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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues examiner's use of rearrangement of parts in previous Claim 3 (now integrated into claim 1) is improper as applicant's arrangement of the focusing optics would lead to a more compact system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although it is true this result is not explicitly taught by cited references, making the system more compact would be an obvious result to seek and an obvious result of rearranging the lenses as compacting the system would make it easier to move and store, and would be an obvious result of rearranging the lenses.
Further, applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 is not the same as previous Claim 3, but instead previous Claim 4, which was not rejected with it’s own obviousness reasoning. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/23/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, no copy of reference KR 20180058068 A has been provided with the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 17, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (US 20140049610 A1) in view of Danziger (WO 2019102366 A1).
Claim 1: Hudman teaches a system comprising:
an optical waveguide having two major external surfaces (Fig. 12),
a first of the two major external surfaces deployed in facing relation to a scene (Fig. 12, light emission surface 1210);
an illumination arrangement configured to emit and collimate light (Figs 1 and 12, light source 118);
an optical coupling-in configuration configured to couple the light from the illumination arrangement into the optical waveguide at an angle such that the light is guided through the optical waveguide via total internal reflection between the two major external surfaces (Fig. 12, light emission region 1208 using internal reflection and [0060]);
an optical coupling-out configuration disposed within the optical waveguide, the optical coupling-out configuration comprising a plurality of partially reflective surfaces that are parallel to one another and each configured to couple a proportion of light, guided by the optical waveguide, out of the optical waveguide toward the scene (Fig. 12, light emission surface 1210)
focusing optics configured to focus a proportion of the light that is reflected from the object, transmitted by the first of the two major external surfaces, passed through at least one of the plurality of partially reflective surfaces, and transmitted by a second of the two major external surfaces prior to being focused by the focusing optics (Fig 1, light transmitted by light source 118 and optical assembly 120 and received through lens and by detector 114),
a detector configured to see the proportion of the light that exits the optical waveguide and is focused by the focusing optics (Fig. 1, image sensor 110);
and a processing subsystem including at least one processor, and configured to process signals from the detector to derive information associated with the object (Fig. 1, depth information module 152 and [0069]).
Hudman does not teach an optical coupling-out comprising a plurality of partially reflective surfaces that are parallel to one another and each configured for coupling a proportion of the light that is guided by the optical waveguide, out of the optical waveguide through the first of two major external surfaces. However, Hudman does teach an input surface to a waveguide (Fig. 12, light emission surface 1210).
Danziger teaches an arrangement for optical aperture expansion which has partially reflective surfaces (Fig. 2A and 2B, surfaces 45) positioned at an angle to the outside surfaces of the waveguide (Fig. 2A and 2B) (Pg. 9).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the waveguide as taught by Danziger, with multiple angled half-mirrors), in the system as taught by Hudman because, as Danziger teaches, these could be implemented with design and manufacturing techniques well known in the art (pg. 9, lines 7-9). Thus, this is a design well known in the art, and which would yield predictable results.
Claim 5: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein an output aperture of the system is defined at least in part by the coupling-out configuration (Fig 12, showing FOV defined by light exiting waveguide), and an input aperture of the system is defined at least in part by the focusing optics (Hudman Fig 1, showing lens before detector 114 - obvious that this would define aperture).
Claim 8: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a diffractive optical element disposed adjacent to the first of the two major external surfaces (Hudman Fig. 12, microlens array 912 and [0054]).
Claim 12: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: collimating optics disposed in an optical path between the illumination arrangement and the optical waveguide, the collimating optics being configured to collimate the light emitted by the illumination arrangement prior to being coupled into the optical waveguide (Hudman [0040] and Fig. 6).
Claim 17: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical coupling- out configuration further comprises a diffractive optical element disposed adjacient to at least one of the two major external surfaces (Hudman, Fig. 12, microlens array 912 and [0054]).
Claim 32: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide has a trapezoidal-shape in a cross-sectional plane so as to effect lateral scanning of the scene with light coupled out of the optical waveguide (Hudman Fig. 12).
Claim 33: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 32, further comprising:
a light-transmitting substrate having two pairs of parallel major external surfaces forming a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 12, total internal reflection surface 1206 and light emission surface 1210);
and an optical coupling configuration disposed within the light transmitting substrate, wherein light that is coupled into the light transmitting substrate advances by four-fold internal reflection through the light transmitting substrate and a proportion of intensity of the light advancing through the light transmitting substrate is coupled out of the substrate by the optical coupling configuration and into the optical waveguide (Hudman Fig. 12, light reflected through light guide 1202).
Claim 34: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical waveguide includes two pairs of parallel major external surfaces forming a rectangular cross-section, and wherein light that is coupled into the optical waveguide advances by four-fold internal reflection through the optical waveguide (Hudman Fig. 12, total internal reflection surface 1206 and light emission surface 1210 and light reflected through light guide 1202).
Claim 35: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
an optical coupling configuration, and wherein the optical waveguide includes a first waveguide section comprising the optical coupling configuration and a second optical waveguide section comprising the optical coupling-out configuration, and wherein light that is coupled into the optical waveguide advances through the first waveguide section by internal reflection and a proportion of intensity of the light advancing through the first waveguide section is deflected in a first direction by the optical coupling configuration so as to be coupled out of the first waveguide section and into the second waveguide section so as to advance through the second waveguide section by internal reflection, and wherein light advancing through the second waveguide section is deflected in a second direction by the optical coupling-out configuration so as to be coupled out of the optical waveguide toward the scene (Hudman [0060] - describing light moving through waveguide).
Claim 36: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of Claim 35, wherein the optical coupling configuration is configured to scan light in a first dimension, and wherein the optical coupling-out configuration is configured to scan light in a second dimension substantially orthogonal to the first dimension (Hudman Fig. 9, light first passes through waveguide in one direction, then is reflected off coupling-out configuration to move perpendicular to the first direction).
Claims 6 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (US 20140049610 A1), in view of Danziger (WO 2019102366 A1), in view of Yeruhami (US 20200249354 A1).
Claim 6: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 5, but not wherein the input aperture at least partially overlaps the output aperture.
Yeruhami teaches a LiDAR system (abstract) in which both emitted and received light follow a coaxial path in and out of the detector (Fig. 1A, beams RX and TX passing through optical window 124).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to cause the input and output beams to follow a coaxial path because this saves space by limiting the apertures needed for input and output light.
Claim 37: Hudman teaches a light detection and ranging (LIIDAR) system comprising:
a transmitter comprising: an optical waveguide having two major external surfaces (Fig. 12),
a first of the two major external surfaces deployed in facing relation to a scene (Fig. 12, light emission surface 1210);
an illumination arrangement configured to emit and collimate light (Figs 1 and 12, light source 118);
an optical coupling-in configuration configured to couple the light from the illumination arrangement into the optical waveguide at an angle such that the light is guided through the optical waveguide via total internal reflection between the two major external surfaces (Fig. 12, light emission region 1208 using internal reflection and [0060]);
an optical coupling-out configuration disposed within the optical waveguide, the optical coupling-out configuration comprising a plurality of partially reflective surfaces that are parallel to one another and each configured to couple a proportion of light, guided by the optical waveguide, out of the optical waveguide toward the scene (Fig. 12, light emission surface 1210)
focusing optics configured to focus a proportion of the light that is reflected from the object, transmitted by the first of the two major external surfaces, passed through at least one of the plurality of partially reflective surfaces, and transmitted by a second of the two major external surfaces prior to being focused by the focusing optics (Fig 1, light transmitted by light source 118 and optical assembly 120 and received through lens and by detector 114),
a detector configured to see the proportion of the light that exits the optical waveguide and is focused by the focusing optics (Fig. 1, image sensor 110);
and a processing subsystem including at least one processor, and configured to process signals from the detector to derive information associated with the object (Fig. 1, depth information module 152 and [0069]).
Hudman does not teach an optical coupling-out comprising a plurality of partially reflective surfaces that are parallel to one another and each configured for coupling a proportion of the light that is guided by the optical waveguide, out of the optical waveguide through the first of two major external surfaces. However, Hudman does teach an input surface to a waveguide (Fig. 12, light emission surface 1210).
Danziger teaches an arrangement for optical aperture expansion which has partially reflective surfaces (Fig. 2A and 2B, surfaces 45) positioned at an angle to the outside surfaces of the waveguide (Fig. 2A and 2B) (Pg. 9).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the waveguide as taught by Danziger, with multiple angled half-mirrors), in the system as taught by Hudman because, as Danziger teaches, these could be implemented with design and manufacturing techniques well known in the art (pg. 9, lines 7-9). Thus, this is a design well known in the art, and which would yield predictable results.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (US 20140049610 A1), in view of Danziger (WO 2019102366 A1), in view of Yeruhami (US 20200249354 A1), further in view of Otani (US 20180172808 A1).
Claim 10: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, but not further comprising: a scanning arrangement deployed to scan the scene with the light coupled out of the optical waveguide by the optical coupling-out configuration.
Yeruhami teaches a LiDAR system (abstract), which uses a light deflector (Fig. 1A, 114), which scans light from a light source (Fig. 1A, 112).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use a scanner, such as Yeruhami’s light deflector in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger’s, system, because this would allow for better control over emitted light due to the ability to direct it in specific directions. Further, it would have been obvious to place this after the optical coupling-out configuration as this is analogous to Yeruhami’s placement after the laser (evidenced by the “illuminator” (fig 1, 102) in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, including the optical assembly 120).
Neither in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, or Yeruhami teach wherein the scanning arrangement is deployed between the illumination arrangement and the optical waveguide, and wherein the scanning arrangement is configured to deflect light emitted by the illumination arrangement to cover an angular range such that the light coupled out of the optical waveguide covers a corresponding angular range.
Instead, Yeruhami teaches a light deflector (Fig. 1A, 114), which scans light from a light source (Fig. 1A, 112).
Otani teaches an object detection device which emits light (Fig 4, LD module 2) to a mirror (Fig 4, mirror 4) and then to a waveguide (Fig 4, light guide 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date that the waveguide, as taught by in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, and scan mirror, as taught by Yeruhami, could be placed in the arrangement as taught by Otani because this is simply a rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C) as there is no functional difference between the two configurations.
Claim 11: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, but not a scanning arrangement wherein the scanning arrangement is disposed adjacent to the first of the two major external surfaces and configured to scan the scene with the light coupled out of the optical waveguide by the optical coupling-out configuration.
Yeruhami teaches a LiDAR system (abstract), which uses a light deflector (Fig. 1A, 114), which scans light from a light source (Fig. 1A, 112).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use a scanner, such as Yeruhami’s light deflector in in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger’s system, because this would allow for better control over emitted light due to the ability to direct it in specific directions. Further, it would have been obvious to place this after the optical coupling-out configuration as this is analogous to Yeruhami’s placement after the laser (evidenced by the “illuminator” (fig 1, 102) in in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, including the optical assembly 120).
Neither Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, or Yeruhami teach wherein the scanning arrangement is associated with the first of the two major external surfaces.
Otani teaches an object detection device which emits light (Fig 4, LD module 2) to a mirror (Fig 4, mirror 4) and then to a waveguide (Fig 4, light guide 15) (Note that “associated with” is being interpreted here to mean “on the side of” (see 112 rejection above).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date that the waveguide, as taught by in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, and scan mirror, as taught by Yeruhami, could be placed in the arrangement as taught by Otani because this is simply a rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C) as there is no functional difference between the two configurations.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (US 20140049610 A1), in view of Danziger (WO 2019102366 A1), in view of Otani (US 20180172808 A1).
Claim 13: in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, teaches the system of claim 1, but not further comprising: an optical component deployed in an optical path between the illumination arrangement and the optical waveguide and configured to perform aperture expansion of light emitted by the illumination arrangement in at least a first dimension.
Otani teaches an object detection device in which light exits a laser diode (Fig 4, LD 2), goes through a light projecting lens (Fig 5, lens 14) which adjusts the spread of the light ([0050]), then is directed to a mirror (Fig. 4, mirror 4) and waveguide (Fig 4, waveguide 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use a lens to adjust the spread of light, as taught by Otani, in the system as taught by in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger, because this will allow for a larger FOV by spreading out the light beams before they are scanned into a scene.
Claim 16: in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger and Otani, teaches the system of Claim 13, but not wherein the optical component includes: a light-transmitting substrate configured to guide the light emitted by the illumination arrangement by internal reflection, and a second optical coupling-out configuration disposed within the light transmitting substrate the second optical coupling-out configuration configured to couple a proportion of the light, guided by the light transmitting substrate, out of the light transmitting substrate toward the optical waveguide.
However, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the waveguide, as taught by in Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger (Hudman Fig. 9) could function as a beam expander. This is because it is clear from Figure 9 that the outgoing light is ‘expanded’ compared to the input light to the waveguide. Thus, this falls under “art recognized suitability for an intended purpose” (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (US 20140049610 A1), in view of Danziger (WO 2019102366 A1), in view of Otani (US 20180172808 A1), further in view of Kotake (CN 104541181 A).
Claim 14: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger and Otani, teaches the system of claim 13, further comprising: a scanning arrangement disposed adjacent the first of the two major external surfaces (Fig. 4, mirror 4).
However, Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger and Otani, does not teach the scanning arrangement configured to scan a second dimension orthogonal to the first dimension.
Kotake teaches a Radar device (Title) which includes an optical system, such as a beam expander (Fig. 21, optical system 5) and a scanning mirror (Fig. 21). It is clear from Fig. 12 that the beam expander expands the light in one direction (vertically if figure is oriented to reference numbers) while the scan mirror scans the light in a perpendicular direction.
It would have been obvious to use the arrangement, as taught by Kotake, with the system as taught Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger and Otani, because having a different optical apparatus (beam expander and mirror) provides better control over the emitted light.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudman (US 20140049610 A1), in view of Danziger (WO 2019102366 A1), in view of Otani (US 20180172808 A1), further in view of Xiang (US 20180364334 A1).
Claim 15: Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger and Otani, teaches the system of claim 13, but not wherein the optical component is configured to perform expansion of light emitted by the illumination arrangement in the first dimension and in a second dimension orthogonal to the first dimension.
Xiang teaches a LiDAR system (Title) which uses a beam expander (Fig. 9, beam expander 122) to increase a spot size ([0130] – note “spot” is a term well known in the art to mean a 2-dimensional circular projection, thus, the beam expander expands in two directions).
It would have been obvious to use the beam expander, as taught by Xiang, with the system as taught by Hudman, as modified in view of Danziger and Otani, because beam expanders are well known in the art, and expanding the beam in more than one dimension would allow for uniform beam expansion (without distorting the spot).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645