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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered.
but they are not persuasive.
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to the specification and withdraws the objections due to informalities.
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 3, 7, 8, and 14. The rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 13 Paragraph 1 – Page 14 Paragraph 3, regarding the nature of the optical interference intensity measurements are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Hai Vidal does not teach “repeatedly comparing optical interference intensity of each of a plurality of optical signals detected by the light detecting unit according to time” in part because “the coherence terms are mathematical parameters derived from coherence theory, not the measured interference intensity values themselves.” However, in [0066] Hai Vidal notes “measuring intensity of the combined signals and generating measurement data indicative thereof.” The combined signals here are necessarily interference signals under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, as they result from the combination of two coherent light components with differing path lengths. Thus, a measurement of the interference intensity is disclosed in Hai Vidal, and no limitations in the instant application preclude further data processing of these measurements.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 14 Paragraphs 3 and 4, regarding the repeated nature of the intensity measurements are not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation that the measurements occur repeatedly, both the disclosure of both multiple signal sources [0182], and the inherently repetitive nature of ranging measurements, e.g. pulsed signals [0110], can reasonably be taken to satisfy the limitation as written that there is a repeated comparison of an optical interference intensity. The examiner notes that in Claim 1 as written, there in no limitation that suggests that the comparison is iterative for a given comparison event.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hai Vidal (US 2023/0160681).
Regarding Claim 1, Hai Vidal discloses an optical interferometric LiDAR system to control a main measurement range using active selection of a reference optical path length ([0119]: “To explain how the detection result can be calculated in some possible embodiments we define x0 as the distance corresponding to the delay along the optical path length (OPL) of the short reference arm.”), the optical interferometric LiDAR system comprising:
a laser source unit configured to emit light having a variable wavelength ([0160]: “electromagnetic signal source 601, configured to generate beams having a finite coherence length; [0110]: " The signal source 101 may generally be a CW or pulsed laser unit having selected bandwidth, distributed feedback (DFB) laser, External cavity laser (ECL), semiconductor lasers, microwave source and/or RF sources.”);
a light dividing unit configured to divide the light into a variable reference arm and a measurement arm ([0160]: “The electromagnetic beam produced by the signal source 601 passed through the waveguide element 619, is split by the beam splitter 602 into two portions: an interrogating beam portion passed through the waveguide element 603, and a reference beam portion passed through the waveguide element 604.”);
a variable reference arm having a structure for selecting an optical path length of a
reference arm ([0163]: “In this specific and non-limiting example, the switch mechanism 613 has two states, 1 and 2, configured to selectively couple the waveguide element 625 with a short reference arm (612), or with a long reference arm (611), respectively.”);
a measurement arm configured to propagate light and receive light reflected from a target object ([0161]-[0162] describes the propagation of the measurement light to the target, and its subsequent reflection off the target and back to the device); and
a light detecting unit configured to detect an optical signal generated as light passing through the variable reference arm and light passing through the measurement arm causes optical interference ([0159]: “In this specific and non-limiting example, the switch mechanism 613 has two states, 1 and 2, configured to selectively couple the waveguide element 625 with a short reference arm (612), or with a long reference arm (611), respectively.”; [0167]: “The superposed beam portions are directed by the combiner 616 onto the detector (A) 617 to generate the detection signal Ishort or I1ong supplied to the DAQ 618 for processing and analysis.”),
wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”) by repeatedly comparing of an optical interference intensity of each optical signal of a plurality of optical signals (Figure 7, element 618 shows a CPU after the detector which can be used to determine distance and velocity [0005] across successive measurements; [0066]: “measuring intensity of the combined signals and generating measurement data indicative thereof”) detected by the light detecting unit according to time with each other by adjusting the variable reference arm according to time ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Hai Vidal discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Hai Vidal further discloses wherein relative distance difference information based on a time of the target object ([0005]: “Due to the time delay, caused by the distance of the target object, the frequency of the returned signal has a different frequency, shifted compared to the reference signal, and a beating pattern is detected. Additionally, the frequency of the reflected signal may change by the movement of the target object causing Doppler shift. The beating pattern can be analyzed to measure the distance of the object, together with its velocity.”; FMCW lidar systems have an inherent capacity to simultaneously measure the distance and radial velocity of target objects), relative direction information of the target object, or relative speed information ([0275]: “With these techniques the velocity of the target object can be also detected due to the beating frequency of the returned signal and the reference signal by utilizing the Doppler effect.”) of the target object is obtained by the repeatedly comparing optical of the interference intensity of each optical signal of the plurality of optical signals (Figure 7, element 618 shows a CPU after the detector which can be used to determine distance and velocity [0005] across successive measurements) by adjusting the variable reference arm according to time ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hai Vidal discloses all the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm ([0163]: “In this specific and non-limiting example, the switch mechanism 613 has two states, 1 and 2, configured to selectively couple the waveguide element 625 with a short reference arm (612), or with a long reference arm (611), respectively.”), based on the relative speed information of the target object ([0005]: “Additionally, the frequency of the reflected signal may change by the movement of the target object causing Doppler shift. The beating pattern can be analyzed to measure the distance of the object, together with its velocity.”; It is well-known by skilled workers in the lidar arts that the radial velocity of a target object can be derived from the observed beat frequencies within a single frame, or by the change in position across more than one frame).
Regarding Claim 5, Hai Vidal discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”), as an optical interference signal generated through a Michelson interferometer is detected in the light dividing unit based on light varied and propagated through selection of one of a plurality of different optical path lengths at the variable reference arm and then returned after being reflected by a reference reflector and light returned after being reflected from the target object at the measurement arm (The embodiment presented in Figure 7 is laid out as a Michelson interferometer, where a source beam is split along a measurement arm and a reference arm (which is variable in this case), and both are recombined producing an interference pattern on a detector (element 617).)
Regarding Claim 7, Hai Vidal discloses all the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses wherein the variable reference arm includes an optical path selection switch ([0159]: “In this specific and non-limiting example, the switch mechanism 613 has two states, 1 and 2, configured to selectively couple the waveguide element 625 with a short reference arm (612), or with a long reference arm (611), respectively.”), a plurality of optical fibers having different optical path lengths ([0168]: “As indicated above, in this embodiment as well as in other embodiments the apparatus 600 can be implemented with more than two reference arms, 612 and 611, utilizing a modified switch mechanism 613 having more than two states. In such embodiments the reference signal portion passed through the waveguide element 604, can be split into any number of beam reference portions, as long as each split reference signal portion is delayed by a different amount time delay”; [0160]: “The waveguide elements used in this non-limiting example may be implemented by optical fibers.”), and a reference reflector at an end of each of the plurality of optical fibers (Figure 7, e.g., elements 614 and 627), and the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm, using a method of selecting a specific optical fiber as a reflective type as the optical path selection switch is reacted by a manual command ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”), an automatic command based on position information of the target object, or an automatic command based on relative distance information of the target object.
Regarding Claim 11, Hai Vidal discloses an optical interferometric LiDAR system to control the main measurement range using active selection of a reference optical path length ([0119]: To explain how the detection result can be calculated in some possible embodiments we define x.sub.0 as the distance corresponding to the delay along the optical path length (OPL) of the short reference arm.), the optical interferometric LiDAR system comprising:
a laser source unit configured to emit light having a variable wavelength ([0199]: “In some possible embodiments a distance measurement apparatus 1000 disclosed herein and illustrated in FIG. 11, is operated utilizing a swept-source 1001 instead of a broadband source (like 901 in FIG. 10).”);
a light dividing unit configured to divide the light into a reference arm and a measurement arm (Figure 11, element 1002; [0199]: “beam splitter”) ;
a multi-light dividing unit configured to divide light of the reference arm divided by the light dividing unit to a plurality of multi-reference arms (Figure 11, element 1007; [0199]: ‘wavelength disperser’ implemented here as a fiber Bragg grating array which separates the wavelengths of the incident light) ;
a multi-reference arm configured to allow each light divided by the multi-light dividing unit to go through different optical path lengths ([0204]: “The time delay of the wavelength-swept reference beam back-reflected from the FBGA element 1007 through the waveguide element 1016 depends on the instantaneous central wavelength A,(t) of the swept signal source 1001.”);
a measurement arm configured to propagate light and receive light reflected from a target object ([0202]: “The wavelength-swept interrogating beam portion from the waveguide element 1003 may be directed by directing optics (e.g., using a collimator/focusing means) 1005 through free space medium towards the target object 1004, thereby forming a wavelength-swept interrogating collimated beam 1012. The wavelength-swept electromagnetic interrogating collimated beam 1012 illuminates the target object 1004, and a reflected portion thereof 1011 is received in the apparatus 1000 e.g., by the same directing optics 1005.”); and
a multi-light detecting unit configured to detect an optical signal generated as a plurality of lights passing through the light dividing unit and the multi-light dividing unit and light passing through the measurement arm cause a plurality of light interferences (Figure 11, element 1008),
wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the reference arm by repeatedly comparing optical interference intensities of a plurality of optical signals detected by the multi-light detecting unit with each other according to different optical path lengths ([0206]: “each FB GA element acts as a delay line with a different length enabling the apparatus 1000 to determine different distances of multiple target objects 1004 (like OCT).”; [0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows” see equation in text; Given the previous citations, the examiner reasonably interprets the phrase ‘active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm’ to encompass the tuning of a narrow-band swept-source laser, which by definition selects a given optical path length within the reference arm.; Figure 7, element 618 shows a CPU after the detector which can be used to determine distance and velocity [0005] across successive measurements[0066]: “measuring intensity of the combined signals and generating measurement data indicative thereof”; [0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above. Hai Vidal further teaches wherein the laser source units includes a multi-wavelength laser light source units configured to emit light varied by multiple output wavelengths simultaneously ([0200]: “Each beam generated by the swept-source 1001 has a narrow-bandwidth centered about a central wavelength that can be changed at different time instances (swept).” Implies that multiple beams are being simultaneously generated by the swept-source), the multi-light dividing unit configured to divide the light from the multi-wavelength laser light source unit into multiple paths, each of the multiple paths has a different optical path length according to a wavelength region ([0204]: “The time delay of the wavelength-swept reference beam back-reflected from the FBGA element 1007 through the waveguide element 1016 depends on the instantaneous central wavelength A,(t) of the swept signal source 1001.”);
and the main measurement range, in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the reference arm ([0206]: “each FB GA element acts as a delay line with a different length enabling the apparatus 1000 to determine different distances of multiple target objects 1004 (like OCT).”; [0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows” see equation in text; Given the previous citations, the examiner reasonably interprets the phrase ‘active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm’ to encompass the tuning of a narrow-band swept-source laser, which by definition selects a given optical path length within the reference arm.), using a method of comparing and selecting optical interference intensities of a plurality of optical signals ([0206]: “each FB GA element acts as a delay line with a different length enabling the apparatus 1000 to determine different distances of multiple target objects 1004 (like OCT).”; [0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows” see equation in text) obtained by simultaneously detecting a plurality of lights through different optical path lengths by the wavelength regions by the multi-light detecting unit (Figure 11, element 1008).
Regarding Claim 13, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed in the analysis above. Hai Vidal further teaches wherein relative distance difference information based on a time of the target object, relative direction information of the target object, or relative speed information of the target object is obtained by the repeatedly comparing of the optical interference intensity of each optical signal of the plurality of optical signals ([0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows: (see eqn in text) where Delta-x is the distance to the target”).
Regarding Claim 14, Hai Vidal discloses all the limitations of Claim 13 as discussed in the analysis above. Hai Vidal further discloses wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the reference arm ([0206]: “each FB GA element acts as a delay line with a different length enabling the apparatus 1000 to determine different distances of multiple target objects 1004 (like OCT).”; [0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows” see equation in text; Given the previous citations, the examiner reasonably interprets the phrase ‘active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm’ to encompass the tuning of a narrow-band swept-source laser, which by definition selects a given optical path length within the reference arm.), based on the relative speed information of the obtained target object ([0005]: “Additionally, the frequency of the reflected signal may change by the movement of the target object causing Doppler shift. The beating pattern can be analyzed to measure the distance of the object, together with its velocity.”; It is well-known by skilled workers in the lidar arts that the radial velocity of a target object can be derived from the observed beat frequencies within a single frame, or by the change in position across more than one frame).
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hai Vidal in view of Murray (US 10436907).
Regarding Claim 4, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed in the analysis above. Hai Vidal further teaches wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm , using a method of relatively comparing a result of comparing the optical interference intensity of each of a plurality of optical signals detected by the light detecting unit according to time by adjusting the variable reference arm according to time ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”) and a result of comparing optical interference intensities according to optical path lengths.
Hai Vidal does not teach and Murray does teach that the comparison is based on absorption loss and scattering loss occurring due to optical propagation between the measurement arm and the target object and optical reflection atmospheric environment (Column 7, Lines 42-46: Via more sophisticated algorithms, a maintained model of volumetric and scattering and absorption information may also be used to select wavelengths of one or more tunable lasers to maximize a calculated intensity at a range threshold.”).
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 device of Hai Vidal with the teaching of Murray to take into account scattering and absorption information while comparing intensity values. The effects of atmospheric scattering and absorption are well-known in the Lidar arts, to the extent that their observation comprises one of the major use cases of such devices. Indeed, Murray notes in Column 3, Lines 37-14 that “In many situations a suspension of scatterers may include multiple material types so that no one selected wavelength may be chosen to precisely eliminate scattering. However, an optimal wavelength can often be selected to minimize scattering or otherwise optimize the sensors performance.” Thus, the incorporation of this information into intensity observations would be expected to improve the device’s performance.
Regarding Claim 15, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed in the analysis above. Hai Vidal further teaches wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the reference arm ([0206]: “each FB GA element acts as a delay line with a different length enabling the apparatus 1000 to determine different distances of multiple target objects 1004 (like OCT).”; [0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows” see equation in text; Given the previous citations, the examiner reasonably interprets the phrase ‘active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm’ to encompass the tuning of a narrow-band swept-source laser, which by definition selects a given optical path length within the reference arm.), using a method of relatively comparing a result of comparing the optical interference intensity of each of a plurality of optical signals ([0206]: “each FB GA element acts as a delay line with a different length enabling the apparatus 1000 to determine different distances of multiple target objects 1004 (like OCT).”; [0206]: “The distances can be determined in the same manner as carried out utilizing the apparatuses 900 in FIG. 10.”; [0197]: “In accordance with Equation (4) hereinabove, with the required changes, the detected signal power at the i-th detected wavelength band I;, (i=l, ... , N) can be expressed as follows” see equation in text) detected by the multi-light detecting unit according to different optical path lengths (Figure 11, element 1008).
Hai Vidal does not teach and Murray does teach that the comparison is based on absorption loss and scattering loss occurring due to optical propagation between the measurement arm and the target object and optical reflection atmospheric environment (Column 7, Lines 42-46: Via more sophisticated algorithms, a maintained model of volumetric and scattering and absorption information may also be used to select wavelengths of one or more tunable lasers to maximize a calculated intensity at a range threshold.”).
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 device of Hai Vidal with the teaching of Murray to take into account scattering and absorption information while comparing intensity values. The effects of atmospheric scattering and absorption are well-known in the Lidar arts, to the extent that their observation comprises one of the major use cases of such devices. Indeed, Murray notes in Column 3, Lines 37-14 that “In many situations a suspension of scatterers may include multiple material types so that no one selected wavelength may be chosen to precisely eliminate scattering. However, an optimal wavelength can often be selected to minimize scattering or otherwise optimize the sensors performance.” Thus, the incorporation of this information into intensity observations would be expected to improve the device’s performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hai Vidal in view of Fan (US 2019/0343377).
Regarding Claim 6, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described in the analysis above.
Hai Vidal further teaches wherein the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm, as an optical interference signal generated is detected in the light detecting unit based on light varied and propagated through selection of one of a plurality of different optical path lengths at the variable reference arm and then moving after being transmitted to the light dividing interference unit in a position different from the light dividing unit and light transmitted through the light dividing unit and a light circulation unit to move to the measurement arm and moving after being reflected from the target object at the measurement arm and transmitted to the light circulation unit (Figure 7, element 609) and the light dividing interference unit (Figure 7, element 617). (See the rejection of Claim 1, as the remaining limitations above are repeated from that claim.)
Hai Vidal does not teach and Fan does teach that Mach- Zehnder interferometer including a light dividing interference unit is provided (Figure 4A shows a Mach-Zender interferometer in use in the 3D camera of Fan.)
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 device of Hai Vidal with the Mach-Zender interferometer of Fan. Indeed, Fan notes that [0046] that “FMCW interferometry can use any suitable interferometry model such as the Mach-Zehnder interferometer model shown in FIG. 4A or the Michelson interferometer 60 as shown in FIG. 4B.” Thus, any skilled worker in the lidar arts would have been able to substitute the Mach-Zender interferometer topology in place of the Michelson interferometer topology already present in the work of Hai Vidal.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hai Vidal in view of Swanson (US 2021/0356249).
Regarding Claim 8, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed in the analysis above.
As in Claim 1, Hai Vidal teaches that the variable reference arm includes an optical path selection switch at an entrance.
Hai Vidal also teaches a plurality of optical fibers having different optical path lengths ([0168]: “As indicated above, in this embodiment as well as in other embodiments the apparatus 600 can be implemented with more than two reference arms, 612 and 611, utilizing a modified switch mechanism 613 having more than two states. In such embodiments the reference signal portion passed through the waveguide element 604, can be split into any number of beam reference portions, as long as each split reference signal portion is delayed by a different amount time delay”; [0160]: “The waveguide elements used in this non-limiting example may be implemented by optical fibers.”), and the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm varied at the variable reference arm, using a method of selecting a specific optical fiber as a transmission type as the two optical path selection switches are reacted by a manual command, an automatic command based on position information of the target object, or an automatic command based on relative distance information of the target object ([0166]: “The state of the switch mechanism may be controlled by a control signal, e.g., the transistor-transistor logic (TTL) signal, and/or by control signals generated by the DAQ 618.”).
Hai Vidal does not teach and Swanson does teach that the reference arm has an optical path selection switch at an exit (Figure 3; [0060] describes a variable delay line module 300 comprising a cascade of two-by-two switches. “Each switch 302 allows connection from a desired input to one of two paths: one path leads directly to the next switch stage, and the other path leads also leads to a second input of the next stage but after an additional delay 304.”)
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 variable delay lines of Hai Vidal with the teaching of Swanson to have a final switch at the end of a series of switched delay lines. Swanson notes in [0063] that “One advantage of this staged approach variable delay line module 300 is that embodiments of the delay line module architecture, in combination with the photonic integration implementation, allow both short and long delays to be realized. For example, using the traditional approach described in connection with FIG. 1 of an external delay line on a linear translation stage with a moving mirror or retroreflector and free space optics, it would be very difficult to get a 1 m long variable delay line. But, with an integrated optic version with a one millimeter first stage, a one-meter VDL could be achieved in ~10 stages.”
Regarding Claim 10, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed in the analysis above. Hai Vidal also teaches wherein the variable reference arm includes one or more of a partial reflector having a fiber Bragg grating structure ([0058]: “The different reference signals are obtained in some embodiments utilizing a wavelength disperser. The wavelength disperser comprises in some embodiments a fiber Bragg grating array (FBGA) element.”).
Hai Vidal does not teach and Swanson does teach the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm corresponding to a specific polarization state at the variable reference arm, using a method in which there are a plurality of different optical path lengths and light of a specific polarization state is selected to correspond to only a specific optical path length according to an operation of the polarization adjusting device ([0081]: “It is also possible to put a polarizer at the input to the VDL to further ensure that there is little to no light in VDL configurations that are designed for single polarizations while extinguishing the unwanted polarization.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the switching between the variable delay lines of Hai Vidal using the polarizer of Swanson. Swanson notes in [0081] that it is important to design VDL structures to be as polarization independent as possible. A worker skilled in the art would have been aware of this at the time of filing and would have included a polarizer in the delay lines, such as a liquid crystal polarizer which is well-known in the art, in order to switch on or off the polarized laser light at the delay line entrances and to prevent unwanted polarizations from entering as well.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hai Vidal in view of Krupkin (US 2009/0262760).
Regarding Claim 9, Hai Vidal teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed in the analysis above. Hai Vidal further discloses optical fibers having different optical path lengths (Figure 7, elements 611 and 612 are optical fibers of different lengths), and a reference reflector at the end of each of the plurality of optical fibers (Figure 7, e.g., elements 614 and 627), the main measurement range in which a relative maximum optical interference intensity is detected is adjusted according to active selection of an optical path length of the reference arm (Figure 7, elements 613 is a MEMS switch which can select between the various reference arm portions), and using a method of comparing and selecting optical interference intensities of a plurality of optical signals detected according to wavelengths by the light detecting unit ([0196]-[0197] describes detecting light intensities at differing wavelengths.)
Hai Vidal does not teach and Krupkin does teach using a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) to split the lidar source beam light by wavelength (Figure 1B, element 112 shows a WDM being used to split a source beam).
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 lidar device of Hai Vidal with the teaching of Krupkin to split the source beam light with a wavelength division multiplexer. Krupkin notes in [0072] that “WDM 112 allows EDF 110 to receive the beam of light generated from fiber pump diode 116 without interference from the low energy beam of light being amplified by EDF 110.” It is well-known by those skilled in the lidar and fiber communication arts that wavelength division multiplexers can be used to couple multiple wavelengths of light into or out of a fiber, which can provide an easy way to interface with natively multi-wavelength devices like swept source lasers and fiber Bragg gratings.
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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645