DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended language, Applicant argues: “Turning to the rejection, claims I and 8 recite, "a light emitter configured to rotate inside the housing and emit light through the aperture of the housing, wherein the light emitter includes a plurality of individual emitters emitting beams including a first emitter and a second emitter, the beam of the first emitter having a first polarization and the beam of the second emitter having at least one polarization different from the first polarization, …”
Examiner notes that the rejection has been updated in view of Stern. See below. It is not clear how the addition of a second emitter is intended to improve the operation of the claimed LIDAR.
Applicant argues: “In contrast to Johnson, Steinberg's high-speed rotation of the emitter and detector within the housing inevitably generates mechanical vibration. This vibration can interfere with the extremely precise optical alignment required by the Johnson's DA VLL system, or can cause subtle fluctuations in the laser frequency itself. Therefore, it would be counterintuitive for those skilled in the art to simply combine the Johnson's DA VLL system, which requires extremely precise frequency control, with the Steinberg's rotating scanning unit, which inevitably generates vibration.”
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The claims are not limited to and Johnson is not cited for the teachings of the calibration loop features in argument, and bodily incorporation of unclaimed features is not required of the prior art. Johnson, Steinberg, and Stern are directed to implementing LIDAR systems and are relevant for the relevant aspects of the systems that are cited in the reasons for rejection below. As noted below it is known that a LIDAR system can rotate, can be integrated into a housing, and can used different types of illumination and imaging components in the same manner as claimed.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Component arrangements or rearrangements which do not modify operation of the device cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (shifting the position of the starting switch was not patentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.)
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210389436 to Johnson (“Johnson”) in view of US 20140247357 to Sekiguchi (“Sekiguchi”), in view of US 5838239 to Stern (“Stern “), and in view of US 20180113200 to Steinberg (“Steinberg”)
Regarding Claim 1: “A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising: (“embodiments of a direct detection LIDAR system” Johnson, Paragraph 10 and similarly in Sekiguchi, Paragraph 129 and Stern, Column 27, line 19.)
a light emitter configured to (“a target 210 is illuminated by the transmitted light from the laser transmitter” Johnson, Paragraph 15. Similarly, “a light-emitting diode (LED) is used as the light source 202,” in Sekuguchi, Paragraph 144.)
wherein the light emitter includes a plurality of individual emitters emitting a plurality of beams [that pass through the aperture of the housing,] (“Note that in the present embodiment, a case where there is one light source 202 has been explained; however, a plurality of light sources 202 can be arranged.” Sekiguchi, Paragraph 117. See passing through an aperture of a housing and the statements of motivation below.)
the plurality of individual emitters including a first emitter emitting a first beam of the plurality of beams and a second emitter emitting a second beam of the plurality of beams, (“a plurality of light sources 202 can be arranged. In that case, as the polarization filter layer 225 of the filter part for the raindrop detection 220B, one in which a plurality of polarization filter regions, the directions of transmission axes of which are different to each other are regionally divided …” Seikiguchi, Paragraph 117. See statement of motivation below.)
the first beam having a first polarization and (For example: “laser beam output by laser 110 which is initially linearly polarized,” See Johnson, Paragraph 12 for example, vertically polarized as in Sekuguchi, Paragraph 144. See statement of motivation below. This embodiment is consistent with the preferred embodiment in Specification, Paragraph 28 and original Claim 5.)
the second beam having at least one polarization different from the first polarization, (Note that this claim element or the supporting description in the Specification are not tied to any particular functionality of the LIDAR but rather describe a range of options that can be used for light emitters: “The individual beams emitted by emitter 504 will have a well-defined state of polarization that may or may not be the same across the entire array.” See Specification, Paragraph 35.
Seikiguchi teaches: “a plurality of light sources 202 … the polarization filter region of the plurality of the light sources 202 …” Seikiguchi, Paragraphs 117-118. See statement of motivation below.
Johnson and Seikiguchi do not explicitly describe an option where a second illumination beam can have a different polarization from the first.
Stern teaches this feature in the context imaging and LIDAR systems: “Referring to FIGS. 10a-10f, a concentric arrangement of illuminating light sources 13 … As shown in FIG. 10c, each light source 13 has four similar segments 203-1 through 203-4. Each segment 203 has two assemblies 203a and 203b that have a plurality of linearly polarized light sources 103 … The polarization axes of the filters on assemblies 203a and 203b are mounted orthogonal to each other” and thus different from each other. Stern, Column 12, lines 11-52. This describes both an array of light sources and at least two light beams having different polarization.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Johnson and Seikiguchi to implement a light source with “the second beam having at least one polarization different from the first polarization” as taught in Stern, in order to provide light sources that “minimize preferential reflection of the light from the surface to be illuminated.” Stern, Column 12, lines 45-48.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness. See Specification, Paragraph 35.
each of the first polarization and the at least one polarization different from the first polarization has a predetermined state of polarization, the predetermined state of polarization including a vertical polarization, a horizontal polarization, a left hand circular polarization and a right hand circular polarization; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the first beam can have a vertical polarization while the second beam can contain at least one other polarization such as a horizontal, a left hand circular, a right hand circular polarization, or all of the above as may be contained in unpolarized light.
Prior art teaches an embodiment with “a plurality of linearly polarized light sources 103 … The polarization axes of the filters on assemblies 203a and 203b are mounted orthogonal to each other” and thus produce beams having polarizations that are different from each other. Stern, Column 12, lines 11-52. See statement of motivation above.)
a light detector [configured to rotate inside the housing and] comprising a photodetector configured to produce an electrical signal when receiving light reflected by an object (“If a target [object] 210 is illuminated by the transmitted light from the laser transmitter/receiver optics 190, some of that light will be reflected and connected by the transmit/receive optics 190 … focused by lenses 142 and 141 onto detectors 151 and 152, respectively. Detectors 151 and 152 convert the respective light signals to electrical signals.” Johnson, Paragraph 15. Similarly, see Sekuguchi, Paragraph 125.)
a processor that determines a distance to the object using the electrical signal; (“The LIDAR system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to compute a distance to the target in accordance with the determined ratio.” Johnson, Claim 3, and similarly in Paragraph 15. See similarly in Sekuguchi, Paragraph 42.)
a polarization filter disposed in front of the light detector, (“If a target 210 is illuminated by the transmitted light from the laser transmitter/receiver optics 190, some of that light will be reflected and connected by the transmit/receive optics 190 and directed to the circulator 180 to a collimating lens 154 that collimates the light. Following the collimating lens 154 is a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155. … then focused by lenses 142 and 141 onto detectors 151 and 152, respectively.” Johnson, Paragraph 15. For example, this filter can be a vertical polarization filter as in Figs. 15A and 17. See similarly in Sekiguchi, Paragraph 75. See statement of motivation below.)
first optical elements disposed before the polarization filter, so that light entering the LiDAR system passes through some or all of the first optical elements before reaching the polarization filter, and through the polarization filter before reaching the light detector; and (For example, “Following the collimating lens 154 [before] is a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155 [after]” which is an example of the claimed optical element. See Johnson, Paragraph 15.)
second optical elements disposed between the polarization filter and the light detector, so that light entering the LiDAR system passes through the polarization filter before reaching some or all of the second optical elements, and through the polarization filter before reaching the light detector, (For example, “Following the collimating lens 154 [before] is a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155 [between] ... The light then goes through the gas cell 120. … goes to the quarter wave plate 130 [between] and then on to the polarizing beam splitter 140 [between]. The corresponding outputs of the polarizing beam splitter 140 are then focused by lenses 142 and 141 [between] onto detectors 151 and 152, respectively,” which are examples of the claimed optical elements. See Johnson, Paragraph 15.)
wherein the light detector is configured to receive and detect via the polarization filter one or more characteristics of light emitted by the light emitter after being reflected by an object, (“If a target 210 is illuminated by the transmitted light from the laser transmitter/receiver optics 190, some of that light will be reflected and connected by the transmit/receive optics 190 and directed to the circulator 180 to a collimating lens 154 that collimates the light. Following the collimating lens 154 is a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155. … then focused by lenses 142 and 141 onto detectors 151 and 152, respectively.” Johnson, Paragraph 15 and Fig 1. Similarly, “detector in which accuracy in identification that identifies light reflected from attached matter such as a raindrop, … light transmitted through the polarization filter layer 225 of the filter part for the rain detection 220B is only the vertical polarization component P,” Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 4 and 105. See statement of motivation below.)
wherein the polarization filter is configured to limit polarization of light entering the light detector to a single polarization and thus filter noise light from reaching the light detector.” (“a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155. The narrow bandpass filter is used to reduce background illumination,” thus limiting the polarization and wavelengths of light that can reach the detectors to the desired light properties. Johnson, Paragraph 15. Similarly see Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 104-105 and statement of motivation below.)
wherein the emitted light has polarization oriented to correspond to an orientation of the polarization filter, (When Johnson emits linearly polarized light in Paragraph 12 and then filters the reflected polarized light through a polarizer before detecting it in Paragraph 15, it is implied that the orientations of the polarizations are “corresponding” within the claimed scope of correspondences. Sekiguchi further exemplifies a “correspondence” in making the polarization directions of the filters be parallel, in order to filter out ambient noise that lowers the accuracy of the detection system. See See Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 104-105 and statement of motivation below. This example corresponds exactly the purpose of the claimed invention. See Specification Paragraphs 2 and 5.)
wherein the polarization filter is downstream of the light emitter and the light detector is downstream of the polarization filter, (“If a target 210 is illuminated by the transmitted light from the laser transmitter/receiver optics 190, some of that light will be reflected and connected by the transmit/receive optics 190 and directed to the circulator 180 to a collimating lens 154 that collimates the light. Following the collimating lens 154 [downstream] is a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155. … then focused by lenses 142 and 141 onto [downstream] detectors 151 and 152, respectively.” Johnson, Paragraph 15. Similarly, in Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 104, 105. See statement of motivation below.)
wherein the polarization filter is combined with a quarter wave plate” (“the collimating lens 154 is a polarizer 153 and a narrow bandpass filter 155 … goes to the quarter wave plate 130” Johnson, Paragraph 14. See statement of motivation below.)
wherein the first optical elements are fixedly arranged in front of the light emitter and the light detector.” (For example, “If a target 210 is illuminated by the transmitted light from the laser transmitter/receiver optics 190, some of that light win be reflected and collected by the transmit/receive optics 190” See Johnson, Paragraph 15 and Fig. 1.)
Johnson does not explicitly state that the polarizer contributes to reducing noise from background illumination from reaching the light detector because it’s invention is geared toward optimizing bandpass filtering of the noise, or “wherein light received and detected by the detector has only the first polarization,” however a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is a conventional use of polarizing filters in imaging, and (although not explicitly defined) the polarizing filter in Johnson likely has the first polarization corresponding to the laser emitter first polarization:
Sekiguchi provides examples particularly directed to “the polarization filter is configured to limit polarization of light entering the light detector to the first polarization and thus filter noise light from reaching the light detector, the noise light having a polarization that is different from the first polarization … wherein light received and detected by the detector has only the first polarization … the noise light having a polarization that is different from the first polarization,” in the context of using laser illuminated optical detection systems used on vehicles: “ambient light that lowers the accuracy in the raindrop detection is specularly-reflected light that is specularly-reflected by the inner surface of the front window 105, most of its polarization component is a polarization component, … Therefore, light transmitted through the polarization filter layer 225 of the filter part for the rain detection 220B is only the vertical polarization component P, and it is possible to cut the horizontal polarization component S that occupies a large amount of the ambient light of the reflection” of light containing undesired ambient noise. Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 104-105. This operation is in conjunction with “laser diode (LD) … the LD emits only light of a specific polarization component, axis of the LD can be adjusted such that only light of the vertical polarization component P is incident” Sekuguchi, Paragraph 144. Thus, light emission and detection are both limited to having vertical polarization, which is an example of “the first polarization” of the claims.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Johnson so that “the polarization filter is configured to limit polarization of light entering the light detector to a single polarization and thus filter noise light from reaching the light detector” as taught in Sekiguchi, in order to improve the optical detection system accuracy in the presence of ambient light. Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 104-105.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Johnson, Sekiguchi, and Stern do not explicitly teach the features below.
Steinberg teaches the features below in the context of LIDAR systems:
a housing having an aperture (”the motor (or other mechanism) may mechanically rotate a rigid structure of LIDAR system 100 on which one or more light sources 112 and one or more sensors 116 are installed,” where “all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200,” See Steinberg, Paragraphs 153, 128, Fig.3D.)
made of a material transparent to light; (Note that in Steinberg, the outer shell of the housing is a dome having a window 124 that is transparent to light, where the housing can remain stationary while the rigid structure 100 containing the emitter 116 and collector 112 inside the dome is rotated: “the projected light emission may be directed to exit aperture 314 that is part of a wall 316 … wall 316 can be formed from a transparent material ( e.g., glass)” See Steinberg, Paragraph 154 and Fig. 3D.)
[a light emitter configured to] rotate inside the housing (Prior art teaches two embodiments: “[1] In this example, LIDAR system 100 may include a motor or other mechanisms for rotating housing 200 about the axis of the LIDAR system 100. [2] Alternatively, the motor (or other mechanism) may mechanically rotate a rigid structure of LIDAR system 100 on which one or more light sources 112 and one or more sensors 116 are installed,” where “all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200,” See Steinberg, Paragraphs 153, 128, Fig.3D.)
[a light emitter configured to] emit light through the aperture of the housing … [beams] that pass through the aperture of the housing, (“the projected light emission may be reflected by deflector 114A through an exit aperture 314 when projected light 204 travel towards optional optical window 124,” which is an optical aperture of the housing 200. See Steinberg, Paragraphs 128, 157, 216 Fig.3D.)
[a light detector configured to] rotate inside the housing (Prior art teaches two embodiments: “[1] In this example, LIDAR system 100 may include a motor or other mechanisms for rotating housing 200 about the axis of the LIDAR system 100. [2] Alternatively, the motor (or other mechanism) may mechanically rotate a rigid structure of LIDAR system 100 on which one or more light sources 112 and one or more sensors 116 are installed,” where “all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200,” See Steinberg, Paragraphs 153, 128, Fig.3D.)
[receiving light reflected by an object] through the aperture of the housing; (“In one or more embodiments, the DAVLL system 100 may be contained within the same housing (not shown) as the laser source,” which indicates that the housing has sufficient apertures for the light from the light source to exit the housing and for the reflected light to enter the housing onto the detectors when reflected from the object.. See Johnson, Paragraph 14 and Fig. 1. This is similarly taught by Steinberg: “a portion of the photons reflected from object 208A enters optional optical window 124” which is an optical aperture part of the housing 200, in Steinberg, Paragraphs 128, 157, 216, Fig.3D.)
wherein the light emitter and the light detector rotate inside the stationary dome of the housing, (“Alternatively, the motor (or other mechanism) may mechanically rotate a rigid structure of LIDAR system 100 on which one or more light sources 112 and one or more sensors 116 are installed,” where “all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200,” including the light sources 112 and the sensors 116 and the structure on which they are installed inside the housing. See Steinberg, Paragraphs 153, 128, and Fig.3D.)
wherein an outer shell of housing is a stationary dome, at least partially made of a material that is transparent to light, with rotatable components inside of the housing, (Note that in Steinberg, the outer shell of the housing is a dome having a window 124 that is transparent to light, where the housing can remain stationary while the rigid structure 100 containing the emitter 116 and collector 112 inside the dome is rotated. See Steinberg, Paragraph 154 and Fig. 3D.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Johnson and Sekiguchi to rotate the light emitter and light detector which are placed inside a housing having an aperture through which they can respectively emit and receive light, as taught in Steinberg, in order to mechanically scan the environment with the LIDAR system while protecting the LIDAR components from the environment. Steinberg, Paragraph 153.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularty directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 2: “The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the light emitter comprises a laser emitter that is configured to emit a plurality of beams of light, each of which will comprise a polarized laser beam having the first polarization.” (“in a case where a laser diode (LD) is used as the light source 202, since the LD emits only light of a specific polarization component,” Sekuguchi, Paragraph 144. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the polarization filter is configured to filter out any light that does not exhibit a vertical polarization.” (“Therefore, in the polarization filter layer 225 in the filter part of the raindrop detection 220B of the optical filter 205 in the present embodiment, a transmission axis is set so as to transmit a polarization component, … only the vertical polarization component P.” Sekiguchi, Paragraph 104. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 8 is rejected for reasons stated in Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “a polarization filter, wherein the polarization filter is configured to limit polarization of light entering the LiDAR system to a single polarization and thus filter retroreflected light from cube corner reflectors and prevent it from reaching the light detector, the retroreflected light having a polarization that is different from the first polarization.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the “retroreflected light from cube corner reflectors” is a specularly reflected light that can be effectively filtered by passing only vertically polarized light components. See Specification, Paragraphs 27-28 and Claim 12. Sekiguchi teaches this solution in dealing with similar reflective surfaces: “light transmitted through the polarization filter layer 225 of the filter part for the rain detection 220B is only the vertical polarization component P” Sekiguchi, Paragraphs 104-105. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claims 9, 12 are rejected for reasons stated for Claims 2, 5 respectively in view of the Claim 8 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483