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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 30 March 2026. No new matter was introduced.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Prior objections to claims 1, 8 and 15 in relation to minor informalities have been overcome by applicant’s amendments received 30 March 2026 and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (pg. 9 line 9 – pg. 10, line 3) regarding the currently cited prior art (Diaz (US 20200333441 A1), and in view of Chen (US 20110261437 A1)) not anticipating, or teaching, the amended limitations where the first and second portions of returned light have their polarizations maintained along the paths between an optical circulator and detector, please see the updated rejection under 35 USC § 103. Diaz explicitly teaches an optical circulator where signals are passed, after being separated by polarization, to a detector separately along different optical paths. While Diaz teaches an embodiment where the optical circulator includes a V-groove array and fibers for this path ([0043]), Diaz also teaches that this optical path for passing an optical signal between the optical circulator and detector may comprise other optics, such as lenses and mirrors, to be used in conjunction with output ports ([0073] – [0078]). These embodiments would readily incorporate a combination of redirection optics such as mirrors and polarization beam-splitters as taught by Chen for maintaining two paths by polarization within an optical system.
In response to applicant's argument that Chen is not combinable with Diaz (pg. 10 line 4 – pg. 11, line 6), 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. The applicant’s arguments on use of Chen indicate that it would render the system inoperable, either due to a time delay in signal or use of other components (such as the phase shifter and quarter-wave plate). These are not components which were referenced in the prior office action, and in fact the referenced components (1.10, and 1.8 for example) would be the location of the optical circulator of Diaz, which separates signals by polarization and supplies them on two outgoing paths. The optics of Chen which are referenced are those encompassed by the polarization beam splitter (1.5) and reflector (1.12). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily know that an optical set-up such as these components would take two paths of optical signal (indicated as the return paths from 1.9 in Chen and130A/130Z in Diaz) and combine them into a single path towards a detector, and that the QWP (1.11) is not necessary for these redirection optics to operate. It is noted by the applicant that the intentionally introduced time delay (as is the intention of an interferometer), would inherently ‘destroy’ the distance measuring function of a LIDAR. The time delay optics were not referenced as components in the prior rejection, and additionally, the examiner will point out that the instant application’s specification does not require that the third and fourth paths are identical in length, and as represented in Figures would have a potential, while not variable or substantial, difference in path length. Therefore, a combination of Diaz and Chen would teach both the optical circulator which outputs two paths, and redirection optics within the two paths towards a detector, respectively.
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) 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US 20200333441 A1), and in view of Chen (US 20110261437 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Diaz teaches a LIDAR system, a method of operating a LIDAR system, and an optical system, respectively, comprising:
an emitter configured to emit an outbound light signal ([0028]; Fig. 1 light source (102));
a photodetector configured to receive a return light signal that is based on the outbound light signal ([0028]; Fig. 1 detector (104));
and a circulator (Figs. 1, 3C, optical circulator ( 106, 300)) disposed in a first path of the outbound light signal and second path of the return light signal, the circulator configured to:
receive the outbound light signal from the emitter;
output the outbound light signal ([0040] - [0044]; Figs. 1, 3A, where circulator core (302) receives outbound light (120) from emitter (102) and emits to environment (110) along outgoing path (125));
receive the return light signal from an environment ([0028]; Figs. 1, 3A optical circulator (106) receives return light along incoming path (135)), the return light signal comprising a first portion in a first polarization state and a second portion in a second polarization state ([0043]; Fig. 3A light on incoming path (135) is separated by polarization components by birefringent crystal (302C) and which leave optical circulator (300) by paths (130Z) and (130A) based on polarization).
provide, on a third path, the first portion of the return light signal in the first polarization state, and provide, on a fourth path, the second portion of the return light signal in the second polarization state ([0043]; Fig. 3A, where light leaving optical circulator core (302) via path (130Z) will have either the e-beam or o-beam, and light passing along path (130A) will have the remaining beam (e- or o-) not passing through (130Z));
wherein the photodetector is configured to receive the first portion of the return light signal in the first polarization state and the second portion of the return light signal in the second polarization state from the first element ([0028]; Fig. 1 detector (104) collects incoming light (130)).
Diaz fails to teach specific optical components within the third and fourth paths for the portions of returned light follow as they propagate towards the detector, where these optical components include specific optical elements configured to reflect or redirect the returned signals towards the detector.
Chen teaches an optical system where, along two return paths of light, the optics provide, on the third path, a first element configured to reflect the first portion of the return light signal towards the photodetector ([0063]; Fig. 1, the lower path of return light from (1.9) is reflected by polarized beam splitter (1.7) and towards reflector (1.12) to merge onto a shared path to detector (1.20)); and
provide, on the fourth path, a second element configured to reflect the second portion of the return light signal towards the first element, wherein the first element is further configured to transmit the first portion of the return light signal towards the photodetector ([0063]; Fig. 1, the upper path of return light from (1.9) is reflected by reflection surface (1.6) and then transmitted through PBS (1.7) towards reflector (1.12) to merge onto a shared path to detector (1.20)).
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 Diaz to incorporate the teachings of Chen such that the two paths of returned light, separated after passing through a circulator, further propagate where each path includes reflective and/or transmissive elements with a reasonable expectation of success. Diaz shows that there are multiple possible embodiments with a circulator which allows for distinct paths of both outgoing and returned light ([0040] – [0048]; Figs. 3A-3D) within the system. The two paths exiting the circulator exit via output ports, which are connected to either optical multimodal fibers, or a combination of optical components such as lenses and reflecting surfaces ([0043], [0073] – [0078]). Fibers are known in the art to allow for both control of line delays as well as reducing noise and crosstalk from reflections within the system, but collimating and re-directing optics are also well known options depending on systemic needs. Inclusion of the reflective surfaces and polarizing beam splitter of Chen could accomplish the same, and as Chen shows, would have a predictable result of being used in a return path of two optical signals to ultimately direct them towards a shared path. The cited reflectors and polarizing beam splitter of Chen would not affect the individual path polarizations along the third and fourth paths.
Regarding claim 2, Diaz as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein
the circulator further comprises a first birefringent beam displacer, wherein provide the first portion of the return light signal to the first element and provide the second portion of the return light signal to the second element are performed by the first birefringent beam displacer ([0043]; Fig. 3A light on incoming path (135) is separated by polarization components by second birefringent crystal (302C) and first birefringent crystal (302A) into paths (130A) and (130Z)), and wherein the first birefringent beam displacer is further configured to separate the outbound light signal into a first portion of the outbound light signal in a third polarization state and a second portion of the outbound light signal in a fourth polarization state ([0042]; where first birefringent crystal (302A) separates out beam (120) into two components at (306C)).
Regarding claim 3, Diaz as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein
the circulator further comprises a second birefringent beam displacer configured to separate the first portion of the return light signal onto the first path and the second portion of the return light signal onto the second path ([0043]; Fig. 3A light on incoming path (135) is separated by polarization components by second birefringent crystal (302C) and first birefringent crystal (302A) into paths (130A) and (130Z)).
Regarding claim 4, Diaz as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 3, wherein
the second birefringent beam displacer is further configured to combine a first portion of the outbound light signal in a third polarization state and a second portion of the outbound light signal in a fourth polarization state ([0042]; Figs. 3A-3Dwhere second birefringent crystal (302C) recombines outgoing beam components at bidirectional port (306B, 106B)).
Regarding claim 7, Diaz as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein
one or more paths of the outbound light signal are spatially separated from the third path and the fourth path (Figs. 3A-3D, where outbound light (125) is spatially separated from paths where reflected light is directed to detector (130)) .
Claim 9 is similarly rejected to claim 2.
Claim 10 is similarly rejected to claim 3.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected to claim 4.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected to claim 7.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected to claim 2.
Claim 17 is similarly rejected to claim 3.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected to claim 4.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected to claim 7.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US 20200333441 A1), in view of Chen (US 20110261437 A1).and further in view of Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu, US 20190113622 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Diaz as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1.
Diaz fails to teach the explicit ordering of optical components such as a collimating lens and a quarter wave plate located between an emitter and a circulator.
Wu teaches a collimating lens configured to receive an outbound light signal from the emitter, collimate the outbound light signal, and provide the outbound light signal to a quarter wave plate (QWP);
and the QWP configured to receive the outbound light signal from the collimating lens and also configured to convert the outbound light signal from a linear polarization to a circular or elliptical polarization ([0033] - [0035]; Fig. 3 collimating lens (459) provides light to quarter wave plate (422)).
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 Diaz to incorporate the teachings of Wu to specifically orient a collimating lens between the emitter and circulator with a reasonable expectation of success. Diaz discusses use of a quarter wave plate ([0036]) directly after the entry port into the circulator (at port (306C), for example), as well as that the circulator can utilize a lens to ‘focus or collimate light’ entering into ports, and therefore orienting the two optical components as taught by Wu would have predictable results in collimating, then converting the polarization, or an input beam to a circulator.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
Claim 19 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US 20200333441 A1), in view of Chen (US 20110261437 A1). and further in view of Send et al. (hereinafter Send, US 20150286340 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Diaz as modified above teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1.
Diaz fails to teach a first element which is a polarizing beam cube, and a second element which is a reflector prism.
Chen teaches two paths for the return light to follow as it propagates towards the detector, where both paths can utilize optical elements such as a mirror as a second element and a polarizing beam cube as the first ([0063]; Fig. 1, first element (1.7) is a polarizing beam splitter), but does not teach use of a reflector prism as the second element as a reflection surface.
Send teaches that within an optical system such as this, reflector prisms are a viable replacement for mirrors ([0212]).
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 Diaz to incorporate the teachings of Chen, for the use of a polarizing beam-splitters for directing a first returned beam toward a detector and allowing a secondary returned beam to transmit through towards the detector, and the teachings of Send that reflector prisms may be interchangeable with mirrors in such systems with a reasonable expectation of success. This is a simple substitution of two elements whose exchanging will yield predictable results in optical systems intended to direct optical signals, such as returned reflectance from an environment.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shi (US 20220268891 A1) teaches a lidar system which incorporates a transmitting-receiving coaxial optical unit and a differential receiver but further teaches use of optical components such as optical combiners, quarter waveplates, polarization beam splitter-combiner, lenses and mirrors for directing optical signals within a system.
Cundiff et al. (US20180073856A1) teaches a multi-dimensional coherent spectroscopy system which utilizes optical components such as beam splitters, mirrors, and polarizers/HWPs to direct and control optical signals within the system.
Yuan (US 20180081031 A1) teaches a coherent lidar system for use on vehicles, where the system utilizes a polarized beam-splitter, quarter-wave plate, and receiver optics which may include multiple pathways.
Philipp (US 20200072950 A1) teaches a vehicle lidar system for a vehicle which utilizes a quarter wave plate, and at least one beam deflection stage to modify the path of incoming or outgoing light. The system can also include a polarized beam splitter and multiple optics such as a collimating lens.
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 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 at (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