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 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
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 3 July 2026
No Claims were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about claim 1 that it would not be obvious to modify Bertschinger to include an optical isolator to Keller with a reasonable expectation of success (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 6-7): Applicant states that Bertschinger’s system’s PBS and wave plate combination act as an optical isolator and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to introduce a separate optical isolator component. However, the PBS and wave plate combination of Bertschinger would not prevent reflections off of the PBS (or other internal reflections nearby) from reaching the laser. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Keller’s benefit of preventing feedback into the light sources (Keller:[0086]). Additionally, Applicant suggests that “Inserting an additional optical isolator of the type disclosed by Keller into Bertschinger’s optical path would alter the polarization state of light arriving at the PBS, thereby disrupting the polarization-matching relationship upon which the PBS relies to perform its beam-splitting function and rendering the entire system inoperable.” First, Keller does not describe the optical isolators as altering the polarization state of light arriving at the PBS and Applicant provides no evidence that this would occur. Second, if the isolator did alter the polarization of light, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that use of components such as Keller’s lambda/2 waveplates (3, Fig. 1, [0086]) would help account for this to keep the desired polarization. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about claims 5 and 15 that Schilling’s shutter does not teach the light blocking element (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 9-10): Applicant states “this through hole is a core structural feature of the light blocking element recited in claim 5—the light blocking element blocks most light through the light shielding material while permitting the source light to pass through the through hole, exploiting the disordered nature of stray light to make the stray light unlikely to return to the laser source through the through hole. Therefore, Schilling’s shutter is structurally fundamentally different from the light blocking element recited in claim 5.” However, the functionality of the light blocking element was not previously claimed and, if positively recited in the claim, may result in a different scope. Additionally, Applicant does not claim that the appearance of a hole and/or blocking portion need to be permanent. A shutter, by definition, blocks light some of the time and allows light to pass other portions of the time, thereby including both light shielding material and defining a through hole to transmit light. Additionally, as a shutter opens, both the light shielding material and through hole would be present. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about claims 8 and 18 that Bertschinger does not teach “the scanner to be configured to generate structured light as the reference light” (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 10-11): Applicant states that “Structured light is a light field having a spatial intensity distribution pattern, the generation of which relies on phase-modulation interference” (pg. 10). Bertschinger teaches control of the phase of emission using OPA 50a. This will inherently result in a spatial intensity distribution pattern (for example, see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0117]). By Applicant’s definition of structured light, Bertschinger’s emission signal 32 is structured light. See also further examples in Bertschinger producing structured light in Fig. 6, 12, and 15. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertschinger US 20210165080 A1 in view of Keller US 20250306204 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bertschinger teaches a laser detection system comprising:
a light source module configured for emitting a first laser having a first polarization direction (40a in Fig. 4, [0108]);
a scanner on an optical path of the second laser and configured for reflecting the second laser to project a reference light to a target (diffraction unit 50a in Fig. 4, [0106,112]); and
a detector configured to receive detection light reflected by the target and obtain position information of the target according to the detection light (receiving device 28, Fig. 3, [0102]).
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach an optical isolator, the optical isolator being on an optical path of the first laser, the optical isolator configured to emit a second laser by transmitting the first laser from the light source module and prevent the second laser from transmitting toward the light source module;
Keller teaches optical isolators to prevent feedback into light sources (4 in Fig. 1, [0086])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger to include an optical isolator, the optical isolator being on an optical path of the first laser, the optical isolator configured to emit a second laser by transmitting the first laser from the light source module and prevent the second laser from transmitting toward the light source module similar to Keller with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing feedback into the light sources (Keller: [0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 1, wherein the light source module comprises:
a laser source for emitting source light (40a is a laser, [0106]); and
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach but Keller teaches a wave plate assembly on the optical path of the source light and configured to convert at least a part of the source light into the first laser having a first polarization direction (lambda/2 waveplates 3 to orient polarization in Fig. 1, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger to include a wave plate assembly on the optical path of the source light and configured to convert at least a part of the source light into the first laser having a first polarization direction similar to Keller with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably controlling the polarization.
Regarding claim 3, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 2,
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach but Keller teaches wherein the wave plate assembly comprises a half wave plate (lambda/2 waveplates 3 to orient polarization in Fig. 1, [0086]).
a wave plate assembly on the optical path of the source light and configured to convert at least a part of the source light into the first laser having a first polarization direction
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger such that the wave plate assembly comprises a half wave plate similar to Keller with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably controlling the polarization.
Regarding claim 6, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 1, wherein the first laser is P polarized light (both parallel and perpendicular polarizations are created 60a and 70a through different modules (Fig. 4, [0107-115]).
Regarding claim 7, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 1, further comprising a beam splitter located on the optical path of the second laser and configured for guiding a part of the second laser to the scanner and guiding a part of the reference light to the target (42a directs light to scanner 50a and then towards target in Fig. 4, [0106]).
Regarding claim 8, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 1, wherein the scanner is further configured to diffract the second laser, and the reference light is structured light (diffraction unit 50a in Fig. 4, [0106,112]).
Regarding claim 9, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 1, wherein the scanner is an electrically driven scanner (diffraction unit 50a in Fig. 4, [0106,112-113]; control and analysis unit 30, [0103]).
Regarding claim 11, Bertschinger teaches a vehicle (vehicle, [0030]), comprising:
a vehicle body (10 in Fig. 1, [0098]);
a laser detection system fixed on the vehicle body (detection system 12 on vehicle 10 in Fig. 1, [0098]), the laser detection system being configured to detect if a target is on a moving path of the vehicle body and obtain position information of the target when the target on the moving path of the vehicle body to is detected ([0098-101]), the laser detection system comprising:
a light source module configured for emitting a first laser having a first polarization direction (40a in Fig. 4, [0108]);
a scanner on an optical path of the second laser and configured for reflecting the second laser to project a reference light to a target (diffraction unit 50a in Fig. 4, [0106,112]); and
a detector configured to receive detection light reflected by the target and obtain position information of the target according to the detection light (receiving device 28, Fig. 3, [0102]).
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach an optical isolator, the optical isolator being on an optical path of the first laser, the optical isolator configured to emit a second laser by transmitting the first laser from the light source module and prevent the second laser from transmitting toward the light source module;
Keller teaches optical isolators to prevent feedback into light sources (4 in Fig. 1, [0086])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger to include an optical isolator, the optical isolator being on an optical path of the first laser, the optical isolator configured to emit a second laser by transmitting the first laser from the light source module and prevent the second laser from transmitting toward the light source module similar to Keller with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing feedback into the light sources (Keller: [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, see rejection to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection to claim 9 above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertschinger US 20210165080 A1 in view of Keller US 20250306204 A1 and further in view of Satirachat et al. (2011, “Polarization State Control by using Rotating Quarter Wave Plate for the Measuring of Light”).
Regarding claim 4, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 2,
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach wherein the wave plate assembly comprises two quarter wave plates arranged in sequence.
Satirachat teaches using two quarter wave plates to control polarization (Fig. 1, sections 2 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger such that the wave plate assembly comprises two quarter wave plates arranged in sequence similar to Satirachat with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of yielding a high degree of polarization (Satirachat: conclusion).
Regarding claim 14, see rejection to claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertschinger US 20210165080 A1 in view of Keller US 20250306204 A1 and further in view of Schilling US 20120001789 A1
Regarding claim 5, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 2,
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach wherein the light source module further comprises: a light blocking element between the laser source and the wave plate assembly, wherein the light blocking element is made of light shielding material and defines a through hole positioned to transmit the source light.
Schilling teaches a shutter in front of a laser before other components (111 in Fig. 1, [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger to include a light blocking element between the laser source and the wave plate assembly, wherein the light blocking element is made of light shielding material and defines a through hole positioned to transmit the source light similar to Schilling with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping keep the system eye safe (Schilling: [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, see rejection to claim 5 above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertschinger US 20210165080 A1 in view of Keller US 20250306204 A1 and further in view of Laplante US 20190101625 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Bertschinger as modified above teaches the laser detection system of claim 1,
Bertschinger does not explicitly teach but Laplante teaches further comprising a filter, wherein the filter is located on the optical path of the detection light, the filter is configured to filter ambient light (filter 118, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bertschinger to include a filter, wherein the filter is located on the optical path of the detection light, the filter is configured to filter ambient light similar to Schilling with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving signal to noise ratio by limiting light of wavelengths that the system doesn’t need to detect.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection to claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwangbo US 20200225331 A1 teaches a light blocking member with a through hole (190 in Fig. 4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights