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 2-11 were amended in applicant’s amendments received 26 December 2025. No new matter was introduced.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 were canceled.
Prior objections to the drawings in relation to minor errors have been overcome by applicant’s amendments received 26 December 2025 and are therefore withdrawn.
Prior objections to the specification in relation to the abstract length and minor informalities have been overcome by applicant’s amendments received 26 December 2025 and are therefore withdrawn.
Prior objections to claims 1 and 11 in relation to minor informalities have been overcome by applicant’s amendments received 26 December 2025 and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (pgs. 15, first paragraph and 17 of Remarks) discuss the inability to combine Limpert et al. (hereinafter Limpert, US 20210333565 A1), and in view of Nicolaescu (US 20190391243 A1) due to a difference in systems, specifically that Limpert teaches a pulsed system and Nicolaescu teaches a continuous wave (specifically FMCW) system. However, both Limpert and Nicolaescu teach systems which include reference to embodiments who operate as both a continuous wave and a pulsed system. Examiner points to paragraphs [0013], [0189] – [0191] and [0202] – [0209] of Nicolaescu which teaches parameters regarding transmission and detection of pulsed emissions, and paragraph [0039] of Limpert which discusses the system operating in both emission types.
Regarding the arguments (pg. 15, second paragraph of Remarks) where there is uncertainty in the 103 rejection in reference to the primary and secondary references presented, examiner notes that a degree of uncertainty may have been introduced because of the prior limitation within claim 11 of “in accordance with one of the preceding claims.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the rejection was based upon, as cited, the additional limitations of claim 11 being applied to any of claims 1, 4, and 10, but most notably applied to claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument (pgs. 15-16 of Remarks) that the system of Limpert much be considered as a whole, and therefore combination with components from Nicolaescu are being taken in a void, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner does not agree that the addition of the noted optical components as taught by Limpert, such as the beam combiner, photodiode array, and mirrors would “only operate with the split light transmitted from spectral broadener 6/6’ and propagator 7”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a combination of Limpert with additional features of Nicolaescu such as transmission optics, a specific receiver with reception optics, and a control/evaluation unit is a reasonable, obvious combination that would not render the system inoperable.
Additionally, while applicant argues the priorly noted combination will ‘only properly function’ and that “the proposed modification would render Limpert et al. non-functional, or at least destroy Limpert’s intended functionality”, examiner respectfully notes that the applicant has not explained how this would render the system of Limpert non-functional outside of stating that the combination would have this result.
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) 11, 4-5, 8-9, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limpert et al. (hereinafter Limpert, US 20210333565 A1), and in view of Nicolaescu (US 20190391243 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Limpert teaches an optoelectronic sensor for detecting an object in a monitored zone, comprising:
at least one light source for transmitting first transmitted light beams having first transmitted light pulses ([0038] , [0040]; Fig. 2, pulsed light from source (1) enters beam splitter (2)),
a beam splitter arrangement arranged downstream of the at least one light source for splitting the transmitted first light beams into a plurality of second transmitted light beams ([0038] , [0040]; Fig. 2, pulsed light from source (1) enters beam splitter (2)),
transmission optics ([0041]; Fig. 2, where optical element (8) may combine beams, and divert a small fraction of light to receiver (9), and multi-core propagation of second light may occur at (7));
a light receiver ([0041]; Fig. 2, light receiver (9) which generates signals for received light);
wherein the beam splitter arrangement comprises:
at least one input for coupling the first transmitted light beams into the beam splitter arrangement ([0038] , [0040]; Fig. 2, pulsed light from source (1) enters beam splitter (2)),
at least one beam splitter for splitting the first transmitted light beams into the plurality of second transmitted light beams([0038]; Fig. 2, beam splitter (2)),
and a plurality of outputs for decoupling the second transmitted light beams from the beam splitter arrangement, with the number of outputs being greater than a number of the at least one input ([0038], [0043]; Fig. 3, where one input beam is divided into N channels),
wherein optical compression paths are arranged downstream of the at least one beam splitter and compress the second transmitted light pulses such that a second pulse length of the second transmitted light pulses is shorter than a first pulse length of the first transmitted light pulses ([0014], 0040] – [0041]; Fig. 2 where grating compressor (5’) reduces pulse length).
Limpert teaches the laser system, with beam splitting and compression, and discloses a system controller ([0041]) but does not explicitly teach transmission optics into a monitored zone or additional reception optics upstream of a receiver and a control and evaluation unit.
Nicolaescu teaches a three-dimensional optical sensing system, which includes
a transmission optics for projecting the second transmitted light beams into the monitored zone as transmitted light ([0107] – [0108]; Fig. 5 collimator (404), fixed mirror (405) and MEMS mirror (406) control emission and scanning of emitted beam to object in environment),
a light receiver having a reception optics arranged upstream for generating received signals from light beams remitted at the object ([0107] – [0108]; Fig. 5, lens (407) collects reflected light and focuses it on detector array (408)),
and a control and evaluation unit for acquiring information on the object from the received signals ([0096]; Fig. 2, electronic signal processing module (105) allows for speed and location information of target to be quantified).
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 Limpert by use of the specific optical components of Limpert, such as transmission and/or reception optics and a control and evaluation unit as taught by Nicholaescu for the purposes of object detection with a reasonable expectation of success. Utilizing optics, both in transmission and receiving paths, as well as a receiver and controller are well known in the art of LIDAR, and therefore use of the system of Limpert with the optical components of Nicolaescu would have predictable results of creating a compact, integrated system for detecting an object in a monitored zone.
Regarding claim 4, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11, wherein
the beam splitter arrangement has a plurality of beam splitters arranged cascaded ([0018], [0038]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11.
Limpert does not teach the optical compression paths and the beam splitters being combined in an integrated optical circuit.
Nicolaescu teaches an integrated optical circuit, which includes optical components such as a beam splitter and waveguides ([0020], [0025], [0103]; Figs. 4A-4C, where PIC 300 includes a multimode 1x2 waveguides (202, 302) and waveguides (206, 207) which may include components such as phase modulators (303) or amplitude modulators (304)).
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 modify Limpert to incorporate the teachings of Nicholaescu by combining a beam splitter arrangement including a beam splitter and compression paths in the form of waveguides in an integrated optical circuit with a reasonable expectation of success. Nicholaescu teaches an integrated circuit where paths include multiple waveguides ([0103]; Fig. 4B). Inclusion of the beam splitter arrangement and optical compression path waveguides of Limpert into the photonic integrated chip (PIC) of Nicholaescu would have a predictable result of creating a PIC where secondary beams travel through a multi-waveguide path before traversing to other optical spaces or components.
Regarding claim 8, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11.
Limpert does not teach use of phase shifting elements downstream of the beam splitter arrangement inputs.
Nicolaescu teaches use of a phase shifting element, where downstream of a beam splitter waveguides include a phase modulator ([0020], [0025], [0103]; Figs. 4A-4C, where PIC 300 includes a multimode 1x2 waveguides (202, 302) and waveguides (206, 207) which may include components such as phase modulators (303) or amplitude modulators (304)).
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 modify Limpert to incorporate the teachings of Nicholaescu by combining a beam splitter arrangement including a beam splitter and compression paths in the form of waveguides with additional waveguides (such as phase modulators) with a reasonable expectation of success. Nicholaescu teaches an integrated circuit where paths include multiple waveguides ([0103]; Fig. 4B), and Limpert already teaches additional optics downstream of the beam splitter ([0041]; Figs. 1, 2) such as a broadening fiber or for power modulation. Inclusion of an additional waveguide in the optical path, such as the phase modulator as taught by Nicholaescu, would have a predictable result of a system where secondary beams travel through a multi-waveguide path before traversing to other optical spaces or components, where the beams undergo pulse compression and phase modulation.
As claim 9 further limits claim 8 to include the optical components, including phase shifting elements in an integrated circuit, claim 9 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11, wherein
semiconductor optical amplifiers for boosting a light power of the second transmitted light pulses are arranged downstream of the at least one beam splitter ([0038]; Figs. 1,2 where optical amplifier (4) is downstream of beam splitter (2)).
Regarding claim 12, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11.
Limpert does not teach the sensor system as a whole with additional reception optics and components, where the control and evaluation unit is used to determine a distance of an object based on time-of-flight principles.
Nicolaescu teaches a three-dimensional optical sensing system, which includes
a control and evaluation unit which is configured to determine a distance of the object from a time of flight between transmission of the second transmitted light beams and reception of the light beams remitted by the object. ([0096]; Fig. 2, electronic signal processing module (105) allows for speed and location information of target to be quantified).
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 modify Limpert by use of the laser system of Limpert in an optical system as taught by Nicholaescu for the purposes of object detection with a reasonable expectation of success. As using received signals to determine speed and/or distance of an object with respect to a system is well known in the art of LIDAR, use of the emission system of Limpert in the optical sensing system of Nicolaescu would have predictable results of creating a compact, integrated system for detecting an object in a monitored zone.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limpert et al. (hereinafter Limpert, US 20210333565 A1), in view of Nicolaescu (US 20190391243 A1), and further in view of Subbaraman et al. (hereinafter Subbaraman, US 20120013962 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11.
Limpert is silent on the specific type of optical compression path used.
Subbaraman teaches use of optical compression paths, which utilize an array of resonant structured waveguides ([0036] – [0038]; Figs. 4A, 4B where multiple beams of light from splitter (beams 602) enter photonic crystal waveguide structure and pass along slow light photonic crystal waveguides).
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 modify Limpert to incorporate the teachings of Subbaraman where a waveguide array includes a resonant structured waveguide, such as a slow light photonic crystal array, with a reasonable expectation of success. The instant application notes in specification page 8, lines 1-4, “The resonant structured waveguides can be designed, for example, as slow light photonic crystal waveguides…”, and therefore the slow light photonic crystals of Subbaraman teach the more general resonant crystal waveguides of. Further, the combination of the fan out structure and slow light photonic crystal array of Subbaraman (Figs. 4A, 4B, where fan out structure takes in one beam (600) and outputs 16 beams (602)) could replace the combination of beam splitter and compression waveguides of Limpert with a predictable result of both splitting a single incoming beam into many output beams and compressing pulse lengths in a compact device.
As claim 3 further limits claim 2 to specifically use slow light photonic crystal waveguides, claim 3 is similarly rejected to claim 2.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limpert et al. (hereinafter Limpert, US 20210333565 A1), in view of Nicolaescu (US 20190391243 A1), and further in view of Kaertner et al. (hereinafter Kaertner, US 20070013995 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 11.
Limpert does not teach use of an optical stretching path prior to the beam splitter arrangement.
Kaertner teaches at least one optical stretching path for stretching of the first transmitted light pulses which is upstream of a beam splitter arrangement ([0044], [0055]; Figs. 1, 2 where post pulsed laser (10) emission a stretcher (16) exists before other optics).
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 modify Limpert to incorporate the teachings of Kaertner where an optical stretching component is used between a pulsed source and further optics, such as the beam splitter arrangement of Limpert, with a reasonable expectation of success. Use of the optical stretching component on a pulsed beam in the system of Limpert would have a predictable result of adjusting the pulse length to a desired length, for example, to match other system parameters such as cavity length as noted by Kaertner ([0009]).
Regarding claim 7, Limpert as modified above teaches the optoelectronic sensor in accordance with claim 6.
Limpert does not teach use of an optical stretching path prior to the beam splitter arrangement, and thus is silent on the specific type of component used.
Kaertner teaches the at least one optical stretching path is configured as an optical fiber and/or an optical grating and/or a prism ([0044], [0055], where the stretching can be done via special fiber, a grating, a pair of prisms or a GTI).
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 modify Limpert to incorporate the teachings of Kaertner to use a specific type of optical stretching component with a reasonable expectation of success. Use of the optical stretching component on a pulsed beam in the system of Limpert would have a predictable result of adjusting the pulse length to a desired length, for example, to match other system parameters such as cavity length as noted by Kaertner ([0009]), and it would be common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the type of optical component which best matches the needs of the overall optical system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chu et al. (US 20080252524 A1) teaches a path sharing transceiver array, which includes a splitter, an integrated circuit chip which emits and receives signals which have time and/or phase offsets.
El Amili et al. (US 20210356588 A1) teaches a time-of-flight LIDAR system which emits pulsed signals, with optics and a timing system, where the laser and optics (including a controllable beam splitter) and receiver can be in an integrated circuit.
Mazed (US 20250094380 A1) teaches an integrated super system on a chip, which can be incorporated into a LIDAR system, and includes a pulsed source, beam splitter, phase modulation in a phased array, and a stretching optic upstream to a beam-splitter.
Shimizu et al. (US 6356693 B1) teaches a semiconductor optical pulse compression waveguide, which decreases pulse width in an optical system and can be integrated in a substrate with a Bragg reflector and source.
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