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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 12/30/2025 in which claims 1, 6, and 12 have been amended and claims 4-5 and 9-11 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-14 are pending for examination in this application. The examiner notes that original claims 4 and 9 depended from claim 1, and that the incorporation of limitations from those claims and their dependents into amended claim 1 represents a new embodiment which has not previously been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 8 of the remarks that Bridges does not teach a coupling unit between mirror 2762 and the barrel that mounts the mirror. Examiner notes that although the mirror may appear spaced apart, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of methods to rigidly couple the mirror to the barrel. Indeed, the laser tracker disclosed in Bridges requires the precise alignment and orientation of optical components in order to function optimally.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to transmission wavelengths in Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry (WO 2021/263159 A1) in view of Bamji (US 7,375,803 B2) and in view of Thorlabs Coatings (https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=12728) and in view of Bridges (US 2012/0262692 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Perry discloses a light receiving module (Abstract: “imaging systems and methods for simultaneous near-infrared light or infrared and visible light imaging of a sample”) comprising:
a reflective mirror configured to selectively reflect some of the light received by the receiving lens (Figure 2; Dichroic shortpass mirror/filter used throughout; [0225]) and
a detector configured to detect the light reflected by the reflective mirror (Figure 4, element 10b, ‘NIR camera’), wherein the reflective mirror includes:
a mirror body (Figure 2, element 6, “dichroic filter”), having a first surface on a side on which the light received by the receiving lens is incident and a second surface on an opposite side of the first surface (Figure 2, incident light 201 strikes the first surface with layer 202. Second surface with layer 203 is opposite and parallel to the first surface);
a reflective layer provided on the first surface to reflect light in a designed wavelength region selected according to a predetermined criterion among the light received by the receiving lens (Figure 2, element 202; [0225]: “a dichroic reflecting or other coating 202”), and to transmit light in a noise wavelength region other than the designed wavelength region (Figure 2, element 203; [0225]: “The incident light 201 can have a wavelength of less than about 700 nm and transmit through both surfaces, 202 and 203, to result in ray 206.”); and
a transmissive layer provided on the second surface so that the light in the noise wavelength region that has passed through the mirror body is transmitted (Figure 2, element 203; [0225]: “Less than 1% of the incoming light 201 is reflected by the anti -reflective coating 203, shown by ray 205.”).
Perry does not teach and Bamji does teach a receiving lens configured to receive external light (Figure 1A, element 15; Column 2, Para 4: “In the beam splitting embodiment of FIG. 1A, optical energy to be detected by system 10 passes through a focusing lens 15.”)
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 sensor of Perry with the teaching of Bamji to include a focusing lens on the input of the device. Objective lenses, which focus, collimate, or manipulate the sensed radiation as it enters a sensor, are well-known in the art, and a skilled worker would find the inclusion of such a device in a sensor to have a predictable effect on its operation.
Perry teaches wherein the transmissive layer is formed of two or more anti-reflection coating layers ([0225]: “a dichroic filter 6 having an anti- reflective or other coating 203.” Dichroic filters are commonly known in the art to be composed of many individual coating layers.)
Perry does not teach and Thorlabs Coatings does teach that the transmissive layer transmits light in different wavelength regions within the noise wavelength region (Page 1, Para 2: “The DMBP740B multi-band dichroic mirror has two transmission bands and one reflection band and may be used simultaneously as a 740 nm shortpass and 940 nm longpass filter.”)
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 Perry in view of Bamji with the teaching of Thorlabs Coatings for the transmissive layer to transmit light in a short wavelength band and a long wavelength band. Thorlabs Coatings notes in Page 1, Para 5 that “These dichroic mirrors can also split spatially overlapping beams of different colors.” This is a highly advantageous feature in applications where one color of light may interfere with the detection of another color.
Perry in view of Bamji does not teach and Bridges does teach a barrel in which the receiving lens and the reflecting mirror are respectively coupled (Figure 14D shows a lens in a lens assembly 2760 coupled to a reflecting mirror 2762; The light ray 2755 passes through tube or barrel passages between the lens and the mirror, and after the mirror), and configured to form an optical path between the receiving lens and the reflecting mirror and between the reflecting mirror and the detector (Figure 14B-14D and [0088] show and describe the optical path of 2755 as it traverses the lens and mirror en route to the photosensitive array 2776).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the light receiving module of Perry in view of Bamji according to the teaching of Bridges to integrate the lens and reflecting into a monolithic unit. It is well-known by those skilled in the optic arts that optical components should be fixed relative to each other. The barrel type mount taught in Bridges is a common method of fixing two optical components with respect to each other, and using this teaching would have predictable results to one skilled in the art, that is, it is a reliable method to fix two components.
Perry in view of Bamji does not teach and Bridges further teaches wherein the reflective mirror is coupled to the barrel in such a manner that the second surface is arranged outside the barrel (Figure 14D shows that the second (back) surface of the mirror 2762 is outside the cylindrical barrel portions of the apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the reflective mirror to the barrel in such a way that the second surface is arranged outside the barrel. Given the claimed right-angle structure of the barrel mount in the instant application, there are only three mounting options for the second surface of the reflective mirror: a) inside the barrel, b) flush with the barrel surface, c) outside the barrel. One skilled in the art would know that each of these mounting options would have a reasonable expectations of success for properly redirecting incoming light towards a detector, and that the only consequence of the choice would likely be to the clear aperture of the reflecting mirror.
Perry in view of Bamji does not teach and Bridges further teaches wherein a reflective mirror coupling unit of the barrel to which the reflective mirror is coupled is formed to allow the reflective mirror to be seated and fixed on the outside of the barrel (Figure 14D shows the reflective (first) face of the reflective mirror 2762 mounted to the outside of the barrel).
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 claimed invention in such a way that the reflective face of the mirror is coupled to the outside of the barrel. Given the claimed right-angle structure of the barrel mount in the instant application, there are only three options regarding how the mirror is mounted to the barrel: a) face mounted on the first reflective surface, b) mounted along the edge surface, c) face mounted along the second AR coated surface. One skilled in the art would know that each of these mounting options would have a reasonable expectation of success for securely fastening the mirror to the barrel mount.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Perry further discloses wherein the reflective layer is formed of a dielectric coating layer ([0263]: The two example dichroic filters/mirrors listed here are both feature dielectric coatings).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Perry does not teach and Bamji does teach wherein the receiving lens and the detector are arranged such that an optical axis of the receiving lens and a central axis of the detector meet perpendicularly, and the reflective mirror is arranged to be inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to the optical axis (Figure 1 shows that the axes of the receiving lens 15 and the NIR detector 60 are perpendicular to each other, and that the mirror 70 is arranged at a 45 degree angle with respect to these axes).
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 optical module of Perry in view of Bamji with the further teaching of Bamji to have the aforementioned axes perpendicular, and the mirror at a predetermined angle. It is well-known in the art to position the optical axis of, e.g., an objective lens and the axis of a detector perpendicular to each other as shown in Bamji. A worker of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be able to apply this and obtain a predictable result.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Layertech Coatings (http://www.layertec.de/de/shop/coatings?kanr=KA-001).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges does not teach and Layertech does teach wherein the designed wavelength region is selected in a range of 850 to 950 nm (Layertech discloses the HR 930 – 946 nm coating with R>99.9%).
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 optical module of Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges with the teaching of Layertech to use a highly reflective coating in the 930 – 946 nm range. Warren provides a motivation for designing an optical system operating in this wavelength range, stating that “the solar spectrum has prominent dips due to atmospheric absorption. There is a dip at 940nm that is useful for silicon detector-based systems. Even though some silicon sensors have low responsivity at 940nm, the reduced solar background can give better SNR.” Taking advantage of these benefits by using a LiDAR laser source at 940 nm would require the use of mirrors with high reflectivity in this range.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Evaporated Coatings (https://www.evaporatedcoatings.com/ar-coatings/).
Regarding Claim 6, Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges does not teach and Evaporated coatings does teach wherein the transmissive layer includes two or more anti-reflection coating layers that transmit light in different wavelength regions within the noise wavelength region and wherein the noise wavelength region includes a range of 300 to 850 nm and a range of 950 to 1100 nm (Figure 1 of the Evaporated Coatings products page shows AR coatings constructed with multiple layers, and also teaches coating ECI #289EX, which shows throughout the region. Note that Thorlabs Coatings teaches using the ranges 400-725 nm and 980-1700 nm, so Evaporated coatings simple teaches in this case that transmitted wavelengths in the full short-pass range can be achieved.)
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 AR coating of Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges with the teaching of Evaporated Coatings to use the transmission the ranges 300 to 850 nm and 950 to 1100 nm. Multilayer AR coatings are well-known in the art, and well-known to be highly tunable and customizable, and a skilled worker would find the implementation of a wider short-pass region into the system of Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges to yield predictable results.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Schreder (2021/0191014 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Perry in view of Bamji does not teach and Schreder does teach wherein the mirror body is made of a black glass material that absorbs light in a visible light wavelength region (Figures 1 and 2 disclose several glasses with very low transmission in the visible range.; [0003]: “Glasses having a low transmission in the visible range are often referred to as “black glass” due to their black appearance.”; [0011]: “The glass provided according to the present invention is characterized by particularly low transmission in the visible range.”).
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 optical module of Perry in view of Bamji with the teaching of Schreder to use a black glass as the mirror substrate. Schreder notes in [0005] that “an accordingly improved black glass that additionally has a high transmission in the NIR range may be advantageously used as an optical component or band-pass filter in applications comprising NIR lasers,” and further notes that such glasses find particular application in LiDAR systems.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Thorlabs Right-Ange Kinematic Beamsplitter Mount (https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=12002).
PNG
media_image1.png
150
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Perry in view of Bamji and further in view of Bridges does not teach and Thorlabs does teach wherein the reflective mirror coupling unit is formed to allow at least a portion of an edge of the reflective mirror to be seated while the at least a portion of the first surface of the reflective mirror is exposed into the barrel (The orange arrow points to a small counterbore or seating in the through hole onto which an edge portion of the reflection mirror can be seated).
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 apparatus of Perry in view of Bamji and further in view of Bridges with the teaching of Thorlabs to mount the reflective surface against a counterbore or seating. Such a protrusion allows for consistent and repeatable mounting of optical elements in the case that they have to be removed for cleaning, for example, then subsequently replaced. This is beneficial in part because it requires less realignment of the overall optical system.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Bamji and in view of Thorlabs Coatings and in view of Bridges as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Morarity (US 2020/0379092 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Perry in view of Bamji teach the light receiving module of Claim
1 configured to receive external light including the laser light reflected and returned from the outside (See the analysis of Claim 1 presented above).
Perry in view of Bamji do not teach and Morarity does teach a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus ([0001]) comprising: a light transmitting module configured to transmit laser light to an outside (Figure 1, element 110, “transmit module”); and the light receiving module configured to receive external light including the laser light reflected and returned from the outside (Figure 1, element 130, “receive module”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the light receiving module of Claim 1 taught by Perry in view of Bamji into the LiDAR apparatus of Morarity. The proper substitution of one optical module for another would potentially require a redesign of electrical signal interfaces and mechanical adjustments to accommodate different module sizes, both of which are routine matters for one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution and obtained predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Perry in view of Bamji does not teach and Morarity does teach wherein the laser light includes light in the designed wavelength region ([0053]: “light source 410 may include a laser diode that produces infrared light with a wavelength of substantially 940 nanometers (nm), and receive module 130 detects reflected light pulses with a wavelength of substantially 940 nm.” C.f. Perry, who teaches that the reflected range of the dichroic mirror should be greater than 700 nm, [0226]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 940 nm laser wavelength taught by Morarity in the LiDAR apparatus of Perry in view of Bamji and further in view of Morarity. The 940 nm wavelength is interoperable with the design wavelength region outlined by Perry, and also offers the advantage of utilizing a relatively interference free atmospheric window in the 940 nm range, as noted in Warren above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hayashi (JP 61155729 A) discloses an optical system featuring a dichroic mirror which reflects infrared radiation and passes visible radiation.
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
Prosecution Insights