main beam path.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 6, and the optical unit (see claim 6 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the optical unit comprises an optical redirecting element located downstream of the beam splitter and configured to direct one of the two input light beams onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system.
However, Pertierra, in the same field of digital micromirror devices, teaches the optical unit (Figure 3: PBS element 110, LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit) comprises an optical redirecting element (Figure 3: LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are redirecting elements; [0043]-[0044]) located downstream of the beam splitter (Figure 3: element 110 is a polarization beam splitter; [0046]) and configured to direct one of the two input light beams (Figure 3; [0044] “polarized beams 182 and 286”) onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 3: element 230 is a digital micromirror device; [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of Pertierra, wherein the optical unit comprises an optical redirecting element located downstream of the beam splitter and configured to direct one of the two input light beams onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system, to enable incidence of the light beam onto the digital micromirror device.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, wherein the detector comprises only the one detector unit (Figure 1: element 14 is a 2-D photodetector; [0025]) configured to detect the at least two input light beams (implicit for a photodetector to detect light) reflected by the mirrors of the array of mirrors ([0033] “an array of 2-D small tilt micromirrors”) of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 1: element 12 is a 2-D small tilt micromirror device; [0025]) in the first switching state (Figure 1; [0025] “when the desired micromirrors are set to +θ position (for example, as shown by the angular position of micromirrors 16 a and 16 b)”), but does not specifically teach that the optical unit is configured to direct the at least two input light beams successively onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system.
However, Pertierra, in the same field of digital micromirror devices, teaches that the optical unit (Figure 3: PBS element 110, LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit) is configured to direct the at least two input light beams successively (Figure 3; [0045] “dual-modulation system 300 may include two dimming units 310 positioned in the paths of polarized beams 182 and 286”, wherein the “two dimming units 310” are interpreted to alternately transmit “polarized beams 182 and 286”) onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 3: element 230 is a digital micromirror device; [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of Pertierra, wherein the optical unit is configured to direct the at least two input light beams successively onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system, to enable high-speed modulation, multi-spectral imaging, or complex wavefront shaping, leveraging the high refresh rate of DMDs to, for example, toggle between different laser beams.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 8, but does not specifically teach that the optical unit is configured to direct the at least two input light beams sequentially along a common incidence beam path onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system so that mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system reflect the at least two input light beams in the first switching state sequentially along a common reflexion beam path onto the one detector unit.
However, LaChapelle, in the same field of detector arrays, teaches that the optical unit (Figure 11: turning mirror element 420 and input lens element 430 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit; [0090]) is configured to direct the at least two input light beams sequentially (Figure 11: element 135 is an input beam; [0090]) along a common incidence beam path (Figure 11: shows incidence path of input beam 135) onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 11: element 400 is a digital micromirror device (DMD); [0089]) so that mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 11: element 400 is a digital micromirror device (DMD); [0089] “A DMD 400, which may be referred to as a spatial light modulator (SLM), may include a two-dimensional array of electrically addressable micromirrors 402”) reflect the at least two input light beams in the first switching state (Figure 11; [0090] “The micromirrors 402 that are set to the active-on state may reflect the input beam 135”) sequentially along a common reflexion beam path (Figure 11: shows reflection path of input beam 135) onto the one detector unit (Figure 11; [0090] “direct the input beam 135 to the detector array 500”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of LaChapelle, wherein the optical unit is configured to direct the at least two input light beams sequentially along a common incidence beam path onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system so that mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system reflect the at least two input light beams in the first switching state sequentially along a common reflexion beam path onto the one detector unit, because measuring the beam profile of two beams sequentially offers significant advantages in accuracy, cost-efficiency, and system calibration, particularly when comparing two beams.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, and the optical unit (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the optical unit comprises a variable optical element.
However, LaChapelle, in the same field of detector arrays, teaches that the optical unit (Figure 11: turning mirror element 420 and input lens element 430 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit; [0090]) comprises a variable optical element (Figure 11: element 420 is a turning mirror; [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of LaChapelle, wherein the optical unit comprises a variable optical element, because a rotating mirror provides several distinct advantages in optical engineering, primarily by enabling dynamic scanning, high-speed measurements, and space optimization.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that each detector unit of the at least one detector unit comprises at least two detector elements that are sensitive to different wavelengths.
However, LaChapelle, in the same field of detector arrays, teaches that each detector unit of the at least one detector unit (Figure 11: element 500 is a detector array; [0113]) comprises at least two detector elements (Figure 11: element 502 is a plurality of detector elements; [0113]) that are sensitive to different wavelengths ([0113] “a detector array 500 with black-silicon detector elements 502 may be used … with an operating wavelength of approximately 905 nm, 1400 nm, 1505 nm, or 1550 nm”; [0114] “A detector array 500 with silicon-based detector elements 502 may be used … with an operating wavelength of approximately 905 nm”; [0115] “A detector array 500 with InGaAs-based detector elements 502 may be used … with an operating wavelength of approximately 1450 nm, 1505 nm, or 1550 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of LaChapelle, wherein each detector unit of the at least one detector unit comprises at least two detector elements that are sensitive to different wavelengths, because a photodetector sensitive to different wavelengths offers the advantage of detecting multiple, specific light frequencies within a single device, offering improved signal-to-noise ratio, superior color discrimination, and compact design.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 11, but does not specifically teach that each detector element is selectively movable into and out of a beam profile measurement position.
However, Riza, in the embodiment of Figure 3, teaches a translation stage (Figure 3; [0034] “the micromirror device 12 may be attached to a translation stage 28”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza by implementing the translation stage of Figure 3, such that each detector element is selectively movable into and out of a beam profile measurement position, because beam profile measurement can be carried out on different portions of a beam.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, wherein the controller (see claim 1 rejection) is configured to sequentially switch rows (Figure 2B; [0031] “sequentially changing the orientation of a linear set, such as a row, of micromirrors”) or columns (Figure 2A; [0030] “sequentially changing the orientation of a linear set, such as a column, of micromirrors”) of mirrors of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figures 2A-2B: element 13 is a 2-D DMD with rows and columns of micromirror pixels; [0030]) from the first switching state into the second switching state (Figure 2A; [0030] “from the −10° position to a +10° position” and Figure 2B; [0031] “from the −10° position to the +10° position”) or vice versa to generate a scanning knife-edge light pattern on the detector ([0040] “use of two photodetectors for power measurement as the 2-D micromirror chip changes mirror settings to create mechanical moving objects such as slits or knife-edges”).
Regarding Claim 14, Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, wherein the controller (see claim 1 rejection) is configured to switch a two-dimensional sub-array (Figure 2A; [0030] “sequentially changing the orientation of a linear set, such as a column, of micromirrors” and Figure 2B; [0031] “sequentially changing the orientation of a linear set, such as a row, of micromirrors” is interpreted as the ability to switch a two-dimensional sub-array of micromirrors) of the array of mirrors of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figures 2A-2B: element 13 is a 2-D DMD with rows and columns of micromirror pixels; [0030]) from the first switching state into the second switching state (Figure 2A; [0030] “from the −10° position to a +10° position” and Figure 2B; [0031] “from the −10° position to the +10° position”) or vice versa while leaving remaining mirrors of the array of mirrors in the one of the first switching state and the second switching state to generate an area light pattern (Figures 2A-2B: element 26 is an optical beam cross section which reflects off micromirror pixels, and is interpreted to cause an area light pattern when a two-dimensional sub-array of micromirrors is switched on) on the detector (Figure 1: element 14 is a 2-D photodetector; [0025]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a focusing optical element located downstream of the micro-opto-electromechanical system and configured to focus the at least two input light beams onto the detector.
However, LaChapelle, in the same field of detector arrays, teaches a focusing optical element (Figure 11: element 440 is a lens; [0090]) located downstream of the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 11: element 400 is a digital micromirror device (DMD); [0089]) and configured to focus the at least two input light beams onto the detector (Figure 11; [0090] “a lens 440 that focuses the input beam 135 onto the detector array 500”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of LaChapelle, for a focusing optical element located downstream of the micro-opto-electromechanical system and configured to focus the at least two input light beams onto the detector, because plano-convex lenses are ideal for collimating light, focusing, or reducing divergence in laser.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riza et al. (US 2004/0125361 A1) and LaChapelle et al. (US 2020/0256960 A1) and Pertierra et al. (US 2022/0191440 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cui (US 2013/0114630 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Riza discloses the light beam characterization system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a nonlinear crystal located upstream of the detector and configured for second harmonic generation.
However, Cui, in the same field of spatial light modulator systems, teaches a nonlinear crystal (Figure 2: element 223 is a non-linear material; [0058] “non-linear material 223 can be a non-linear crystal material such as lithium niobate, potassium titanyl phosphate, lithium triborate, or β-barium borate”) located upstream of the detector (Figure 2: element 242 is a power detector; [0057]) and configured for second harmonic generation (Figure 2; [0058] “a second harmonic generation (SHG) system in which the photons of the modulated optical pulse train 220 interact with a non-linear material 223 and are effectively “combined” to form a frequency-doubled non-linear optical signal 240, which includes new photons with twice the energy, and therefore twice the frequency and half the wavelength of the initial photons”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Riza with the teachings of Cui, for a nonlinear crystal located upstream of the detector and configured for second harmonic generation, because second harmonic generation is used in beam detection to visualize invisible infrared lasers, analyze beam quality, and enhance contrast in imaging by passing a fundamental beam through a nonlinear crystal, producing a signal at half the wavelength.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riza et al. (US 2004/0125361 A1) in view of Pertierra et al. (US 2022/0191440 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 17, Riza discloses a method for light beam characterization, the method comprising:
detecting light (implicit for a photodetector to detect light) emitted by a light source (Figure 1: element 18 is an optical beam, interpreted to be emitted by a light source (not shown); [0025]) using at least one detector unit included in a detector (Figure 1: element 14 is a 2-D photodetector; [0025]), and
performing a beam profile measurement ([0007] “profiling an optical beam”) on the light detected by the at least one detector unit (Figure 1: element 14 is a 2-D photodetector; [0025]) via a micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 1: element 12 is a 2-D small tilt micromirror device; [0025]), the micro-opto-electromechanical system comprising an array of mirrors ([0033] “an array of 2-D small tilt micromirrors”), each respective mirror being switchable between a first switching state and at least a second switching state (Figure 1; [0025] “Each micromirror 16 a, 16 b, and 16 c, of the micromirror device 12 may have two states of operation: +θ and −θ mirror positions”), wherein, in the first switching state, the respective mirror reflects the light onto the detector (Figure 1; [0025] “when the desired micromirrors are set to +θ position (for example, as shown by the angular position of micromirrors 16 a and 16 b) the corresponding part of the optical beam 18 is reflected to the photodetector 14”), and in the second switching state, the respective mirror reflects the light away from the detector (Figure 1; [0025] “the optical beam 18 can be directed to an absorber 20 when the specified micromirrors are set to the −θ position (for example, as shown by the angular position of micromirror 16 c)”, wherein “directed to an absorber” is interpreted as away from the detector), the beam profile measurement being performed ([0007] “profiling an optical beam”) while selectively switching the mirrors of the array of mirrors between the first switching state and the second switching state (Figure 1; [0025] “Each micromirror 16 a, 16 b, and 16 c, of the micromirror device 12 may have two states of operation: +θ and −θ mirror positions”), but does not specifically teach that the light is directed by an optical unit onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system in a form of two different input light beams,
wherein the beam profile measurement is performed on each of the at least two input light beams.
However, Pertierra, in the same field of digital micromirror devices, teaches that the light is directed by an optical unit (Figure 3: PBS element 110, LCOS SLM 220, mirrors 224, 226 are collectively interpreted as an optical unit) onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system (Figure 3: element 230 is a digital micromirror device; [0044]) in a form of two different input light beams (Figure 3; [0044] “polarized beams 182 and 286”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Riza with the teachings of Pertierra, wherein the light is directed by an optical unit onto the micro-opto-electromechanical system in a form of two different input light beams, such that the beam profile measurement is performed on each of the at least two input light beams, because using two beams incident on a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) for beam profile measurement is an advanced technique often employed for high-power laser profiling, spatial gain-shaping, and wavefront manipulation, allowing for high-precision, dynamic, and non-destructive measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights