DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1. Claims 1 and 11 both recite the limitation: “ϕ(x, y, a, b)=mod {[2π(xa+yb)], 2π}, where ϕ is the phase value, (x,y) represents a position of the pixel, and (a, b) represents a diffraction angle measured from a 0th order diffraction from the phase-SLM and mod (2π(xa+yb), 2π) represents a modulo 2π operation on a value 2π(xa+yb).” It is unclear what is meant by the expression 2π(xa+yb), especially in light of the equation doing a modulo 2 π operation, i.e., is 2π multiplied by (xa+yb), or is the term a function of the expression outside the parenthetical? It is unclear. Furthermore, it is generally unclear how the diffraction angle is measured (and in such a manner as to distinguish angle a from angle b): the claim appears to be silent with respect any orientations, i.e., angles are measured with respect to some normal or a zero angle, wherein positive and negative angle directions defined with respect to a reference frame. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: a modulo 2π operation to determine the phase value”.
2. Claim 2 and 12 both recite the limitation: “comprising simultaneously performing (i)-(v) for a plurality of objects defined in a plurality of ROIs in the image by simultaneously steering a plurality of optical beams, wherein the determining includes determining the CGH phase pattern so that the CGH pattern diffracts a single incoming illumination beam into multiple optical beams in such a way that each of the optical beams are directed towards different ROIs based on summing multiple diffracted electric fields, each of the diffracted electric fields diffracting light toward one of the ROIs followed by determining the CGH phase pattern as being represented as argument values of the summed multiple diffracted electric fields”. It is unclear in what manner the diffracted fields are being “summed”, since the claim fails to recite which aspect of the electric field is summed, i.e., intensity? phase? wavenumber? etc. Thus, it is unclear what the argument value refers to, i.e., which aspect of the phase pattern is represent as an argument value and what function is being referred to—argument values always belong to a function, and the claim fails to recite any such function. Thus, these unclear limitations render the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “comprising simultaneously performing (i)-(v) for a plurality of objects defined in a plurality of ROIs in the image by simultaneously steering a plurality of optical beams, wherein the determining includes determining the CGH phase pattern so that the CGH pattern diffracts a single incoming illumination beam into multiple optical beams”.
3. Claim 3 and 13 both recite the limitation: “wherein determining the CGH phase pattern determines the CGH so that an energy distribution in the multiple optical beams is adjusted to equalize a strength of returning signals assuming that a ratio of an apparent extent of the objects in the plurality of objects depends on distance to the objects”. It is unclear in what manner the energy distribution is adjusted, since none of the claims recite any such energy distribution between the optical beams, thereby rendering the adjustment limitation unascertainable. It is also unclear what is meant by “equalizing” the strength of returning signals, and it is unclear where the signals return to and in what manner the strength of said signals are measured to meet the claimed limitation of being equalized. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “apparent extent of the objects”, since such a limitation fails to specify what type of linear measurement this refers to, i.e., is it a particular dimension of the object, or a distance between specific two points? If so, the endpoints for measuring the extent or the distance as claimed remain unclear. Additionally, it is unclear what the ratio as recited refers to, since a ratio requires a pair of quantities for determining the resultant quotient. Here, the claim fails to recite two quantities such that a ratio may be calculated. Thus, the unclear limitations discussed above cumulatively render the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein determining the CGH phase pattern determines the CGH”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 11, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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)(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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0266711 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Smeeton discloses: A method for performing adaptive beam steering to one or more objects of interest (¶0001, 0007, 0128), comprising
(i) detecting an object of interest in an image of a scene; (ii) defining a region of interest (ROI) in the image to be scanned by an optical beam, wherein the ROI includes the object of interest (¶0101: the present disclosure relates to a plurality of sub-areas or zones of a scene are scanned at the same time by scanning a structured light pattern comprising an array of light features…an arrangement in which each sub-area of the scene, that is scanned by one respective light feature of the structured light pattern (or light footprint), contains a plurality of individual fields of view of the detection system; ¶0105: “sub area” to refer to sub areas of the scene (i.e. field of view of the detection system));
(iii) determining a computer generated hologram (CGH) phase pattern to be applied to an optical beam by a phase Spatial Light Modulator (phase-SLM) to scan the optical beam over the ROI by diffractive beam steering (¶0176: spatial light modulator is arranged to receive light from a light source (not shown) and output spatially modulated light in accordance with a dynamically-variable diffractive pattern comprising a computer-generated hologram represented or “displayed” on the spatial light modulator; ¶0015: the grating function of the diffractive pattern controls the spatial position of the projected light footprint in the scene [beam steering]… the grating function is a phase-ramp function such as a wrapped or repeating phase-ramp function or modulo 27r phase-ramp function), wherein the determining is performed by a CGH calculation algorithm that is executed in parallel for each of the pixels, wherein the determining includes determining the CGH phase pattern on a pixel-by-pixel-basis by assigning a phase value to each pixel in the phase-SLM (¶0081: The input to the algorithm is an input image 210 comprising a 2D array of pixels or data values, wherein each pixel or data value is a magnitude, or amplitude, value… a data forming step 202A comprising assigning a random phase value to each pixel of the input image, using a random phase distribution (or random phase seed) 230; ¶0082: second processing block 253 quantises each phase value and sets each amplitude value to unity in order to form hologram 280A. Each phase value is quantised in accordance with the phase-levels which may be represented on the pixels of the spatial light modulator which will be used to “display” the phase-only hologram… if each pixel of the spatial light modulator provides 256 different phase levels, each phase value of the hologram is quantised into one phase level of the 256 possible phase levels; see FIG. 2A; ¶0077: The algorithm is convergent and arranged to produce a hologram representing an input image. The hologram may be, a phase-only hologram; ¶0036: the plurality of pixels of the SLM are provided with a respective plurality of control values which respectively determine the modulation level of each pixel) based on the equation: ϕ(x, y, a, b)=mod {[2π(xa+yb)], 2π}, where ϕ is the phase value, (x,y) represents a position of the pixel, and (a, b) represents a diffraction angle measured from a 0th order diffraction from the phase-SLM and mod (2π(xa+yb), 2π) represents a modulo 2π operation on a value 2π(xa+yb) (¶0015: the grating function is a phase-ramp function such as a wrapped or repeating phase-ramp function or modulo 2π phase-ramp function; ¶0041: any phase value described is, in fact, a number (e.g. in the range 0 to 2π) which represents the amount of phase retardation provided by that pixel. For example, a pixel of the spatial light modulator described as having a phase value of π/2 will retard the phase of received light by π/2 radians…each pixel of the spatial light modulator is operable in one of a plurality of possible modulation values. The term “grey level” may be used to refer to the plurality of available modulation levels. For example, the term “grey level” may be used for convenience to refer to the plurality of available phase levels in a phase-only modulator; ¶0136: spatially repositioning the light footprint on the replay plane and spatially repositioning the array of light features of the light footprint forming the holographic reconstruction achieved by “beam steering”);
(iv) displaying the CGH phase pattern on the phase-SLM using a graphic memory that is also used to determine the CGH phase pattern (¶0093, 0095: a real-time engine arranged to receive image data and calculate holograms in real-time using the algorithm…the holograms are pre-calculated, stored in computer memory and recalled as needed for display on a SLM; ¶0095: spatial light modulator may be used to display the diffractive pattern including the computer-generated hologram); and
(v) directing the optical beam onto the phase-SLM while the CGH phase pattern is being displayed to thereby steer the optical beam to the ROI (¶0091, 0136: the hologram may be combined in the same way with grating data—that is, data arranged to perform the function of a grating such as beam steering…the diffractive pattern written to the spatial light modulator may include grating data…a phase-only grating may be formed by modelling the phase delay caused by each point on the surface of a blazed grating. An amplitude-only holographic grating may be simply superimposed on an amplitude-only hologram representative of an image to provide angular steering of an amplitude-only hologram).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Smeeton further discloses: comprising simultaneously performing (i)-(v) for a plurality of objects defined in a plurality of ROIs in the image by simultaneously steering a plurality of optical beams, wherein the determining includes determining the CGH phase pattern so that the CGH pattern diffracts a single incoming illumination beam into multiple optical beams in such a way that each of the optical beams are directed towards different ROIs based on summing multiple diffracted electric fields, each of the diffracted electric fields diffracting light toward one of the ROIs followed by determining the CGH phase pattern as being represented as argument values of the summed multiple diffracted electric fields (FIGS. 9-10 & ¶0017, 0156, 0160: The holographic reconstruction formed from the hologram comprises a zero-order replay field at the centre and a plurality of higher-order replay fields extending in +/−x and +/−y directions (on an x-y holographic replay plane)…first-order replay fields are formed in both the (positive and negative) x direction and the y direction adjacent to the zero-order replay field; ¶0114: each scanning line is one image pixel wide (x-direction for vertical scanning line) and there are many scanning lines in each sub-area…each light feature/sub-area comprises a plurality of light spots, wherein each light spot comprises only one image pixel. That is, each light spot is formed of only one image pixel; ¶0101: each light feature is one continuous area of light such as a single light spot. In other words, each light feature is one discrete area of light; ¶0107: each sub area receives light of one light spot 430. In this embodiment, each light spot 430 is arranged to scan its corresponding individual sub area 440; ¶0109: each sub area 440 of the scene 420 is illuminated by a respective light spot 430 at the same time; ¶0113: each light footprint scans all of the sub areas 540 of the scene at the same time).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Smeeton further discloses: wherein determining the CGH phase pattern determines the CGH so that an energy distribution in the multiple optical beams is adjusted to equalize a strength of returning signals assuming that a ratio of an apparent extent of the objects in the plurality of objects depends on distance to the objects (¶0131: the power of the light feature formed in each sub area is adjusted so that the reflected light detected by the light detecting elements does not have a wide dynamic range…the optical power is reduced for those light features of the light footprint used for scanning the particular sub-areas for which the feedback signal indicates that a light detecting element, having an IFOV therein, was saturated; ¶0149: intensity variations are minimised across the field of view of the detector (surveyed scene) by minimising the magnitude of the grating changes during scanning; ¶0027: the display driver is further configured to change the hologram in order to reduce the optical power of light in a particular sub area if a detected signal from that sub area indicates that the corresponding detector element is saturated and, optionally, at the same time increase the optical power of light in other sub areas; ¶0177: the controller 1370 may determine if the magnitude of the light response signal 1374 exceeds a threshold value. The feedback signal may be provided to the controller 1370 by the light detector 1320 with the light response signal 1374).
Regarding Claim 4, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Smeeton further discloses: further comprising scanning the optical beam over the ROI (FIG. 4; ¶0101-04, 0106: Each light feature scans its entire sub-area…each light feature (of the array of light features) is a single light spot that is scanned in the x and y-direction; ¶0115-1119: a detection system [camera] comprising a plurality of light detection elements arranged to detect light reflected from the scene… light detecting elements is typically static during a scan… each light detection element may correspond to a single light feature formed in a sub area of the scene).
Regarding Claim 5, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Smeeton further discloses: further comprising performing foveated lidar using the scanned optical beam (¶0026: the detection system may comprise a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera…the IFOV of each light detection element uniquely corresponds to a part of a sub area of the total field of view of the LIDAR system; ¶0028-29, 0101, 0103; ¶0115: the LIDAR system comprises a detection system comprising a plurality of light detection elements arranged to detect light reflected from the scene).
Regarding Claim 10, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Smeeton further discloses: wherein the phase-SLM is a Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) SLM (¶0095, 0097: a spatial light modulator which modulates phase is required… LCOS SLM uses a silicon backplane which has the advantage that the pixels are optically flat. This is particularly important for a phase modulating device).
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 Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0266711 A1) in view of Matusik et al. (US 2023/0205133 A1).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claims 1 and 6, as above. Smeeton does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein determining the CGH phase pattern is performed using a graphical processing unit (GPU) (claim 6); wherein the determining and displaying are performed using an interoperable compute unified device architecture (CUDA) and OpenGL platform (claim 7).
Matusik is related to Smeeton with respect to a method for performing adaptive beam steering to one or more objects of interest, comprising detecting an object of interest in an image of a scene, determining a computer generated hologram (CGH) phase pattern to be applied to an optical beam by a phase Spatial Light Modulator (phase-SLM), wherein the determining is performed by a CGH calculation algorithm that is executed on a pixel-by-pixel-basis (¶0059, 0082-83, 0093, 0095-96, 0101, 0106, 0109, , 0132, 0142, 0144; FIGS. 6-7, 10, 16), and Matusik teaches: wherein determining the CGH phase pattern is performed using a graphical processing unit (GPU) (claim 6); wherein the determining and displaying are performed using an interoperable compute unified device architecture (CUDA) and OpenGL platform (claim 7) (¶0011: holographic display ¶0069: all algorithms are implemented on a GPU with the CNN in NVIDIA TensorRT, and the OA-PBM and PBM in NVIDIA CUDA; ¶0093: artefact-free images in regions with high-spatial-frequency details and around occlusion boundaries. The anti-aliasing double phase method (AA-DPM) can be efficiently implemented on a GPU; ¶0093, 0149: efficiency and accelerated GPU runtimes; ¶0148: The LDIs in the dataset are rendered in OpenGL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smeeton in view of Matusik to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a GPU is known and would be selected for being orders of magnitude faster (>1ms to convert a 1,920×1,080-pixel complex hologram on a single NVIDIA TITAN RTX GPU), as taught in paragraphs ¶0093, 0146 of Matusi; and such a CUDA and OpenGL platform is known and would be selected to render the CGH while achieving more than two orders of magnitude speed-up, as taught in paragraphs ¶0069, 0148 of Matusik.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0266711 A1) in view of Balaji et al. (US 2021/0232093 A1).
Regarding Claim 8-9, Smeeton discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Smeeton does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the phase-SLM is a phase light modulator (PLM) (clm 8); wherein the phase-SLM is a Micro Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) – PLM (clm 9).
Balaji is related to Smeeton with respect to a method for performing adaptive beam steering comprising determining a holographic phase pattern to be applied to an optical beam by a phase Spatial Light Modulator (phase-SLM), wherein the determining is performed by a calculation algorithm that is executed on a pixel-by-pixel-basis (¶0017, 0023, 0028-29, 0030-33, 0035, 0047; FIGS. 3, 5), and Balaji teaches: wherein the phase-SLM is a phase light modulator (PLM) (clm 8); wherein the phase-SLM is a Micro Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) – PLM (clm 9) (¶0029, 0031: a MEMS PLM includes an array of addressable storage elements associated with individual MEMS micromirrors that are arranged as pixels and have multiple vertical positions (vertical with respect to a reflective surface of the device when the device is facing upwards). The micromirrors may be used to modulate the phase of illumination light and, when illuminated, output phase modulated light…the phase modulated light is directed to projection optics 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smeeton in view of Balaji to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a PLM (and a MEMS PLM) is known and would be selected as optically efficient when compared to amplitude modulators because all of the illumination light is directed for projection and no light dump is used for any of the illumination light; and for having a high rate of operation, making temporal averaging in the bright regions of the projected images expedient, as taught in paragraphs ¶0020, 0027 of Balaji.
Claims 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0266711 A1) in view of Matusik et al. (US 2023/0205133 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Smeeton discloses: An adaptive beam steering system (¶0001, 0091, 0136), comprising: a camera arrangement configured to detect at least one object of interest in a region of interest (ROI) located in an image of a scene (¶0116: plurality of light detection elements comprises a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera, wherein each light detection element is an individual CCD of an array of CCD elements.); an optical source for generating an optical beam (¶0071: A light source 110, for example a laser or laser diode, is disposed to illuminate the SLM 140); a phase spatial light modulator (phase-SLM) being arranged to receive the optical beam (¶0095, 0097: a spatial light modulator which modulates phase is required… LCOS SLM uses a silicon backplane which has the advantage that the pixels are optically flat. This is particularly important for a phase modulating device); and a processing unit being configured to determine a computer generated hologram (CGH) phase pattern to be applied to an optical beam by the phase-SLM to scan the optical beam over the ROI by diffractive beam steering (¶0176: spatial light modulator is arranged to receive light from a light source (not shown) and output spatially modulated light in accordance with a dynamically-variable diffractive pattern comprising a computer-generated hologram represented or “displayed” on the spatial light modulator; ¶0015: the grating function of the diffractive pattern controls the spatial position of the projected light footprint in the scene [beam steering]… the grating function is a phase-ramp function such as a wrapped or repeating phase-ramp function or modulo 27r phase-ramp function), wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the CGH phase pattern using a CGH calculation algorithm that is executed in parallel for each of the pixels, wherein the determining includes determining the CGH phase pattern on a pixel-by-pixel-basis by assigning a phase value to each pixel in the phase-SLM based on the equation: ϕ(x, y, a, b)=mod {[2π(xa+yb)], 2π}, where ϕ is the phase value, (x,y) represents a position of the pixel, and (a, b) represents a diffraction angle measured from a 0th order diffraction from the phase-SLM and mod (2π(xa+yb), 2π) represents a modulo 2π operation on a value 2π(xa+yb); the GPU being further configured to cause the CGH phase pattern to be displayed on the phase-SLM while the optical beam is being directed on the phase-SLM to thereby steer the optical beam to the ROI (see rejection of claim 1 supra detailing relevant portions of Smeeton’s disclosure satisfying claimed limitations).
Smeeton does not appear to explicitly disclose: a graphical processing unit (GPU) to execute the claimed functions as recited.
Matusik is related to Smeeton with respect to a method for performing adaptive beam steering to one or more objects of interest, comprising detecting an object of interest in an image of a scene, determining a computer generated hologram (CGH) phase pattern to be applied to an optical beam by a phase Spatial Light Modulator (phase-SLM), wherein the determining is performed by a CGH calculation algorithm that is executed on a pixel-by-pixel-basis (¶0059, 0082-83, 0093, 0095-96, 0101, 0106, 0109, , 0132, 0142, 0144; FIGS. 6-7, 10, 16), and Matusik teaches: a graphical processing unit (GPU) being configured to determine a computer generated hologram (CGH) phase pattern to be applied to an optical beam by the phase-SLM to scan the optical beam over the ROI, wherein the GPU is further configured to determine the CGH phase pattern using a CGH calculation algorithm that is executed in parallel for each of the pixels, (¶0069: all algorithms are implemented on a GPU with the CNN in NVIDIA TensorRT, and the OA-PBM and PBM in NVIDIA CUDA; ¶0093: artefact-free images in regions with high-spatial-frequency details and around occlusion boundaries. The anti-aliasing double phase method (AA-DPM) can be efficiently implemented on a GPU; ¶0093, 0149: efficiency and accelerated GPU runtimes; ¶0142: a per-pixel look-up table… setting the pixel from 0 to k; ¶0101: CGH algorithm; ¶0136: light diffracted by the grating structure and higher order diffractions. A SONY A7M3 mirrorless full-frame camera paired with a 16-35 mm f/2.8 GM lens is used to photograph the results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smeeton in view of Matusik to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a GPU satisfying the claimed functions is known and would be selected for being orders of magnitude faster (>1ms to convert a 1,920×1,080-pixel complex hologram on a single NVIDIA TITAN RTX GPU), as taught in paragraphs ¶0093, 0146 of Matusi.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Smeeton discloses the adaptive beam steering system according to Claim 11, as above. Smeeton further discloses: wherein the camera arrangement (¶0101-04, 0106: a plurality of light detection elements arranged to detect light reflected from the scene… light detecting elements is typically static during a scan… each light detection element may correspond to a single light feature formed in a sub area of the scene) is configured to detect a plurality of objects defined in a plurality of ROIs in the image, the processing unit being further configured (¶0160: each replay field comprises the same array of discrete light spots that is repositioned in raster scan order across the replay plane, for example using a software grating, to form the sequence of light footprints, as described herein. In consequence, adjacent light footprints of the first-order replay fields [plurality of beams steered] are correspondingly repositioned) to cause simultaneous steering of a plurality of optical beams, wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the CGH phase pattern so that the CGH pattern diffracts the optical beam into multiple optical beams in such a way that each of the multiple optical beams are directed towards different ROIs based on summing multiple diffracted electric fields, each of the diffracted electric fields diffracting light toward one of the ROIs followed by determining the CGH phase pattern as being represented as argument values of the summed multiple diffracted electric fields (see rejection of claim 2 supra detailing relevant portions of Smeeton’s disclosure satisfying claimed limitations).
Smeeton does not appear to explicitly disclose: a graphical processing unit (GPU) to execute the claimed functions as recited.
Matusik is related to Smeeton (see rejection of claim 11 supra), and Matusik teaches: the GPU being further configured to cause simultaneous steering of a plurality of optical beams, wherein the GPU is further configured to determine the CGH phase pattern so that the CGH pattern diffracts the optical beam into multiple optical beams (¶0082: foveation-guided rendering to holography, we rendered holograms for both 8 μm and 16 μm pixel pitch SLMs; ¶0140: the beam diffracted by the grating overlaps with the beam reflected from the uniform region; ¶0069: all algorithms are implemented on a GPU with the CNN in NVIDIA TensorRT, and the OA-PBM and PBM in NVIDIA CUDA; ¶0093: artefact-free images in regions with high-spatial-frequency details and around occlusion boundaries. The anti-aliasing double phase method (AA-DPM) can be efficiently implemented on a GPU; ¶0093, 0149: efficiency and accelerated GPU runtimes; ¶0142: a per-pixel look-up table… setting the pixel from 0 to k; ¶0101: CGH algorithm; ¶0136: light diffracted by the grating structure and higher order diffractions. A SONY A7M3 mirrorless full-frame camera paired with a 16-35 mm f/2.8 GM lens is used to photograph the results).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Smeeton discloses the adaptive beam steering system according to Claim 12, as above. Smeeton further discloses: wherein determining the CGH phase pattern determines the CGH so that an energy distribution in the multiple optical beams is adjusted to equalize a strength of returning signals assuming that a ratio of an apparent extent of the objects in the plurality of objects depends on distance to the objects (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Regarding Claim 14, Smeeton discloses the adaptive beam steering system according to Claim 11, as above. Smeeton further discloses: wherein the camera arrangement is further configured to scan the optical beam over the ROI (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Regarding Claim 15, Smeeton discloses the adaptive beam steering system according to Claim 11, as above. Matusik further discloses: wherein the GPU is configured to determine the CGH phase pattern and cause the CGH phase pattern to be displayed using an interoperable compute unified device architecture (CUDA) and openGL platform (see rejection of claims 6-7 supra).
Regarding Claim 18, Smeeton discloses the adaptive beam steering system according to Claim 11, as above. Smeeton further discloses: wherein the phase-SLM is a Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) SLM (see rejection of claim 10 supra).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeeton et al. (US 2023/0266711 A1) in view of Matusik et al. (US 2023/0205133 A1), and further in view of Balaji et al. (US 2021/0232093 A1).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Smeeton-Matusik discloses the adaptive beam steering system according to Claim 11, as above. Balaji further discloses: wherein the phase-SLM is a phase light modulator (PLM) (clm 16) (see rejection of claim 8 supra); wherein the phase-SLM is a Micro Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS)-PLM (clm 17) (see rejection of claim 9 supra).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Maimone et al. (US 10,845,761 B2) and Oden et al. (US 2021/0181499 A) disclose pertinent state of the art pertinent literature directed to phase SLM’s, methods of calculating CGH phase pattern, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights