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 .
Preliminary Amendment
At least six versions of the claims were submitted on October 28, 2024 along with the national stage filing and the Preliminary Amendment. Only one version has proper status identifiers, indicating that it is the amended version of the claims. In this claim set, claim 12 has been canceled and claims 1-11 and 13 are currently pending. It is this set that is considered the newest set, which is now entered and examined the present office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13 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.
Claim 1, line 2, “the optical beam” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 19, “the modulo 2π phase shift” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 describes each phase mask has having at least one corresponding core. It later describes the core as part of “a phase mask unit cell”. It is unclear how the recited “phase mask”, the “phase mask unit cell” and the “core are related. Applicant is reminded that it is improper to read limitations of the specification into the claims, therefore for claim construction these components can be understood only by the claim language, and not by looking into the specification, for example by looking to the specification paragraphs [0024] et al, and associated figures, to see that each phase mask 121 has an array of unit cells 122 and each unit cell has a single core 123. The claim should make these relationships clear.
Claim 1 recites “an intended phase shift at each phase mask” which is caused by selecting the thickness and height of the at least one corresponding core of a phase mask. Claim 1 later recites that ““the modulo 2π phase shift is a function of the thickness of the core in a phase mask unit cell”. It is unclear how the “intended phase shift” is related to the “modulo 2π phase shift”. Are they alternatives, or are they describing the same phase shift. It is also unclear if each of these phase shifts is the phase shift happening at a single phase mask, or if it is the phase shift resulting from the plurality of phase masks, if there are multiple phase masks.
Claim 1 only requires a single phase mask (“at least one phase mask”) having a single core (“each phase mask having at least one corresponding core”). It is unclear how a single core can cause any phase shift or cause any modification in an optical beam characteristic. It would seem from the specification knowledge of one skilled in the art, that a plurality of cores, possibly arranged in an array or similar arrangement, would be necessary to achieve these claimed functions.
All of the claims should be consistent regarding whether the claimed device is allowed to have a single core or if it requires multiple cores because some claims recite “core” and some claims recite “each core” or “cores”.
Also, all of the claims should use the same language when describing the number of phase masks. Some claims recite “the at least one phase mask” while others recite “each of the phase masks”.
Claim 8 recites that each phase mask comprises a plurality of unit cells. Parent claim 1, already recites “a phase mask unit cell”. It is unclear if the unit cells of claim 8 are the same as the unit cell recited in claim 1. Also, claim 8 recites a plurality of unit cells, each with “one of the corresponding cores”. Parent claim 1 does not require multiple cores, but only a single core. It is unclear how the corresponding core of claim 1 relates the corresponding cores of claim 8. Similarly, claim 13 recites “periodically placed unit cells”. It is unclear how these relate to the unit cell of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites different shapes for the cores that are not circular. Claim 1 states that each core has “a thickness”. For the shapes recited in claim 9, it is unclear how the thickness is to be measures. For example, for the recited elliptical shape, is the thickness measured along the major or minor axis?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0025509 A1, in view of Jang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0025893 A1.
With regard to claim 1, in figs. 1-9, Kim discloses an optical beam sculpting assembly 1000 which defines at least one optical beam characteristic of the optical beam, comprising, in combination: a chip substrate; a beam forming and steering structure positioned on the chip substrate, adapted to emit, to receive, and to steer the optical beam (shown as 1200); and at least one phase mask (100/200), with each phase mask having at least one corresponding core having a thickness, and a height which are selected and configured to induce an intended phase shift at each phase mask (meta surfaces having nanostructures), wherein the beam forming and steering structure is positioned between the at least one phase mask and the chip substrate, wherein the at least one phase mask (100/200) is configured to sculpt the optical beam emitted from the beam forming and steering structure by modifying the at least one optical beam characteristic of the optical beam; wherein the at least one optical beam characteristic comprises at least one of a spatial distribution of optical amplitude, a temporal distribution of the optical amplitude, an optical phase, a polarization, and an optical orbital angular momentum [0035-0101].
Kim does not expressly show the shapes of the cores as arranged in phase mask unit cells, and it does not specifically describe that the phase shift as a modulo 2r phase shift. Jang teaches a LIDAR device having beam steering/sculpting phase masks 200 having circular cores in an array of unit cells. Both the Kim and Jang beam steering/sculpting phase masks are capable of modifying the spatial and temporal distribution of optical amplitude, optical phase and/or optical orbital angular momentum by adjusting the phase profile of an optical beam, which can be tailored to a modulo 2r phase shift as needed to achieve a desired outcome for the optimal functioning of the LIDAR device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cores in unit cells of Jang in the beam shaping/sculpting device of Kim, and further by optimizing the shapes and other optical characteristics of these structures to achieve a desired output optical beam, including a modulo 2r phase shift, as taught by both Kim and Jang, to optimize the functioning of the LIDAR device.
With regard to claim 2, in figs. 1-9, Kim discloses that the at least one phase mask each comprises one of Si/SiO2, polysilicon, SiN4, SiO2, Ge, LiaNbO3, a polymer, a Ill-V compound and a Il-VI compound [0053-0060].
With regard to claim 3, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each of the phase masks comprises one of a discrete optical phase mask and a continuous optical phase mask.
With regard to claim 4, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that the discrete optical phase mask comprises one of a binary optical phase mask and a multilevel optical phase mask.
With regard to claim 5, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each of the phase masks modulates at least one of a beam spot size, a tilt angle and a field of view of the optical beam.
With regard to claim 6, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each of the phase masks is configured to shift a directionality of the beam from the beam forming and steering structure.
With regard to claim 7, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each phase mask comprises an undercladding and an overcladding, and the core extends from the undercladding toward the overcladding by the height (see Jang figs. 2-7).
With regard to claim 8, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each phase mask comprises a plurality of unit cells formed as an array, each with one of the corresponding cores, with each of the corresponding cores separated by one of a uniform distance and a non-uniform distance.
With regard to claim 9, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each core has one of an elliptical, a polygonal, and a closed Bezier curve cross-section (Jang [0099]).
With regard to claim 10, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that each of the phase masks has same height.
With regard to claim 11, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that the at least one phase mask includes at least two phase masks positioned above the beam forming and steering structure on the chip substrate, wherein each of the at least two phase masks modulates at least one of a beam spot size, a beam tilt angle or directionality and a field-of-view of the beam.
With regard to claim 13, the combined Kim/Jang device described in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches that the at least one phase mask comprises periodically placed unit cells, each with a corresponding core having a non-uniform height.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kiesha R Bryant can be reached at (571)272-3606. 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.
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights