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 .
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.
Excessive Information Disclosure Statement
No additional IDS’s have been submitted by the applicant with the Request for Continued Examination (RCE), dated 18 February 2026. The following is included in reference to the priorly documented IDS filed on 5 March, 2025:
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 and 21-27 are currently pending.
Claim 1 was amended by applicant’s amendments received 18 February 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page, filed 18 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 22 under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated interpretation of the previously applied prior art, as seen in the updated rejection of claims 1 and 22 under 35 USC § 103 and briefly noted below.
As was priorly noted in the Final Rejection for the purposes of compact prosecution, dated 29 August 2025, the examiner noted that two-dimensional scanning mirrors which may steer system outputs, such as a Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) mirror, is taught by Prior Art Zhou et al. (US 20250085401 A1) as referenced in the 35 USC §103 rejection for claim 25 pertaining to a two-dimensional scan pattern of the field of view.
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 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (hereinafter Sandborn, US 20220365214 A1), and in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou, US 20250085401 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sandborn teaches a LIDAR system ([0005]), comprising:
a signal steering mechanism configured to steer a system output signal in a field of view, the system output signal being output from the LIDAR system ([0018]-[0019]),
the signal steering mechanism including multiple utility waveguides that are each configured to output a LIDAR output signal ([0028]-[0029]; Fig. 1 where each coherent pixels (104) in the SCPA (115) includes a waveguide ), and
the signal steering mechanism including a redirection component configured to output a component output signal that includes light from the LIDAR output signal ([0029]; Fig. 1 lens system (107)),
a direction that the component output signal travels away from the redirection component changing in response to a change in which one of the utility waveguides outputs the LIDAR output signal ([0029], "which map a physical location of each coherent pixel, to a unique direction"); and
a beam steering mechanism configured to steer the system output signal on a two-dimensional path in the field of view ([0055]; Fig. 7, where scanning mirrors (not shown) may receive light from lens system (702)).
Sandborn does not explicitly teach that the mirrors are 2-D scanning mirrors.
Zhou teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes MEMS scanning mirrors for changing outgoing directions of emitted light, where the MEMS mirrors provide two-dimensional steering of the system output signal so as to steer the system ([0012], [0063], [0075]; Figs. 24 and 25, which show embodiments with differing number of mirrors used for scanning, such as an array (191) in Fig. 24, or a single mirror (193) in Fig. 25.)
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Sandborn to incorporate the teachings of Zhou, where a 2D steerable mirror can be scanned to steer a system output across two dimensions with a reasonable expectation of success. Sandborn teaches the use of a 2D scanning system, which may include a mirror ([0055]), and therefore utilizing a 2D mirror to scan in a raster, or zig-zag pattern as taught by Zhou would have predictable results as is known in the art. Additionally, Zhou notes that use of MEMS mirrors within LIDAR systems, specifically for application in vehicle systems, may be less expensive, more reliable, and more energy efficient when compared to conventional systems ([0004]).
Regarding claim 22, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changes in response to a change in which one of the utility waveguide outputs the LIDAR output signal ([0007], [0029]).
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (hereinafter Sandborn, US 20220365214 A1), in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou, US 20250085401 A1), and further in view of Paoli (US 5305412 A).
Regarding claim 2, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the signal beam steering mechanism includes optical amplifiers ([0030]), however Sandborn does not explicitly teach that each output waveguide has an amplifier included in the utility waveguide.
Paoli teaches use of optical amplifiers (Col. 9, lines 14-20; Fig. 7 (74)) that are each positioned along one of the utility waveguides (Col. 9, lines 14-20; Fig. 7 (72)) so as to amplify a power of the LIDAR output signal when the LIDAR output signal is output from the utility waveguide.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Sandborn to incorporate the teachings of Paoli, where each waveguide in an array is fitted with an amplifier, with a reasonable expectation of success. Sandborn notes specific use of fiber amplifiers or semiconductor amplifier chips ([0028]), where output ports are coupled to respective output waveguides, and utilizing an array of waveguides with individual amplification as taught by Paoli into the optical system of Sandborn would have predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 2, but does not teach the explicit use of individual amplifier waveguides along utility waveguides as the output waveguide is switched between output paths.
Paoli teaches each of the optical amplifiers includes an amplifier waveguide (Col. 9, lines 14-20; Fig. 7 (74)) that serves as at least a portion of one of the utility waveguides,
each one of the amplifier waveguides receives a different utility signal (Fig. 7-Fig. 10 show several embodiment options for optical splitters with passive waveguides which each have an amplification waveguide)
electronics operate the optical amplifiers so as to amplify the utility signal carried on the utility waveguide that will output the LIDAR output signal while not amplifying the utility signal carried on one or more of the utility waveguides that will not output the LIDAR output signal (Col. 4 lines 52-68).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Paoli to specifically use an array of amplifier waveguides in alignment with an array of passive or utility waveguides with a reasonable expectation of success. Sandborn discusses the optical switch network which allows for signals to selectively provide coherent light to one or more of the output waveguides ([0028]; Fig. 1, (103)) which would be modified to use the amplifier waveguides of Paoli with predictable results of individually selective amplification and output.
Regarding claim 5, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 3, where the LiDAR chip is based on photonic integrated circuit ([0028]; Fig. 1 (106)), but does not teach an amplifier waveguide array nor the specific nature of the gain medium of such an array.
Paoli teaches a single layer of a gain medium is common to each of the amplifier waveguides (Col.3 Line 15- Col. 4 line 9; Fig. 2 semiconductor heterostructure (10) is shared between amplification waveguides).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Paoli to use an optical switching array with both passive and amplification waveguides, which is constructed as a monolithic semiconductor structure, with a reasonable expectation of success. The integrated LiDAR chip of Sandborn could be modified with the optical switching array of Paoli, which is formed in a single structure where amplification waveguides share a gain medium layer, with predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (hereinafter Sandborn, US 20220365214 A1), in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou, US 20250085401 A1), and further in view of Muranaka et al. (hereinafter Muranaka, US 20230194952 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 3, but does not teach the variable absorptive nature of the amplifier waveguide.
Paoli teaches where each of the amplifier waveguides are configured to absorb the utility signal when the electronics do not amplify the utility signal carried on the amplifier waveguide (Col. 7 lines 10-25, where amplifier waveguides operated with a reverse bias voltage act to absorb signals).
Muranaka teaches amplifier waveguides being configured to absorb the utility signal such that a power level of the utility signal is reduced to less than 1% of the power level of the utility signal when the utility signal was received by the amplifier waveguide ([0030]; Fig. 8, where at -3 Volts applied, an extinction ratio of 20 dB exists, which is equivalent to an output power of
P
o
u
t
=
0.01
P
i
n
. )
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Paoli and Muranaka to use an optical switch array where the electronics can apply a voltage to the waveguides to act as blocks of signal to a required absorption level with a reasonable expectation of success. The system of Sandborn is equipped with electronics for calibration and/or control, which includes operation of an optical switch network ([0032]), and therefore could incorporate the optical amplifiers of Paoli, set to specifically operate with the absorption levels (when in “blocked” or non-transmission setting) of Muranaka with predicable results.
Claims 6-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (hereinafter Sandborn, US 20220365214 A1), in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou, US 20250085401 A1), and further in view of Mazed (US 20250094380 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 1.
Sandborn teaches use of beam splitters within the interferometer to create a reference beam and a beam sent into the environment ([0024]) but does not teach use of a circulator, specifically.
Mazed teaches an FMCW-LiDAR system where a circulator is configured to receive a circulator input signal that includes light from the LIDAR output signal and the circulator is configured to output a circulator output signal, the system output signal including light from the circulator output signal ([0323], [0368]; Fig. 3R for single circulator, Fig. 3U3 for array of circulators).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Mazed in the use of a circulator in the emitter channel array with a reasonable expectation of success. Use of a circulator, as taught by Mazed, instead of, or in addition to, a splitter as taught by Sandborn, would have predictable results of taking light and forming both a reference signal and emitted signal for each optical pathway, which is required for systems such as frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) systems to form beat signals with returned light for detection.
Regarding claim 7, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 6, but does not teach different circulator output signal directions.
Mazed teaches system where a direction that the circulator output signal travels away from the circulator changes in response to a change in the utility waveguide that outputs the LIDAR output signal ([0368]; Fig. 3U3 for array of waveguides with circulators where each waveguide has an individual circulator).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Mazed with a reasonable expectation of success to use an array of circulators in conjunction with the waveguide array and optical switch network channels of Sandborn. In this way, the direction the output signal travels away from the system changes depending on the waveguide utilized (Sandborn, [0029]) and as each waveguide has an individual circulator, the direction the signal travels away from each individual circulator will be output in a direction in response to the chosen waveguide with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 6, wherein a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changes in response to a change in which one of the utility waveguide outputs the LIDAR output signal ([0007], [0029]).
Regarding claim 21, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the signal steering mechanism is configured to output the system output signal ([0018]-[0019]).
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (hereinafter Sandborn, US 20220365214 A1), in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou, US 20250085401 A1), and further in view of Rickman et al. (hereinafter Rickman, US 10739256 B1).
Regarding claim 23, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a path of system output signal in the field of view has a contribution from the beam steering mechanism and the signal steering mechanism ([0027]), where two-dimensional path contribution is provided by the beam steering mechanism ([0029]).
Sandborn does not teach the nature of the scanning pattern having transverse contributions from the signal steering mechanism compared to the 2-D movement from the beam steering mechanism.
Rickman teaches a LiDAR system where the contribution of the signal steering mechanism to the path being movement of the system output signal transverse (Col. 8, line 48-Col.9, line 13; Fig. 1, encoder (135) aligned with scanner (150), in an array 1 to m encoders (140) and 1 to m scanners (155) which can be controlled before signal aimed by external optics) to a 2-D scan path.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie that operation of the system taught by Sandborn (as modified by Zhou) in the fashion taught by Rickman would have a reasonable expectation of success. Scanning in a two-dimensional scan motion (as controlled by the beam steering optics) with an additional transverse motion (defined by the control of the m scanners of Rickman, or the at least one transceiver channel of Sandborn) would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 23, wherein the beam steering mechanism is a steerable mirror ([0055]; Fig. 7, where scanning mirrors (not shown) may receive light from lens system (702)).
Regarding claim 25, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 23 but does not teach the specifics of scanning patterns with a 2D mirror, or the speed of scanning axes.
Zhou teaches the beam steering mechanism is configured to concurrently scan the system output signal on a slow axis and a fast axis ([0063]),
the beam steering mechanism scanning the system output signal on the slow axis ([0063]; Fig. 5 (21)) such that a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changes at a slow angular rate,
the beam steering mechanism scanning the system output signal on the fast axis ([0063]; Fig. 5 (20)) such that a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changes at a fast angular rate,
a ratio of the fast angular rate to the slow angular rate being more than 2:1 and less than 200:1 (Table 1; where the example ratios of X (slow) to Y (fast) axis scanning rates is between 1:10 (Chip 1) and approx. 1:61 (Chip 4)).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn to incorporate the teachings of Zhou, where a 2D steerable mirror has a with a fast-scanning axis and a slow scanning axis, and the mirror can be chosen to have a fast-to-slow ratio of between 2:1 and 200:1, with a reasonable expectation of success. Sandborn teaches the use of a 2D scanning mirror ([0055]), and therefore utilizing a 2D mirror with the specific parameters as taught by Zhou would have predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 23, but does not teach the specifics of scanning patterns with a 2D mirror, or the speed of scanning axes.
Zhou teaches the contribution of the beam steering mechanism to the path is movement of the system output signal in a zigzag pattern ([0063]; Fig. 5 (19)).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn to incorporate the teachings of Zhou, where a 2D steerable mirror can be scanned in a zig-zag pattern, with a reasonable expectation of success. Sandborn teaches the use of a 2D scanning mirror ([0055]), and therefore utilizing a 2D mirror to scan in a raster, or zig-zag pattern as taught by Zhou would have predictable results as is known in the art.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (hereinafter Sandborn, US 20220365214 A1), in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou, US 20250085401 A1), and further in view of Yao (US 20220050187 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Sandborn as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is configured to output the system output signal as one of multiple system output signals concurrently output from the LIDAR system such that each of the different system output signals travels away from the LIDAR system in a different direction ([0029]) and the LIDAR system is configured to receive system return signals that each carries light from a different one of the system output signals ([0029], [0031]; Fig. 1 SPCA (115) includes coherent pixels (104) for emitting and receiving optical signals),
the LIDAR system being configured to combine light from each of the system return signals with a reference signal so as to generate a signal beating at a beat frequency ([0018], [0040]);
the LIDAR system including electronics ([0031]; Fig. 2 (207)), where each of the electrical data signals indicating one of the beat frequencies ([0018], [0040]);
and the electronics ([0031]; Fig. 2 (207)) including a LIDAR data generator configured to calculate LIDAR data ([0051]; Fig. 6, step (645)) from the beat frequency ([0040]) indicated by the selected portion of data signals, the LIDAR data indicating a distance and/or a radial velocity between the LIDAR system and an object located outside of the LIDAR system ([0018]).
Sandborn discusses use of analog multiplexers (MUX) used with monitoring photodiodes to collect data in active channels ([0035]), but does not explicitly teach use of an electronic demultiplexer.
Yao teaches electronics which include an electrical demultiplexer that receives multiple different electrical data signals ([0100]; Fig. 2A RU WDM sends signals to photodiodes (PD1-PD4)),
the electronics selecting a portion of the data signals and operating the electrical demultiplexer such that the electrical demultiplexer outputs the selected portion of the data signals ([0100]; Fig. 2A electronics board with detector circuitry receives detector signals and outputs for processing).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Sandborn and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Yao to use a digital demultiplexer to collect and separate out received signals instead of an analog MUX along channels in the collection and analysis of FMCW LiDAR measurements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vercruysse et al. (US 20230258861 A1) teaches a 2D optical phased array which includes emitters and waveguides, and discusses scanning in multiple dimensions, including in a zig-zag raster scanning pattern.
Lee et al. (US 20180031680 A1) teaches on 2D beam steering devices including waveguides and an optical splitter, for use in LiDAR systems.
Li et al. (US 20190257924 A1) teaches a LiDAR system configured with amplifiers, waveguide structures and signal steering mechanisms, including steerable mirrors.
Heck et al. (US 9575341 B2) teaches a solid state photonics circuit for use in FMCW LIDAR systems which incorporates an array of waveguides, allowing for tuning and beam steering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights