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 Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 09 September 2026 with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 4-5, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanche et al. (US 2019/0107711 A1) in view of and Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1) and Kawakami (US 2020/0333446 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Blanche teaches a radar ([0039] The proposed approach can be generalized for a system operating in a transceiving mode (that is, a mode during which both receiving and transmitting of light—that is, a two-direction propagation of light—may occur; for example, for use in a monostatic LIDAR configuration), comprising:
a light source, configured to emit a ray for detection ([0039] monostatically configured optical system containing a diffractive element is structured to process (in a fashion specific to such optical system) light generated by a source of light that has been disposed in front of the optical system and acquire the light output from the optical system with a detector that has been disposed after the optical system and, at the same time, should the source of light and the detector be interchanged, to process in the same specific fashion light propagating through the system in the opposite direction without any repositioning of any elements of the optical system itself);
a first beam diffraction element, configured to diffract the ray into at least two first beams ([0040 the device can be configured to be monostatic, that is to operate in a dual (transceiving) mode, as shown in FIGS. 5A, 5B, where light from the polychromatic source, arriving at the diffractive element(s) 510, 520, is steered or spatially scanned as desired by the appropriately adjusted diffraction pattern of the 2nd and/or 1st diffractive element(s) and redirected towards the not-shown target (FIG. 5A) Examiner Note: Fig. 5A, reproduced below, shows that the ray is diffracted by 510 into
{
λ
1
,
λ
2
,
λ
3
}
);
PNG
media_image1.png
363
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second beam diffraction element, configured to converge the at least two first beams to a position (Fig. 5A and [0041] the steering or scanning pattern may be devised as schematically illustrated in FIG. 5C. Here, the actual optical system 550 is shown in a (co-axial) monostatic configuration corresponding to FIGS. 5A, 5B. The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560 Examiner Note: Fig. 5A explicitly shows two diffractive elements between the source and steering elements. Further, because Fig. 5C uses the optical system configured as in 5A, the second diffraction element is converging the beams to the digital micromirror device (DMD));
a reflection assembly, comprising a reflector configured to reflect the at least two first beams converged to the position to a detection area ([0041] Here, the actual optical system 550 is shown in a (co-axial) monostatic configuration corresponding to FIGS. 5A, 5B. The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560… The pattern 562 diffracts the incident light at a specific angle towards the target 564. Scanning is achieved by rapidly displaying different pre-computed diffraction patterns on the device 560), and
a detector, configured to receive at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area ([0042] Light 568 reflected from the target is returned to the DMD device 560 and is diffracted by the same diffraction pattern along the input path, towards the beamsplitter 568, which in turn directs the return beam of light to a detector 570).
Blanche is not relied upon as teaching wherein detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap, and a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing; and wherein a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams.
However, Donovan teaches that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap and that a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams ([0036] The LIDAR system FOV 200 shown in FIG. 2A is generated by a 4×4 (16) laser array. The divergence/collimation of the laser has been chosen so that there is only enough overlap of each of the optical beams such that there are no “gaps” in the field-of-view. That is, the circles 202 overlap and form a 4×4 array. An array of detectors provides an array of square FOV's with a particular size, represented by 256 squares 204. The individual detector region represented by square 204 is sometimes referred to as a pixel. It can be seen that there are 16×16 (256) detectors with practically continuous coverage across the array).
Blanche and Donovan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR optical sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR system of Blanche to include the feature of detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams overlapping and a receiving surface of the detector divided into a plurality of areas, with each area receiving a second beam, of Donovan with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate gaps in the field-of-view and achieve continuous coverage across the detector array. By integrating Donovan’s teaching of overlapping detection areas and segmented detector pixels into Blanche’s system, the system can provide continuous spatial scanning without unmonitored blind spots. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these features would yield the predictable result of continuous, gap-free detection coverage across the array.
Donovan is not relied upon as teaching a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing.
However, Kawakami teaches a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing ([0036] The driving mirror 30 is a MEMS mirror and rotates around the Y axis or the Mx axis perpendicular to the Y axis indicated by a dashed line. In this embodiment, as the driving mirror 30, the MEMS mirror is used, but various driving mirrors such as a swing mirror).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan) and Kawakami are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning and LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical system of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan) include the driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing of Kawakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide dynamic angular steering and rotational beam scanning across the target area. By integrating Kawakami’s teaching of a MEMS driving mirror into Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan)‘s system, the system can dynamically swing the mirror around a designated axis to scan light over a wider area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a MEMS driving mirror to swing the reflector would yield the predictable result of controlled, wide-angle scanning of the diffracted optical beams.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Blanche teaches that the first beam diffraction element is configured to diffract the ray into an odd quantity of the at least two first beams (Fig. 5A Examiner Note: Fig. 5A, reproduced above, shows the beam being split into three beams).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Blanche teaches that the second beam diffraction element converges the at least two first beams to the position (Fig. 5A and [0041] the steering or scanning pattern may be devised as schematically illustrated in FIG. 5C. Here, the actual optical system 550 is shown in a (co-axial) monostatic configuration corresponding to FIGS. 5A, 5B. The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560 Examiner Note: Fig. 5A explicitly shows two diffractive elements between the source and steering elements. Further, because Fig. 5C uses the optical system configured as in 5A, the second diffraction element is converging the beams to the digital micromirror device (DMD)), incident angles of the first two beams are different (Figs. 5A and 5C Examiner Note: Fig. 5C, reproduced below, shows the beams leaving the DMD at different angles, and Fig. 5A shows the beams leaving the diffraction element in a parallel fashion, therefore, the beams must hit the different parts of the pattern (even though they are converged to the “position” of the DMD), causing them to have different angles of incidence which causes the different trajectory angles towards the scene, as shown in Fig. C).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Blanche teaches that the position is a reflective surface of the reflector ([0041] ([0041] Here, the actual optical system 550 is shown in a (co-axial) monostatic configuration corresponding to FIGS. 5A, 5B. The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560).
Regarding Claim 13, Blanche teaches a vehicle, comprising an information processor ([0041] The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560, the operational characteristics of which are governed with a programmable processor (in operable communication with the device 560; not shown) to form at the device 560 a computer generated holographic pattern (for example, a pattern of reflection of light across the surface of the device, shown schematically in inset as 562)) and a radar ([0039] The proposed approach can be generalized for a system operating in a transceiving mode (that is, a mode during which both receiving and transmitting of light—that is, a two-direction propagation of light—may occur; for example, for use in a monostatic LIDAR configuration), the radar is connected to the information processor ([0041] The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560, the operational characteristics of which are governed with a programmable processor (in operable communication with the device 560; not shown) to form at the device 560 a computer generated holographic pattern (for example, a pattern of reflection of light across the surface of the device, shown schematically in inset as 562));
wherein the radar comprises:
a light source, configured to emit a ray for detection ([0039] monostatically configured optical system containing a diffractive element is structured to process (in a fashion specific to such optical system) light generated by a source of light that has been disposed in front of the optical system and acquire the light output from the optical system with a detector that has been disposed after the optical system and, at the same time, should the source of light and the detector be interchanged, to process in the same specific fashion light propagating through the system in the opposite direction without any repositioning of any elements of the optical system itself);
a first beam diffraction element, configured to diffract the ray into at least two first beams ([0040 the device can be configured to be monostatic, that is to operate in a dual (transceiving) mode, as shown in FIGS. 5A, 5B, where light from the polychromatic source, arriving at the diffractive element(s) 510, 520, is steered or spatially scanned as desired by the appropriately adjusted diffraction pattern of the 2nd and/or 1st diffractive element(s) and redirected towards the not-shown target (FIG. 5A) Examiner Note: Fig. 5A, reproduced above, shows that the ray is diffracted by 510 into
{
λ
1
,
λ
2
,
λ
3
}
);
a second beam diffraction element, configured to converge the at least two first beams to a position (Fig. 5A and [0041] the steering or scanning pattern may be devised as schematically illustrated in FIG. 5C. Here, the actual optical system 550 is shown in a (co-axial) monostatic configuration corresponding to FIGS. 5A, 5B. The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560 Examiner Note: Fig. 5A explicitly shows two diffractive elements between the source and steering elements. Further, because Fig. 5C uses the optical system configured as in 5A, the second diffraction element is converging the beams to the digital micromirror device (DMD));
a reflection assembly, comprising a reflector configured to reflect the at least two first beams converged to the position to a detection area ([0041] Here, the actual optical system 550 is shown in a (co-axial) monostatic configuration corresponding to FIGS. 5A, 5B. The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558 and is incident upon the DMD device 560… The pattern 562 diffracts the incident light at a specific angle towards the target 564. Scanning is achieved by rapidly displaying different pre-computed diffraction patterns on the device 560); and
a detector, configured to receive at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area ([0042] Light 568 reflected from the target is returned to the DMD device 560 and is diffracted by the same diffraction pattern along the input path, towards the beamsplitter 568, which in turn directs the return beam of light to a detector 570).
Blanche is not relied upon as teaching a vehicle, and that detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap, and a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing; and wherein a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams.
However, Donovan teaches a vehicle ([0022] Autonomous vehicles make use of LIDAR systems to generate a highly accurate 3D map of the surrounding environment with fine resolution) and that the detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams of the at least two first beams partially overlap and that a receiving surface of the detector is divided into a plurality of areas, and each area of the plurality of areas correspondingly receives one second beam of the at least two second beams ([0036] The LIDAR system FOV 200 shown in FIG. 2A is generated by a 4×4 (16) laser array. The divergence/collimation of the laser has been chosen so that there is only enough overlap of each of the optical beams such that there are no “gaps” in the field-of-view. That is, the circles 202 overlap and form a 4×4 array. An array of detectors provides an array of square FOV's with a particular size, represented by 256 squares 204. The individual detector region represented by square 204 is sometimes referred to as a pixel. It can be seen that there are 16×16 (256) detectors with practically continuous coverage across the array).
Blanche and Donovan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of LiDAR optical sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR system of Blanche to include the feature of detection areas corresponding to adjacent first beams overlapping and a receiving surface of the detector divided into a plurality of areas, with each area receiving a second beam, of Donovan with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate gaps in the field-of-view and achieve continuous coverage across the detector array. By integrating Donovan’s teaching of overlapping detection areas and segmented detector pixels into Blanche’s system, the system can provide continuous spatial scanning without unmonitored blind spots. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these features would yield the predictable result of continuous, gap-free detection coverage across the array.
Donovan is not relied upon as teaching a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing.
However, Kawakami teaches a driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing ([0036] The driving mirror 30 is a MEMS mirror and rotates around the Y axis or the Mx axis perpendicular to the Y axis indicated by a dashed line. In this embodiment, as the driving mirror 30, the MEMS mirror is used, but various driving mirrors such as a swing mirror).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan) and Kawakami are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning and LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical system of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan) include the driving mechanism configured to drive the reflector to swing of Kawakami with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide dynamic angular steering and rotational beam scanning across the target area. By integrating Kawakami’s teaching of a MEMS driving mirror into Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan)‘s system, the system can dynamically swing the mirror around a designated axis to scan light over a wider area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a MEMS driving mirror to swing the reflector would yield the predictable result of controlled, wide-angle scanning of the diffracted optical beams.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanche et al. (US 2019/0107711 A1), Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1), and Kawakami (US 2020/0333446 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0349192 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Blanche teaches that the first beam diffraction element is a beam splitter ([0041] The light from a source 554 traverses the beamsplitter 558).
Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the second beam diffraction element is a beam combiner.
However, Wang teaches that the second beam diffraction element is a beam combiner ([0055] In some embodiments, transmitter 302 and receiver 304 may be configured to share mirror assembly 312 (e.g., using a beam splitter/combiner) to perform light steering and detecting operation).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan and Kawakami) and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning and LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical system of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan and Kawakami) modify the second beam diffraction element to be a beam combiner inspired by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to allow a transmitter and receiver to efficiently share a single mirror assembly during light steering and detection operations. By integrating Wang’s teaching of a beam splitter/combiner into Blanche’s system, the system can perform combined optical transmission and detection along a shared optical path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these features would yield the predictable result of efficient dual-function light steering and detection within a compact optical assembly.
Claims 6-8, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanche et al. (US 2019/0107711 A1), Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1), and Kawakami (US 2020/0333446 A1) in further view of Orloff (US 3915572 A).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Blanche teaches that the reflector is further configured to reflect the at least two second beams reflected back from the detection area ([0042] Light 568 reflected from the target is returned to the DMD device 560 and is diffracted by the same diffraction pattern along the input path, towards the beamsplitter 568, which in turn directs the return beam of light to a detector 570);
Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the radar further comprises a split-beam reflection diaphragm, and the split-beam reflection diaphragm is located in an optical path between the second beam diffraction element and the reflection assembly; and the split-beam reflection diaphragm is configured to transmit the at least two first beams converged by the second beam diffraction element, and reflect the at least two second beams reflected back by the reflector; and the detector is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split- beam reflection diaphragm.
However, Orloff teaches that the radar further comprises a split-beam reflection diaphragm, and the split-beam reflection diaphragm is located in an optical path between the second beam diffraction element and the reflection assembly ([Col. 4, ll. 6-9] such beams pass through suitable transmission apertures within a mirror 18 for focusing by a lens system represented schematically by convex lens 19 to a point at 21); and
the split-beam reflection diaphragm is configured to transmit the at least two first beams converged by the second beam diffraction element, and reflect the at least two second beams reflected back by the reflector ([Col. 4, ll. 23-30] That is, the portion of such light which is scattered rearwardly from a moving particle is gathered by lens 19 and is directed as parallel wavefronts onto mirror 18. Mirror 18 is oriented with respect to such light to reflect the same through a collecting lens system, represented schematically by the convex lens 22 for focusing onto means 23 for measuring the modulation frequency and obtaining the desired measurement); and
the detector is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split- beam reflection diaphragm ([Col. 6, ll. 45-48] the means 23 for analyzing the scattered radiation to provide a measurement of such velocity component is designed to take advantage of the two distinguishable Doppler shifted beams).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan and Kawakami) and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR system of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan and Kawakami) to include the split-beam reflection diaphragm located in an optical path between the second beam diffraction element and the reflection assembly, configured to transmit the at least two first beams converged by the second beam diffraction element and reflect the at least two beams reflected back by the reflector, with the detector configured to receive the reflected beams from the split-beam reflection diaphragm, of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to effectively separate outgoing transmitted beams from incoming backscattered return light and gather scattered radiation for precision measurement. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of mirror/diaphragm positioned within the optical path into Blanche’s system, the system can route outgoing beams through apertures while directing return beams toward collecting optical elements and detection means. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these features would yield the predictable result of efficient beam routing and precise return signal collection for Doppler shifted measurement processing.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the split-beam reflection diaphragm comprises: a body, wherein a light transmission structure configured to transmit the at least two first beams is disposed on the body; and a reflection layer, wherein the reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the reflector, and avoids the light transmission structure; and the reflection layer is configured to reflect the at least two second beams.
However, Orloff teaches that the split-beam reflection diaphragm comprises:
a body, wherein a light transmission structure configured to transmit the at least two first beams is disposed on the body ([Col. 4, ll. 6-7] such beams pass through suitable transmission apertures within a mirror 18); and
a reflection layer, wherein the reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the reflector, and avoids the light transmission structure; and the reflection layer is configured to reflect the at least two second beams ([Col. 4, ll. 23-30, and Fig. 1] That is, the portion of such light which is scattered rearwardly from a moving particle is gathered by lens 19 and is directed as parallel wavefronts onto mirror 18. Mirror 18 is oriented with respect to such light to reflect the same through a collecting lens system, represented schematically by the convex lens 22 for focusing onto means 23 for measuring the modulation frequency and obtaining the desired measurement).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the split-beam reflection diaphragm of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) to include the body having a light transmission structure disposed thereon, and the reflection layer disposed on a side close to the reflector that avoids the light transmission structure to reflect the at least two second beams, of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to structuralize the diaphragm to permit unhindered pass-through of outgoing beams while maximizing reflective surface area for incoming scattered return beams. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of a mirror body with transmission apertures and a dedicated reflective surface layer into Blanche’s system, the system can pass outgoing light without attenuation while efficiently reflecting return light toward the detector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these features would yield the predictable result of structural beam isolation and improved signal-to-noise ratio in return light detection.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the light transmission structure is a through hole disposed on the body; or the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body.
However, Orloff teaches that that the light transmission structure is a through hole disposed on the body ([Col. 4, ll. 6-7] such beams pass through suitable transmission apertures within a mirror 18); or
the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body.
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light transmission structure of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) to include the light transmission structure being a through hole disposed on the body of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide a clear, unobstructed optical pathway for outgoing light beams while maintaining structural integrity across the mirror body. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of transmission apertures into Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff)’s system, the system can allow forward-propagating light beams to pass directly through the element without optical distortion or absorption loss. A person of ordinary skill in the arty would recognize that incorporating through holes or partial transmission areas into the mirror body would yield the predictable result of lossless transmission of outgoing beams alongside efficient reflection of return light.
Regarding Claim 11, Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the radar further comprises a receiving lens, wherein the receiving lens is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split-beam reflection diaphragm, and converge the at least two second beams to the detector.
However, Orloff teaches that the radar further comprises a receiving lens, wherein the receiving lens is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split-beam reflection diaphragm, and converge the at least two second beams to the detector ([Col. 4, ll. 25-29] is directed as parallel wavefronts onto mirror 18. Mirror 18 is oriented with respect to such light to reflect the same through a collecting lens system, represented schematically by the convex lens 22 for focusing onto means 23 for measuring).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) and Orloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LiDAR system of Blache (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) to include the receiving lens, wherein the receiving lens is configured to receive the at least two second beams reflected by the split-beam reflection diaphragm and converge the at least two second beams to the detector, of Orloff with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to focus and concentrate return light reflected from the diaphragm onto the active sensing area of the detector. By integrating Orloff’s teaching of a collecting lens system positioned downstream of the reflection mirror into Blanche’s system, the system can efficiently gather and converge reflected return wavefronts onto the detection apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these features would yield the predictable result of improved optical collection efficiency and enhanced signal detection sensitivity.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanche et al. (US 2019/0107711 A1), Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1), Kawakami (US 2020/0333446 A1), and Orloff (US 3915572 A) in even further view of Nankano (US 2021/0354700 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that when the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body, an anti-reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the light transmission area and that is close to the second beam diffraction element.
However, Nankano teaches that when the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of the body, an anti-reflection layer is disposed on a side that is of the light transmission area and that is close to the second beam diffraction element ([0033] The transmissive region 2121 may be provided with an antireflection film).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) and Nankano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the split-beam reflection diaphragm of Blanche (as previously modified) to include the anti-reflection layer disposed on a side of the light transmission area that is close to the second beam diffraction element when the light transmission structure is a partial light transmission area of Nankano with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to minimize unwanted optical reflections and back-scattering at the transmission boundary as beams enter the transmissive region. By integrating Nankano’s teaching of providing an anti-reflection film on the transmissive region into Blanche’s system, the system can maximize light throughput and prevent parasitic reflections from interfering with upstream optical components. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying an anti-reflection coating to the transmissive region would yield the predictable result of increased optical transmittivity and reduced stray light interference.
Regarding Claim 10, Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the split-beam reflection diaphragm further comprises a light absorption layer, the light absorption layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the second beam diffraction element, and the light absorption layer avoids the light transmission structure.
However, Nankano teaches that the split-beam reflection diaphragm further comprises a light absorption layer, the light absorption layer is disposed on a side that is of the body and that is close to the second beam diffraction element, and the light absorption layer avoids the light transmission structure It is desirable that the bottom portion (bottom layer) of the reflection film is provided with an absorption layer for absorbing the light from the inside of the branching optical element ([0033] It is desirable that the bottom portion (bottom layer) of the reflection film is provided with an absorption layer for absorbing the light from the inside of the branching optical element 21).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) and Nankano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the split-beam reflection diaphragm of Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan, Kawakami, and Orloff) to include the light absorption layer disposed on a side of the body close to the second beam diffraction element while avoiding the light transmission structure of Nankano with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to suppress stray light and prevent unwanted internal reflections within the optical branching assembly. By integrating Nankano’s teaching of providing an absorption layer on the bottom portion of the reflection film into Blache (as previously modified)’s system, the system can absorb unwanted optical signals arriving from inside the branching element without blocking transmitted beams. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating an absorption layer would yield the predictable result of effective stray light attenuation and improved optical signal clarity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanche et al. (US 2019/0107711 A1), Donovan et al. (US 2020/0386868 A1), and Kawakami (US 2020/0333446 A1) in further view of Li et al. (US 2021/0247497 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Blanche is not relied upon as teaching that the radar further comprises a collimation structure, wherein the collimation structure is configured to collimate the ray emitted by the light source to the first beam diffraction element.
However, Li teaches that the radar further comprises a collimation structure, wherein the collimation structure is configured to collimate the ray emitted by the light source to the first beam diffraction element ([0023]-[0025] According to a third aspect of the present disclosure there is provided an optical system for directing light into multiple directions, the system including: beam expansion optics to receive light comprising an expanding beam and forming therefrom a substantially collimated beam, the beam expansion optics including a reflector assembly directing the expanding beam along a first folded optical path; diffractive and dispersive optics including a combination of a plurality of diffractive elements and at least one dispersive element configured to diffract light based on wavelength and direct a portion of the received light along a second folded optical path to a direction, the direction for a first wavelength of the received light different to a direction for a second wavelength of the received light).
Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan and Kawakami) and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical sensing and detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blanche to include a collimation structure configured to collimate the ray emitted by the light source to the first beam diffraction element of Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to form a parallel, controlled light beam prior to diffraction. By integrating Li’s teaching of beam expansion and collimating optics into Blanche (as previously modified by Donovan and Kawakami)’s system, the system can direct a collimated beam into the diffractive elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining these teachings would yield the predictable result of improved beam control and efficient light propagation through the diffractive optics.
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 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 EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights