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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims, thus resulting in new grounds for rejection. However, in the interest of advancing prosecution, the following comments are included.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Spector fails to disclose a binary tree structure. As addressed in the Final Rejection (10/20/2025), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 3 of Spector shows a binary tree structure, and following the emboldened black like shows this. That is to say, Fig. 3 of Spector is a binary tree structure where 2 switches break out to 4, 4 switches break out to 8, 8 switches break out to 16, etc.
Furthermore, Spector’s Fig. 1 shows both sides of 116 (two upstream side ports) entering 110 and then two downstream side ports branching from 110. This is operating in the same manner as the claimed invention.
Both have the same structure capable of performing the same functions, and Applicant has not successfully differentiated the two or argued otherwise.
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(s) 1-9 and 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,555,681 B1 Spector et al. (herein “Spector”, cited on the IDS of 6/30/2022) in view of WO 2021/163071 A1 Kurtz et al. (herein “Kurtz”, cited on the PTO – 892 of 10/20/2025) in further view of US 10,830,877 B1 Chawla et al. (herein “Chawla”, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) apparatus (para [0035]) comprising:
a plurality of switches (104; 300-310) connected in a binary tree structure (para [0041], wherein a tree pattern is disclosed);
a light source (114) connected to a root switch, from among the plurality of switches, provided at a root node of the binary tree structure (para [0034]);
a photodetector (112) connected to the root switch (para [0035]); and
a light transmission/reception optical system (102, 108) connected to a plurality of terminal switches (104), from among the plurality of switches (shown in Fig. 3), provided at a plurality of terminal nodes of the binary tree structure (para [0037]), the light transmission/reception optical system (102, 108) being configured to transmit light (106) to an outside of the LiDAR apparatus or receive light from the outside (para [0036], wherein light is transmitted from the lens into space),
a 2x2 switch comprising a first upstream side port, a second upstream side port different from the first upstream side port, a first downstream side port, and a second downstream side port different from the first downstream side port (Spector’s Fig. 1 shows both sides of 116 - two upstream side ports - entering 110 and then two downstream side ports branching from 110. This is operating in the same manner as the claimed invention); and
wherein the light source (114) is connected to the first upstream side port and the photodetector (112) is connected to the second upstream side port (para [0035]).
As discussed in the “Response to Amendments”, Spector’s device functions in the same manner as Applicant’s.
Kurtz provides a teaching of a LiDAR apparatus (Fig. 16B) using several different examples of root switches, including a 2x2 root switch in a tree array
wherein the root switch is a 2x2 switch comprising a first upstream side port, a second upstream side port different from the first upstream side port, a first downstream side port, and a second downstream side port different from the first downstream side port (para [000157], wherein “another configuration has the reflected light traveling a reverse path so as to be collected by the same OPA device 1120 from which the light was emitted, and to a same emitter as transmitted, directed back through the switched tree array to a 2x2 switch (redirector), where it is directed to the coherent detector for detection.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a root 2x2 switch as interchangeably taught by Kurtz with other switches, since this results in Spector’s device operating exactly as intended.
Furthermore, Spector discloses using a special purpose processor (para [0108]), however, Spector and Kurtz are silent as to specifically at least one processor configured to individually control the plurality of switches to allow light to travel along a selected path from the root switch to the plurality of terminal switches. Chawla discloses a LiDAR apparatus having at least one processor configured to individually control the plurality of switches to allow light to travel along a selected path from the root switch to the plurality of terminal switches and wherein the at least one processor is configured to apply a voltage to only switches, from among the plurality of switches, that are located in the selected path through which the light travels (col. 8, lines 1-61; wherein, e.g., “Switches 406 of the input branches can turn on one at a time to control the selection of the corresponding input transistor 404, thereby establishing the connection between the corresponding photodetector and the amplifier. In some embodiments, the sequence of the on and off of different switches 406 is predetermined or pre-programed based on the scanning manner of LiDAR device 200.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to individually control the switches individually as taught by Chawla so as to control the precise connections.
Regarding claim 2, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, the plurality of switches are configured to:
transmit light emitted from the light source (114) to the light transmission/reception optical system (102, 108) through one of the plurality of terminal switches (104; plurality of switches shown in Fig. 3); and
transmit light received from the light transmission/reception optical system (102, 108) to the photodetector (112) through any one of the plurality of terminal switches (paras [0036-0038; 0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, the root switch comprises a first electro-optic element (408) provided between the first upstream side port (404) and the first downstream side port (414) and a second electro-optic element (410) provided between the second upstream side port (406) and the second downstream side port (416) (para [0039]), and
wherein the first electro-optic element (410) and the second electro-optic element (410) are configured to amplify input light and to modulate a phase of the input light based on an applied current (para [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, the root switch further comprises: a first coupler configured to optically couple the first upstream side port (404) to the second upstream side port (406); and a second coupler configured to optically couple the first downstream side port to the second downstream side port (para [0035], wherein optical couplers such as 116 are disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, wherein, based on a phase difference between light amplified by the first electro-optic element and light amplified by the second electro-optic element, the root switch is configured to operate in any one of:
a first state in which light input to the first upstream side port is transmitted to the second downstream side port and light input to the second upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port;
a second state in which the light input to the first upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port and the light input to the second upstream side port is transmitted to the second downstream side port; and
a third state in which the light input to the first upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port and the second downstream side port and the light input to the second upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port and the second downstream side port (para [0039], wherein Spector discloses phase shifters that are selectively enabled to determine where the light is output).
The Examiner notes that the limitation in claim 5, “configured to operate in any one of: a first state in which light input to the first upstream side port is transmitted to the second downstream side port and light input to the second upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port; a second state in which the light input to the first upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port and the light input to the second upstream side port is transmitted to the second downstream side port; and a third state in which the light input to the first upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port and the second downstream side port and the light input to the second upstream side port is transmitted to the first downstream side port and the second downstream side port” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 6, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, the root switch is configured to operate in the first state when the phase difference is 0, operate in the second state when the phase difference is π, and operate in the third state when the phase difference is greater than 0 and less than π (para [0039]).
The Examiner notes that the limitation in claim 6, “configured to operate in the first state when the phase difference is 0, operate in the second state when the phase difference is π, and operate in the third state when the phase difference is greater than 0 and less than π” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 7, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, at least one processor configured to extract distance information with respect to external objects based on a time of flight (TOF) method, wherein the root switch is configured to: operate in the first state while transmitting light and operate in the second state while receiving light, or operate in the second state while transmitting light and operate in the first state while receiving light (para [0108], wherein a processor is disclosed).
The Examiner notes that the limitation in claim 7, “configured to extract distance information with respect to external objects based on a time of flight (TOF) method, wherein the root switch is configured to: operate in the first state while transmitting light and operate in the second state while receiving light, or operate in the second state while transmitting light and operate in the first state while receiving light” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 8, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, at least one processor configured to extract distance information and speed information with respect to external objects based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method, wherein the root switch is configured to operate in the third state (para [0108]).
The Examiner notes that the limitation in claim 8, “configured to extract distance information and speed information with respect to external objects based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method, wherein the root switch is configured to operate in the third state” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 9, Spector discloses a monitoring photodetector (112, para [0035]), but is silent as to having more than one monitoring photodetector. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include multiple photodetectors as needed, so as to measure the light.
Regarding claim 13, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, the plurality of switches comprises a first switch connected to the first downstream side port of the root switch and a second switch connected to the second downstream side port of the root switch (para [0038]), and
wherein the first switch and the second switch are 2x2 switches comprising the first upstream side port, the second upstream side port, the first downstream side port, and the second downstream side port (2x2 switch shown in Fig. 4; para [0039]; ports 200, shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, the second upstream side port (406) of the first switch is connected to the first downstream side port (414) of the root switch, and the first upstream side port (404) of the second switch is connected to the second downstream side port (416) of the root switch, and
wherein the LiDAR apparatus further comprises:
a first auxiliary light source connected to the first upstream side port of the first switch; and a second auxiliary light source connected to the second upstream side port of the second switch (2x2 switch shown in Fig. 4; para [0039]; ports 200, shown in Fig. 2; para [0099], wherein multiple light sources are disclosed).
Regarding claim 15, Spector discloses at least one processor configured to extract distance information and speed information with respect to external objects based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method (para [0108], wherein a processor is disclosed);
wherein the LiDAR apparatus further comprises:
a first waveguide configured to provide a portion of light output from the first auxiliary light source to the photodetector as local oscillator light (paras [0038-0039]); and
a second waveguide configured to provide a portion of light output from the second auxiliary light source to the photodetector as local oscillator light (paras [0038-0039]).
The Examiner notes that the limitation in claim 15, “configured to extract distance information and speed information with respect to external objects based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 16, Spector discloses the light source is a tunable light source configured to adjust a wavelength of light emitted from the light source (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Spector discloses a bandpass filter configured to pass light of a same wavelength band as a wavelength band of light emitted from the light source, wherein the bandpass filter is provided between the second upstream side port of the root switch and the photodetector (para [0096]).
Regarding claim 18, Spector discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to extract distance information and speed information with respect to external objects based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method (para [0108], wherein a processor is disclosed);
wherein the LiDAR apparatus further comprises a waveguide configured to provide a portion of light emitted from the light source to the photodetector as local oscillator light (paras [0038-0039]).
The Examiner notes that the limitation in claim 18, “configured to extract distance information and speed information with respect to external objects based on a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) method” is an intended use type limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 19, Spector discloses an optical isolator provided on a light path between the light source and the root switch, wherein the optical isolator is configured to pass light traveling from the light source toward the root switch and to block light traveling from the root switch toward the light source (paras 0095-0098], wherein only certain wavelengths are passed and the rest are therefore blocked).
Regarding claim 20, Spector discloses the light transmission/reception optical system comprises: a beam expander configured to increase a beam diameter of light output from switches among the plurality of switches provided in the plurality of terminal nodes (fibers 108, wherein para [0032] disclosed the fibers have curved surfaces, thus expanding the beams); a lens (102) configured to collimate light output from the beam expander (108); and an antenna configured to emit light output from the lens to the outside of the LiDAR apparatus and to transmit light from the outside to the flat lens (paras [0034-0035, 0100], wherein Spector disclosed the optical coupler is an antenna).
Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Spector is silent as to the lens being flat. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to use a flat lens or any appropriately shaped lens to accomplish the desired function of transmitting and receiving light. Providing the appropriate shaped lens is not novel and would require only routine skill in the art to achieve the desired result.
Regarding claim 21, Spector discloses the antenna has a periodic grating pattern and a curved shape such that light output from the lens is incident perpendicularly to a light incident surface of the antenna (para [0073]).
Regarding claim 22, Spector discloses a plurality of waveguides configured to provide an optical connection between the plurality of switches, the light source, the photodetector, and the light transmission/reception optical system (fibers, para [0032]).
Regarding claim 23, Spector discloses a substrate, and wherein the plurality of switches, the light source, the photodetector, the light transmission/reception optical system, and the plurality of waveguides are provided on the substrate (1506, shown in Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 24, Spector discloses in Figs. 1-4, a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) apparatus (para [0035]) comprising:
a plurality of switches (104; 300-310) connected in a binary tree structure (para [0041], wherein a tree pattern is disclosed);
a light source (114) connected to a root switch, from among the plurality of switches, provided at a root node of the binary tree structure (para [0034]);
a photodetector (112) connected to the root switch (para [0035]);
a light transmission/reception optical system (102, 108) connected to a plurality of terminal switches (104), from among the plurality of switches (shown in Fig. 3), provided at a plurality of terminal nodes of the binary tree structure (para [0037]), the light transmission/reception optical system (102, 108) being configured to transmit light (106) to an outside of the LiDAR apparatus or receive light from the outside (para [0036], wherein light is transmitted from the lens into space),
wherein the root switch is a 2x2 switch comprising a first upstream side port, a second upstream side port, a first downstream side port, and a second downstream side port (2x2 switch shown in Fig. 4; para [0039]; ports 200, shown in Fig. 2), and
wherein the plurality of switches, the light source, the photodetector, the light transmission/reception optical system, and the plurality of waveguides are provided on a substrate (1506, shown in Fig. 17), and
a 2x2 switch comprising a first upstream side port, a second upstream side port different from the first upstream side port, a first downstream side port, and a second downstream side port different from the first downstream side port (Spector’s Fig. 1 shows both sides of 116 - two upstream side ports - entering 110 and then two downstream side ports branching from 110. This is operating in the same manner as the claimed invention); and
wherein the light source (114) is connected to the first upstream side port and the photodetector (112) is connected to the second upstream side port (para [0035]).
As discussed in the “Response to Amendments”, Spector’s device functions in the same manner as Applicant’s.
Furthermore, Spector discloses using a special purpose processor (para [0108]), however, Spector and Kurtz are silent as to specifically at least one processor configured to individually control the plurality of switches to allow light to travel along a selected path from the root switch to the plurality of terminal switches. Chawla discloses a LiDAR apparatus having at least one processor configured to individually control the plurality of switches to allow light to travel along a selected path from the root switch to the plurality of terminal switches and wherein the at least one processor is configured to apply a voltage to only switches, from among the plurality of switches, that are located in the selected path through which the light travels (col. 8, lines 1-61; wherein, e.g., “Switches 406 of the input branches can turn on one at a time to control the selection of the corresponding input transistor 404, thereby establishing the connection between the corresponding photodetector and the amplifier. In some embodiments, the sequence of the on and off of different switches 406 is predetermined or pre-programed based on the scanning manner of LiDAR device 200.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to individually control the switches individually as taught by Chawla so as to control the precise connections.
Kurtz provides a teaching of a LiDAR apparatus (Fig. 16B) using several different examples of root switches, including a 2x2 root switch in a tree array
wherein the root switch is a 2x2 switch comprising a first upstream side port, a second upstream side port different from the first upstream side port, a first downstream side port, and a second downstream side port different from the first downstream side port (para [000157], wherein “another configuration has the reflected light traveling a reverse path so as to be collected by the same OPA device 1120 from which the light was emitted, and to a same emitter as transmitted, directed back through the switched tree array to a 2x2 switch (redirector), where it is directed to the coherent detector for detection.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a root 2x2 switch as interchangeably taught by Kurtz with other switches, since this results in Spector’s device operating exactly as intended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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:
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in addition to all of the accompanying features of the claims and any intervening claims, the following:
at least one processor configured to: control operations of the plurality of switches, and perform calibration to control the root switch based on an output of the first monitoring photodetector and the second monitoring photodetector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874