DETAILED ACTION
This Action addresses the communication received on 1 Dec 2025. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 3, and 20. The Office rejects pending Claims 1-20 as detailed below.
Response to Amendments
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinokuma et al. - U.S. Pub. 20170242100 - in view of Pan - U.S. Pub. 20200319304 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Hinokuma teaches a time of flight (TOF) depth sensing module, comprising: a light source configured to generate a beam, wherein the light source is capable of generating light in a plurality of polarization states; a polarization filter configured to filter the beam to obtain a beam in a single polarization state, wherein the single polarization state is one of the plurality of polarization states (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam; a polarization changing unit to output said laser light beam toward a direction corresponding to polarization of said laser light beam while changing the polarization of said laser light beam outputted from said light source with respect to time….”); and a control unit configured to control a first optical element to control a direction of the first beam to obtain an emergent beam including controlling the first optical element to respectively control the direction of the first beam at M different moments, to obtain emergent beams in M different directions (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam; a polarization changing unit to output said laser light beam toward a direction corresponding to polarization of said laser light beam while changing the polarization of said laser light beam outputted from said light source with respect to time….” Further, (¶97|1) “Therefore, in the laser light transceiver (Embodiments 1 and 2) which employs two eye directions and changes the polarization of the laser light beam with respect to time, FOM per eye direction is expressed by the following equation (2).”); a beam shaper configured to increase a field of view (FOV) of the beam in the single polarization state to obtain a first beam, wherein the FOV of the first beam meets a first preset range (¶40|1: “…the transmission optical system 5 is mounted in order to implement enlargement of the beam diameter of the transmission light beam which is a laser light beam and collimation of the beam….”) Hinokuma does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
But Pan teaches and control a second optical element to deflect, to a receiving unit, a reflected beam that is obtained by reflecting the emergent beam by a target object (Fig. 1, Detecting Module 130, ¶38|1-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine Hinokuma and Pan because Pan teaches a well-known method for directing and receiving light in a Lidar system and Hinokuma teaches a method of using and varying the polarization of the emitted light to allow for better filtering of noise to improve system sensitivity.
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein the first preset range is [5
°
x5°, 20°x20°] (Fig. 1, Scanner Control Unit 120, ¶47|1: “The scanner 120 may be configured to scan the output beam 111 over an angular range. In some cases, the scanner 120 may be configured to scan the output beam 111 over a 5-degree angular range, 20-degree angular range, 30-degree angular range, 60-degree angular range, or any other suitable angular range.”)
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches control the second optical element to respectively deflect, to the receiving unit, M reflected beams that are obtained by reflecting the emergent beams in the M different directions by a target object (Fig. 1, Scanner Control Unit 121, ¶46|1-4)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 3, Hinokuma teaches wherein total FOV covered by the emergent beams in the M different directions meets a second preset range (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam; a polarization changing unit to output said laser light beam toward a direction corresponding to polarization of said laser light beam while changing the polarization of said laser light beam outputted from said light source with respect to time….”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein a distance between the first optical element and the second optical element is less than or equal to 1 cm (Fig. 1, 120 scanning component both deflects light out of the module, and directs incoming light to the detection module))
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein the first optical element and/or the second optical element is a liquid crystal polarization element (¶37|5: “The Lidar system 100 can include any suitable optical components such as one or more lenses, mirrors, filters ( e.g., bandpass or interference filters), beam splitters, polarizers [including liquid crystal elements], polarizing beam splitters, wave plates (e.g., halfwave or quarter-wave plates), diffractive elements, or holographic elements, telescope, to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam 111 to a desired beam diameter or divergence.”)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein the first optical element and/or the second optical element is a rotating mirror component, and the rotating mirror component rotates to control emergent directions of the emergent beams (¶37|5: “The Lidar system 100 can include any suitable optical components such as one or more lenses, mirrors, filters ( e.g., bandpass or interference filters), beam splitters, polarizers, polarizing beam splitters, wave plates (e.g., halfwave or quarter-wave plates), diffractive elements, or holographic elements, telescope, to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam 111 to a desired beam diameter or divergence.”)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 1, Hinokuma teaches wherein the beam shaper comprises a diffusion lens and a rectangular aperture stop (¶40|1: “…the transmission optical system 5 is mounted in order to implement enlargement of the beam diameter of the transmission light beam which is a laser light beam and collimation of the beam….”)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein the light source is a Fabry-Perot laser (¶77|4: “The laser diode may be a Fabry-Perot laser diode, a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, or a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser.”)
As for Claim 10, which depends on Claim 1, Hinokuma teaches wherein the light source is a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam….” Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to use VCSELs in lidar systems.)
As for Claim 11, which depends on Claim 1, Hinokuma teaches further comprising: a collimation lens disposed between the light source and the polarization filter, and configured to collimate the beam; and wherein the polarization filter is configured to filter a collimated beam of the collimation lens, to obtain a beam in a single polarization state (¶40|1: “…the transmission optical system 5 is mounted in order to implement enlargement of the beam diameter of the transmission light beam which is a laser light beam and collimation of the beam….”)
As for Claim 12, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein a light emitting area of the light source is less than or equal to 5x5 mm2 (¶77|4: “The laser diode may be a Fabry-Perot laser diode [has a light emitting area well below 5x5 mm2], a distributed feedback (DFB) laser, or a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser.”)
As for Claim 13, which depends on Claim 1, Pan teaches wherein an average output optical power of the TOF depth sensing module is less than 800 mw (¶33|2: “As an example, output beam may have an average power of approximately 1 mW, 10 mW, 100 mW, 1 W, 10 W, or any other suitable average power.”)
As for Claim 14, Hinokuma teaches an image generation method performed by a time of flight (TOF) depth sensing module, comprising: controlling a light source to generate a beam; filtering the beam using a polarization filter to obtain a beam in a single polarization state, wherein the single polarization state is one of a plurality of polarization states (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam [pulse or CW]; a polarization changing unit to output said laser light beam toward a direction corresponding to polarization of said laser light beam while changing the polarization of said laser light beam outputted from said light source with respect to time….”); adjusting a field of view (FOV) of the beam in the single polarization state using a beam shaper to obtain a first beam, wherein the FOV of the first beam meets a first preset range (¶40|1: “…the transmission optical system 5 is mounted in order to implement enlargement of the beam diameter of the transmission light beam which is a laser light beam and collimation of the beam….”); controlling a first optical element to respectively control a direction of the first beam from the beam shaper at M different moments, to obtain emergent beams in M different directions, wherein a total FOV covered by the emergent beams in the M different directions meets a second preset range wherein the control unit is configured to: control the first optical element to respectively control the direction of the first beam at M different moments, to obtain emergent beams in M different directions (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam; a polarization changing unit to output said laser light beam toward a direction corresponding to polarization of said laser light beam while changing the polarization of said laser light beam outputted from said light source with respect to time….”) Hinokuma does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
But Pan teaches controlling a second optical element to respectively deflect, to a receiving unit, M reflected beams that are obtained by reflecting the emergent beams in the M different directions by a target object (Fig. 1, Scanner Control Unit 121, ¶46|1-4); obtaining TOFs respectively corresponding to the emergent beams in the M different directions (Fig. 1, Detecting Module 130, ¶38|1-4); and generating a depth image of the target object based on the TOFs respectively corresponding to the emergent beams in the M different directions (¶52|1-10).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine Hinokuma and Pan because Pan teaches a well-known method for directing and receiving light in a Lidar system and Hinokuma teaches a method of using and varying the polarization of the emitted light to allow for better filtering of noise to improve system sensitivity.
As for Claim 15, which depends on Claim 14, Pan teaches wherein the first preset range is [5°x5°, 20°x20°] (Fig. 1, Scanner Control Unit 120, ¶47|1: “The scanner 120 may be configured to scan the output beam 111 over an angular range. In some cases, the scanner 120 may be configured to scan the output beam 111 over a 5-degree angular range, 20-degree angular range, 30-degree angular range, 60-degree angular range, or any other suitable angular range.”)
As for Claim 16, which depends on Claim 14, Pan teaches wherein the second preset range is [50°x50°, 80°x80°] (Fig. 1, Scanner Control Unit 120, ¶47|1: “The scanner 120 may be configured to scan the output beam 111 over an angular range. In some cases, the scanner 120 may be configured to scan the output beam 111 over a 5-degree angular range, 20-degree angular range, 30-degree angular range, 60-degree angular range, or any other suitable angular range.”.)
As for Claim 17, which depends on Claim 14, Pan teaches wherein generating the depth image of the target object based on the TOFs comprises: determining distances between the TOF depth sensing module and M regions of the target object based on the TOFs respectively corresponding to the M emergent beams; generating depth images of the M regions of the target object based on the distances between the TOF depth sensing module and the M regions of the target object; and synthesizing the depth image of the target object based on the depth images of the M regions of the target object (¶52|1: “A sequence of light pulses may comprise multiple pulses emitted within short time duration such that the sequence of light pulses may be used to derive a distance measurement point. For example, Lidar can be used for three-dimensional (3D) imaging (e.g., 3D point cloud) or detecting obstacles. In such cases, a distance measurement associated with a sequence of light pulses can be considered a pixel, and a collection of pixels emitted and captured in succession (i.e., "point cloud") can be rendered as an image or analyzed for other reasons (e.g., detecting obstacles).”)
As for Claim 18, which depends on Claim 14, Hinokuma teaches further comprising: generating, by a control unit of the TOP depth sensing module, a first voltage signal to control the first optical element to respectively control the direction of the first beam at the M different moments, to obtain the emergent beams in the M different directions (¶19|1: “According to the present invention, there is provided a laser radar device including: a light source to output a laser light beam [pulse or CW]; a polarization changing unit [controlled by a voltage] to output said laser light beam toward a direction corresponding to polarization of said laser light beam while changing the polarization of said laser light beam outputted from said light source with respect to time….”) Hinokuma does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
But Pan teaches generating, by the control unit, a second voltage signal to control the second optical element to respectively deflect, to the receiving unit, the M reflected beams that are obtained by reflecting the emergent beams in the M different directions by the target object, and voltage values of the first voltage signal and the second voltage signal are the same at a same moment (Fig. 1, Detecting Module 130, ¶38|1-4)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine Hinokuma and Pan because Pan teaches a well-known method for directing and receiving light in a Lidar system and Hinokuma teaches a method of using and varying the polarization of the emitted light to allow for better filtering of noise to improve system sensitivity.
As for Claim 19, which depends on Claim 14, Hinokuma teaches wherein the adjusting a field of view FOV of the beam in the single polarization state by using the beam shaper to obtain a first beam comprises: increasing angular intensity distribution of the beam in the single polarization state by using the beam shaper to obtain the first beam (¶40|1: “…the transmission optical system 5 is mounted in order to implement enlargement of the beam diameter of the transmission light beam which is a laser light beam and collimation of the beam….”)
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and stands rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Response to Arguments
The Office has fully considered Applicant's arguments filed 1 Dec 2025 and finds them unpersuasive.
Applicant Argument:
First, Applicant argues (RMKS, P7) the following concerning the Claim 1 rejection:
It is respectfully submitted that Hinokuma and Pan do not disclose the above emphasized claim limitations.
For example, the Office Action contends that paragraph 19 line 1 of Hinokuma discloses the emphasized features "controlling the first optical element to respectively control the direction of the first beam at M different moments, to obtain emergent beams in M different directions" as recited in amended claim 1. Paragraph 19 line 1 of Hinokuma, however, only discloses a polarization changing unit that outputs a laser beam toward a direction, and the polarization changing unit changes the polarization of the laser light beam with respect to time. Here, Hinokuma discloses the polarization switches from p polarization to s polarization. Hinokuma, para. 12. These Pans polarizations would be understood by a person in the art to refer to a type of linear polarization, e.g., in the horizontal or vertical directions, but not the direction of a beam. That is, the linear polarization types of Hinokuma fails to disclose different directions of emergent beams. Instead, Hinokuma' s output of the laser beam is towards a same direction but varying the type of linear polarization. Thus, Hinokuma fails to disclose at least these features.
Pan fails to cure the deficiency of Hinokuma. Pan relates to a laser system for lidar. Specifically, Pan discloses "a seed laser configured to produce a sequence of seed light pulses, wherein the sequence of seed light pulses are produced with variable time intervals in a sweep cycle". Pan, abstract. Here, while Pan discloses a laser emits light pulses (or continuous light) to achieve a desired scanning patterns with a sweep cycle (Pan, para. 4-5), Pan is silent regarding controlling the first optical element to respectively control the direction of the first beam at M different moments, to obtain emergent beams in M different directions. That is, nothing in Pan discloses an optical element controlling a first beam at M different moments, to obtain emergent beams in M different directions. Thus, Pan fails to disclose at least these features. (emphasis included)
Examiner Response:
The Office finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant has defined “M” in the Spec. (¶342) as “M is less than or equal to N, M is a positive integer, and N is a positive integer greater than 1.” Thus, no matter the value of N, M can simply be one. Applicant admits “Hinokuma's output of the laser beam is towards a same direction (i.e., the M equals one direction) but varying the type of linear polarization.” That is, Applicant admits that Hinokuma does satisfy the limitation. Further, Pan also discloses the limitation, though more clearly as it explicitly uses a scanner, which directs each different polarized beam in a different direction (i.e., it works in cases where M is greater than one), and the scanner including mirrors which are certainly “optical elements”: (¶43|2: “In some cases, the scanner 120 may include one or more scanning mirrors that are configured to rotate, oscillate, tilt, pivot, or move in an angular manner about one or more axes.”)
Finally, Keilaf et al. (included in the PTO-892 of the previous Action) could have been cited as a 102 reference for each independent claim and most of the other claims, using the M=1 interpretation, as it includes a scanner and multiple beams including a polarized one. However, to promote compact prosecution, the Office has cited art that covers more than the just the corner case.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Applicants should direct any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications to CLINT THATCHER at phone 571.270.3588. Examiner is normally available Mon-Fri, 9am to 5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645