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 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 3, 7, and 8 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.
As for claim 3, the claim recites that the processor is further adapted to, among other limitations, “determine a temporal characteristic of the optical input based on the extended swept light signal”. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 3 depends, already sets forth determining “a temporal characteristic of the optical input”. As a result, it is not clear whether “a temporal characteristic” that is determined in claim 3 is the same temporal characteristic of the optical input as what is determined in claim 1, or if these are different temporal characteristics. Clarification is required.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the temporal characteristic in claim 3 to be the same as the temporal characteristic in claim 1.
As for claim 7, the claim recites that the system comprises a diffraction grating provided between the optical input and the micromirror. However, in the best understanding of the examiner, the optical input is a beam of light (this is supported by claim 1, which states “reflect an optical input). As a result, it is unclear how the diffraction grating can be located between the optical input and the micromirror when the optical input is light and not a physical object. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim that light passes through or is reflected by a diffraction grating prior to reaching the micromirror.
Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 7, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gleckler (2008/0035834).
Regarding claim 1, Gleckler (Fig. 12b) discloses a system comprising a micromirror (DMD) arranged to receive and reflect an optical input (see Fig. 12b – this is the light that travels towards the DMD through the imaging optics and the slit mask device), wherein the micromirror is adapted to tilt from signals from the timing circuit between a first position and a second position (see paragraph 0284 describing using the DMD to scan beams); an optical sensor array (image detector) arranged to receive light reflected by the micromirror at a position between the first position and at the second position (see paragraph 0285-0288); and a processor (system control computer which is connected to the timing circuit and a data processing computer) in communication with the micromirror (the system control computer is in communication with the micromirror through the timing circuit) and the optical sensor array (the system control computer is in communication with the image detector through the data processing computer), wherein the processor is adapted to control the micromirror to tilt between the first position and the second position when the optical input is received, thereby sweeping the reflected light across the optical sensor array to generate a swept light signal at the optical sensor array (see paragraphs 0284-0291); and determine a temporal characteristic of the optical input based on the swept light signal (see paragraph 0302, in a nonlimiting example, which states that the technique used by the Gleckler invention allows for resolving temporal portions of a lidar signal, which would be the optical input signal in Fig. 12b).
As for claim 2, Gleckler discloses that the optical sensor array comprises a camera sensor (CCD, for example, in paragraph 0315).
As for claim 3, Gleckler discloses that the micromirror is further adapted to tilt between the second position and the first position (if the micromirror can tilt between a first and second position as discussed above in claim 1, then it follows that the micromirror will be able to tilt between the second and first positions when controlled as such by the timing circuit for continual scanning), and wherein the processor is further adapted to control the micromirror to tilt between the first position and the second position and between the second position and the first position when the optical input is received, thereby sweeping the reflected light across the optical sensor array to generate an extended swept light signal at the optical sensor array (see paragraph 0285, which states that the MEMS-based sensor uses motion of the MEMS elements to provide the needed optical streaking); and determine a temporal characteristic of the optical input based on the extended swept light signal (see paragraph 0302, in a nonlimiting example, which states that the technique used by the Gleckler invention allows for resolving temporal portions of a lidar signal, which would be the optical input signal in Fig. 12b).
As for claim 4, Gleckler discloses that the system comprises a plurality of micromirrors adapted to receive the optical input, wherein each micromirror of the plurality of micromirrors is adapted to tilt between the first and second positions (see Fig. 11c, showing a DMD with a plurality of mirrors).
As for claim 6, Gleckler discloses the plurality of micromirrors arranged in a two-dimensional array (see Fig. 11c).
As for claim 7, Gleckler, in the best understanding of the examiner, discloses that the system further comprises a diffraction grating (see the wavelength dispersion device in Fig.12b; see Fig. 6b showing that this can be a diffraction grating) that the optical input passes through prior to reaching the micromirror.
As for claim 9, Gleckler discloses that the temporal characteristic comprises a time-of-flight measurement (see paragraph 0302, which discloses that the detector resolves temporal portions of a lidar signal, with time-of-flight being the basic measurement of lidar).
As for claim 10, Gleckler discloses that the system further comprises a light source (laser transmitter) adapted to generate an output light signal (see Fig. 12b) and wherein the optical input is a reflection of the output light signal from a surface external to the system (inherent to the lidar measurement in paragraph 0302).
Regarding claim 13, Gleckler (Fig. 12b) discloses a method for determining a temporal characteristic of an optical input, the method comprising: controlling (using a timing circuit) a micromirror (DMD) to tilt between a first position and a second position when the optical input (the light that passes through the imaging optics and the slit mask device) is received (see paragraph 0284 describing scanning the beam using the DMD), wherein the micromirror is adapted to receive and reflect the optical input (see Fig. 12b; the DMD receives the light and reflects it towards an image detector); obtaining a swept light signal (using the data processing computer/electronics) from an optical sensor array (image detector) arranged to receive light reflected by the micromirror at a position between the first position and at the second position (see paragraph 0284-0291); and determining the temporal characteristic of the optical input based on the swept light signal (see paragraph 0302, in a nonlimiting example, which states that the technique used by the Gleckler invention allows for resolving temporal portions of a lidar signal, which would be the optical input signal in Fig. 12b).
As for claim 14, Gleckler discloses that the micromirror is one of a plurality of micromirrors (see Fig. 11c, showing a plurality of micromirrors in the DMD), the method further comprising controlling each micromirror of the plurality of micromirrors to tilt between the first and second positions when the optical input is received (the timing circuit would control all mirrors of the DMD as needed to reflect the light to the image detector as in paragraphs 0284-0286).
As for claim 15, Gleckler discloses that determining the temporal characteristic of the optical input comprises determining a reflected pattern of the swept light signal (see paragraph 0302, “The plural-image technique allows tremendous gains in ability to simultaneously and independently resolve spectral, temporal and spatial portions of a lidar signal, all within the same excitation pulse. These forms of the invention represent extension of pixel-remapping concepts into the spectral domain”) (emphasis added).
As for claim 19, Gleckler discloses determining a spatial characteristic of the optical input based on the swept light signal (see paragraph 0302, “The plural-image technique allows tremendous gains in ability to simultaneously and independently resolve spectral, temporal and spatial portions of a lidar signal, all within the same excitation pulse. These forms of the invention represent extension of pixel-remapping concepts into the spectral domain”) (emphasis added).
As for claim 20, Gleckler discloses determining the spatial characteristic of the optical input by determining a spectral dispersion of the swept light signal (because of the wavelength dispersion device in Fig. 12b dividing the light into three wavelengths, and the teaching in paragraph 0302 that the invention represents an extension of pixel-remapping concepts into the spectral domain, it follows that Gleckler determines a spectral dispersion of the swept light signal).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleckler (2008/0035834) in view of Ma (2023/0035528).
As for claim 5, Gleckler discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose that the plurality of micromirrors is arranged in a one-dimensional array, along with the specific arrangement of the tilting of the micromirrors and the array itself.
Ma, in a lidar system, discloses (Fig. 5) that light emitted from laser 211 is scanned across the target using a one-dimensional MEMS micromirror (see paragraph 0168). With regards to the specific arrangement of the array, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the micromirror of Gleckler with a one-dimensional array as taught by Ma, the motivation being that, as Ma teaches the one-dimensional micromirror is able to scan the entire detection region (see paragraph 0168), it follows that replacing the Gleckler micromirror with the Ma micromirror would allow for scanning of the entire detector with light with a simpler micromirror than the two-dimensional array disclosed by Gleckler.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleckler (2008/0035834).
As for claim 8, Gleckler discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 7, but fails to disclose that the diffraction grating is a blazed grating.
However, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of blazed gratings in optical measurement devices to optimize the intensity of light on a desired diffraction order, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the diffraction grating of Gleckler for a blazed grating, the motivation being to maximize the optical power on a desired diffraction order while minimizing residual power on the other diffraction orders, thereby enabling optimal light power to be directed towards the micromirror and detector for measurements.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleckler (2008/0035834) in view of Solomentsev et al (2022/0113429).
As for claim 11, Gleckler discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 10, but fails to disclose an optical fiber circulator.
Solomentsev, in a lidar system, discloses (Fig. 3) a lidar system 300 which emits light 314 from a laser 302, with the light being directed to a beam splitting element 304 and a scanner 308 which directs light to the surroundings 250 where objects can be imaged (see paragraph 0097). Solomentsev continues that the lidar system can include optical fibers and circulators to steer or direct either the input or output light beams (see paragraph 0121). In that light, the circulators would receive the output light signal 314 from the light source, output a plurality of output light signals (which would be necessary to measure the plurality of objects in paragraph 0097) and receive a plurality of reflected light signals 316 as a plurality of optical inputs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an optical fiber circulator to the device of Gleckler as per Solomentsev, the motivation being to enable the measurement of a plurality of objects simultaneously using the efficient lidar system of Gleckler (see paragraph 0097 of Solomentsev).
As for claim 12, the combination of Gleckler and Solomentsev would direct the plurality of optical inputs to the micromirror to determine a plurality of time-of-flight measurements from a plurality of swept light signals as evidenced by Solomentsev directing the reflected light signals to a detection system 306, this detection system being the detection system featuring the micromirror of Fig. 12b of Gleckler.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleckler (2008/0035834) in view of Ghosh et al (2015/0362585).
As for claim 18, Gleckler discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 13, but while Gleckler discloses determining the temporal characteristic of the optical input as set forth above in claim 13, Gleckler fails to disclose analyzing an intensity profile of the swept light signal.
Ghosh, in a device for optically scanning an object, discloses that the intensity of reflected radiation pulses from the object are processed by a processor to computer an intensity profile of the object (see paragraph 0091 and 0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a temporal characteristic of the optical input of Gleckler by analyzing an intensity profile of the light returning from the object as in Ghosh, the motivation being to allow for computation of a full image of the object being measured by the lidar system (see paragraph 0095).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 15, wherein determining the reflected pattern of the swept light signal comprises determining a diffraction pattern of the swept light signal by applying a blazed diffraction grating model to the swept light signal, wherein the blazed diffraction grating model comprises a model of a diffraction pattern from a blazed diffraction grating, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0103774 to Liang et al. and “Single-shot compressed optical-streaking ultra-high-speed photography” both disclose using a spatial encoding module (element 12 in Liang) that is a digital micromirror device for creating an optical streak image of a scene; US 2022/0038625 to Gomi et al. discloses an imaging device using a patterning device 114 to generate patterns of light to image an object (see Fig. 2); and US 2004/0042000 to Mehrl et al. discloses a method and apparatus for measuring the temporal response characteristics of digital mirror devices such as micromirror array 110 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0053).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights