DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 12/29/2025. Claims 1, 4-13, 18, and 21-22are under consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 is dependent on canceled claim 3. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the examiner shall consider claim 4 is dependent on claim 1.
Claims 5-7 are objected because of the following informalities: the listed claims are dependent on canceled claim 2. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the examiner shall consider claims 5-7 to be dependent on claim 1.
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, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuse et al. (WO-2020/076402 A1, herein “Kuse”).
Claim 1. Kuse discloses a light detection and ranging system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
439
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a light source configured to provide a second optical input signal to a second input port of a multimode interferometer (WDM, the examiner notes: Kuse discloses that an arrayed waveguide grating can be employed for both a multiplexer or demultiplexer Para [0084] and arrayed waveguide gratings are known to be multimode), that is phase shifted (90 degree phase shift difference) to a first optical input signal provided to a first input port of the multimode interferometer (Fig. 1 shows light source is the pump laser, the input laser light is split to be in the upper Mach Zehnder interferometer and lower Mach Zehnder interferometer; the first part of the multimode interferometer is combined at output of at the output of DP-MZM (dual-parallel Mach-Zehnder interferometer modulator, Para [0048]);
(The examiner notes, the continuous wave laser (Para [0048]) is a output multimode light therefore, the output signal from the DP-MZM is multimode.)
wherein the multimode interferometer is configured to provide a second optical output (from 1st WDM) signal to a second optical channel coupled to a second output port of the multimode interferometer (signal with frequency f2), and to provide a first optical output signal to a first optical channel coupled to a first output port of the multimode interferometer (signal with frequency f1),
PNG
media_image2.png
351
703
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the first optical channel and the second optical channel is configured to emit light to an outside of the light detection and ranging system (system 1 and system 2), and wherein the multimode interferometer is configured to generate a frequency difference between the first optical output signal and the second optical output signal (f1, f2);
wherein the light source comprises:
a light emitting semiconductor structure configured to provide a coherent electromagnetic radiation (continuous wave laser, Para [0048]);
a first Mach-Zehnder modulator (top Mach-Zehnder modulator in Fig. 1) coupling the light emitting semiconductor structure to the first input port of the multimode interferometer (WDM in Fig. 10); and
a second Mach-Zehnder modulator (bottom Mach-Zehnder modulator in Fig. 1) coupling the light emitting semiconductor structure to the second input port of the multimode interferometer (WDM in Fig. 10), and
wherein the light source comprises a hybrid coupler in at least one of the first Mach-Zehnder modulator and the second Mach-Zehnder modulator.
The two MZIs are modulated by the same radio frequency (RF) from a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) but with 90 degree phase difference (using 90 degree hybrid splitter. Therefore, the examiner considers the voltage-controlled oscillator with 90 degree phase difference coupled to the two MZIs anticipates the “hybrid coupler” as amended.
Claim 5. The light detection and ranging system of claim 2, wherein the first Mach- Zehnder modulator is optically isolated from the second Mach-Zehnder modulator. Fig. 1 of Kuse shows the dual parallel Mach-Zehnder modulator in the same configuration as applicant’s Fig. 3. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide further clarification to the limitation “optically isolated” (Specification Paras [0063], [0091], [0098], [0108], [0115]). Therefore, since Kuse’s light detection and ranging system is substantially similar to applicant’s light detection and ranging system, the examiner considers Kuse top and bottom Mach-Zehnder are optically isolated.
PNG
media_image3.png
264
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
284
657
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 13. Kuse discloses the light detection and ranging system of claim 13, wherein the first optical channel and the second optical channel (f1, f2, f3…) are optically isolated from each other at the output of the 1st WDM.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse in view of Dupuis et al. (US 20180062754 A1, herein “Dupuis”).
Kuse discloses the light detection and ranging system of claim 1, but Kuse is silent to the phase shifter comprises a heater configured to adjust a temperature of a waveguide of the Mach-Zehnder modulator.
Dupuis teaches in Fig. 2A a Mach-Zehnder phase modulator (200) provided with a thermos-optical phase shifter (e.g., a heater) (210) configured to provide a phase shift to the first optical path (waveguide 218) . The heater (210) may be implemented using any appropriate technology, including resistive heating and thermoelectric effect heating (Para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hybrid splitter of Kuse’s phase shifter with a resistive heating and thermoelectric effect heater of Dupuis. One motivation is a resistive heater phase shifter has high thermal stability and small footprint that can be easily integrated to the Mach-Zehnder modulator.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse in view of Kumagai (JP-2004-279142 A, herein “Kumagai”).
Kuse discloses the light detection and ranging system of claim 1, but Kuse is silent to the light emitting semiconductor structure, the first Mach-Zehnder modulator and the second Mach-Zehnder modulator are arranged on a common substrate.
Kumagai teaches in Fig. 6 the tunable laser (lasers in transceiver 800, Para [0064], [0067]), the first Mach-Zehnder modulator (810), the second Mach-Zehnder modulator (811), and the multimode interferometer (WDM 816) are arranged on a common substrate (813) (Para [0064]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize integration of the modulators and semiconductor laser on to the same substrate is well-known in the art. One motivation would be for easy integration into a range and detection system that use available sensor packages on the market.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse in view of Albuquerque (WO-2008045126 A2, herein “Albuquerque”).
Regarding claims 9-10, Kuse discloses the light detection and ranging system of claim 1, but Kuse is silent to the first optical channel is arranged or integrated on a first substrate and the second optical channel is arranged or integrated on a second substrate. Kuse is also silent to the combination of the first and second optical channels are arranged on a first substrate and the multimode interferometer is arranged on a second substrate.
Albuquerque teaches the LiDAR system employs the well-known CMOS fabrication processes over the silicon on insulator (SOI) layer to provide the required devices. The arrangement of the various components making up the LiDAR system may be formed as a “multi-chip module”, with the different sub-systems and/or components integrated within separate silicon substrates, with the various silicon substrates mounted on a single, common substrate for optical and electrical interconnection. In one case, all the transmitting elements may be formed on one “module”, with all the receiving elements formed on another “module”; the two modules then supported on a common substrate and coupled to the required input and output optical/electrical signals. In another case, all of the electrical components (encoder, transimpedance amplifier and signal processor) may be formed on one substrate, with the active and passive optical devices formed as a separate module (Summary of the Invention, pages 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize from Albuquerque’s teaching that any combinations of active, passive, optical, or electrical components can be made separable or integral since the CMOS fabrication techniques for LiDAR is well known. One motivation for integrating components and/or separate components on different substrate for design specifications, module density, chip real estate, and LiDAR system complexity that dictate placement (integrated or separate) of the modules for interconnection advantages.
Regarding claim 11, Kuse further discloses in Fig. 19, optical fibers connect the various components, but fiber coupling is not necessary for interconnecting to other components such as the mmwave oscillator, beam-splitter coupler etc. (Para [0107]). Therefore, the modified teaching of Albuquerque to the light detection and range system of claim 10, would necessitate the first optical channel and the second optical channel are coupled via optical fibers to the first output and the second output of the multimode interferometer. One motivation would be the flexibility of separating the multimode interferometer from the dual parallel Mach-Zehnder Interferometer modulators for rearrangement on large motherboard such as one employed in an automobile.
Claims 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse in view of Crouch.
Regarding claim 12, Kuse discloses the light detection and ranging system of claim 1 and further discloses each of the first optical channel and the second optical channel comprises a photodetector optically coupled to one of the first output and the second output of the multimode interferometer (see replicated Fig. 10 of Kuse above).
Crouch teaches in Fig. 3C a block diagram that illustrates components of a phase-encoded LIDAR system wherein the optical output signals are received by balanced photodetectors (330a, 330b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photodetectors in the LiDAR system of Kuse with balanced photodetectors of Crouch to accurately determine the properly signed Doppler shift in the LiDAR system. One motivation exchanging photodetectors with balanced photodetectors is the differential photodetection in balanced detectors provide a means for cancellation of common mode noise from input optical signal(s) (Para [0091]).
Regarding claim 21, Kuse in view of Crouch a vehicle comprising teach the light detection and ranging system of claim 1. Crouch teaches a vehicle would employ the light detection and ranging system to distinguish between moving and stationary object(s) and absent object(s) to avoid collision with the object(s) (Crouch: Para [0114]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuse.
Kuse discloses in Fig. 10 light detection and ranging system of claim 1, however, Kuse does not disclose the specifics of claim 18 in Fig. 10.
In a different embodiment (Fig. 12), Kuse teaches the first optical channel is one optical channel of a first plurality of optical channels (signal 1204 encompassing signals1204a-d), wherein each optical channel of the plurality is optically coupled to the first output port of the multimode interferometer (after WDM the wavelengths are separated to 1204a, 1204b, 1204c, 1204d) and configured to emit light to the outside of the light detection and ranging system (out to ADCs and signal processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the embodiment shown in Fig. 12 enables the light detection and ranging system to demultiplex the signals from the dual-parallel Mach-Zehnder interferometer such that the individual signals can be processed by the ADCs and signal processing. One motivation for demultiplexing the optical signals into individual channels such that the individual channels can be analyzed to calculate distance, velocity and other characteristics of a target.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Kuse.
Crouch discloses a light detection and ranging system (300e in Fig. 3E) comprising:
a multimode interferometer (3x3 MMI) configured to provide a first optical output signal to a first optical channel coupled to a first output port of the multimode interferometer (output to detector 330a), and to provide a second optical output signal to a second optical channel coupled to a second output port of the multimode interferometer (output to detector 330b, Para [0087])),
wherein each of the first optical channel and the second optical channel is configured to emit light to an outside of the light detection and ranging system (not shown but the detected signals are sent to signal processing as demonstrated in steps of Fig. 5A), wherein the multimode interferometer is configured that the first optical output signal and the second optical output signal are different side bands (936a, and 936b) at a different frequency (f0 – fa – B and f0 + fa + B) in a power spectra at the first optical output and the second optical output (Para [0133] – [0135]).
PNG
media_image5.png
447
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Crouch does not explicitly disclose the light source as amended in claim 22.
wherein the light source comprises:
Kuse teaches a light emitting semiconductor structure configured to provide a coherent electromagnetic radiation (continuous wave laser, Para [0048]);
a first Mach-Zehnder modulator (top Mach-Zehnder modulator in Fig. 1) coupling the light emitting semiconductor structure to the first input port of the multimode interferometer (WDM in Fig. 10); and
a second Mach-Zehnder modulator (bottom Mach-Zehnder modulator in Fig. 1) coupling the light emitting semiconductor structure to the second input port of the multimode interferometer (WDM in Fig. 10), and
wherein the light source comprises a hybrid coupler in at least one of the first Mach-Zehnder modulator and the second Mach-Zehnder modulator.
The two MZIs are modulated by the same radio frequency (RF) from a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) but with 90 degree phase difference (using 90 degree hybrid splitter. Therefore, the examiner considers the voltage-controlled oscillator with 90 degree phase difference coupled to the two MZIs anticipates the “hybrid coupler” as amended.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light detection and ranging system of Crouch with the light source of Kuse, as both Crouch and Kuse are in the same field of endeavor. By modulating the two MZIs with the same RF signal from a voltage controlled oscillator while maintaining a 90 degree phase difference is the technique for generating a single side band optical signal. (Kuse: Para [0048]). One would be motivated to generate a single side band optical signal for the benefit of improved reliability because single side band optical signal transmits only one sideband, such that dispersion induced destructive interference is avoided, leading to a flatter frequency response and more reliable transmission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 is amended with the limitation of claim 2 and the addition of a hybrid coupler. The rejection above addressed the amended limitations and the examiner considers the voltage controlled oscillator while maintaining a 90-degree phase difference is the hybrid coupler (Specification [0043]). Claim 22 is amended and rejected in the same manner. For these reasons, the examiner finds applicant’s argument that Kuse do not teach the amended claims 1 and 22 not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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 A. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874