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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by the applicant listed below have been considered and are included in the file.
11 June 2026
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 16 and dependent claims 4, 8 and 9 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 18 June 2026. Claim 17 has been newly added. No new matter has been introduced.
Prior rejections of claims 4 and 8 under 35 USC § 112(b), specifically directed to the rejection for Antecedent Basis concerns in claim 4 and indefiniteness in claim 8, have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s response to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC § 112(b) (Remarks, pgs. 6-7) the examiner thanks the Applicant for the explanation of how the variables incorporated into the equation presented in claim 4 mathematically help avoid ambiguities in the range determination by the system, which is in line with what was included in paragraphs 90015] – [0020] of US 20240118427 A1. While the explanation described why these ambiguities are important to avoid, and reiterates the required values of ‘F’, there was no further information regarding what system components, operating decisions/factors or environmental factors which inform this ‘safety’ value. Outside of the numerical value range given, there continues to be a lack of information which would assist in the due diligence of a search regarding the limitation in order to determine patentability. Thus, the rejection of claim 4 has been upheld, and as claims 16 and 17 have been amended and introduced, respectively, with similar limitations, these claims have been similarly rejected below.
In reference to the Applicant’s arguments that the prior art (Uetsuka, US 20220404498 A1) does not anticipate a system which may operate with differing tuning times (Remarks, pg. 7-9), as Uetsuka’s Fig. 2(A) includes two emissions with the same tuning times, the examiner upholds that it is well known in the art of frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) and frequency modulated pulsed systems that chirp rates and tuning times/chirp duration are inherently related to one another. While the examiner agrees that Fig. 2(A) displays an identical tuning time for the two emissions, nowhere within Uetsuka is it stated that a critical portion of the invention is identical tuning times. Further, Uetsuka discloses differing frequencies, changes in frequency, and chirp rates which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to allow for the varying of tuning time if required for the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “F” in claims 4, 16 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “F” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification indicates that “F” is a “safety factor”, but does not describe what this factor represents, how it is determined other than as an arbitrary value, or how system components or operation would be modified by different values of the “safety factor”. While calibration values, limits to emission power, and other control factors are known in the art of LIDAR, the claim and specification give no additional information to allow for examination of this limitation which relates system timing to an otherwise arbitrary value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uetsuka (US 20220404498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uetsuka anticipates a Lidar system comprising:
a first laser and a second laser ([0054] - [0058]; Figs. 1A, 1B first laser (1a) and second laser (1b));
and a detection unit for detecting laser radiation of said first and second lasers ([0061] - [0063]; Figs. 1A, 1B balanced detector (7));
wherein the first laser in a first wavelength range and the second laser in a second wavelength range are configured for periodic tuning of a respective emission wavelength ([0024], [0054] - [0058], where lasers 1 (1a) and 2 (1b) operate at differing wavelengths);
and a first tuning time T1 of the first laser differs from a second tuning time T2 of the second laser ([0054] - [0058], where the two lasers operate with differing chirp rates and differing modulation timing).
Regarding claim 2, Uetsuka anticipates the Lidar system according to claim 1, wherein
T1>T2 and T1/T2 ranges from 1.05 to 1.95, inclusive ([0055]; where for example a first chirp rate (and therefore timing) is set to 20 MHz/micros and a second is set to 12 MHz/micros, forming a ratio of 1.67).
Regarding claim 3, Uetsuka anticipates the Lidar system according to claim 1, wherein
at least one of the tuning times T1 and T2 is smaller by at least a factor of 2 than an intended maximum range R of the Lidar system divided by the vacuum light velocity c ([0054] - 0057], where a known relationship between timing and R/c can be utilized to set the specific timing values).
Regarding claim 6, Uetsuka anticipates the Lidar system according to claim 1,
which is configured to tune the emission wavelengths of the first laser and the second laser in the form of a triangular variation or in the form of a sawtooth variation (Figs. 2, 8).
Regarding claim 7, Uetsuka anticipates the Lidar system according to claim 1, wherein
the first laser and the second laser have different tuning slopes, the tuning slopes being defined as wavelength difference per unit time, within respective tuning periods ([0054] - [0058], where the two lasers operate with differing chirp rates and differing modulation timing).
Regarding claim 10, Uetsuka anticipates the Lidar system according to claim 1, wherein
the detection unit is configured to detect the wavelength ranges individually and independently of each other;
wherein the detection unit is configured to detect the emission wavelengths from a spatial area comprising and enveloping the emission direction ([0025], [0061] - [0063], [0080]; Figs. 1A, 1B where the balanced photodetector (7) collects emissions from the two lasers and reflections from the area of the FoV being scanned and separately multiplexes the signals to form beat frequencies).
Regarding claim 14, Uetsuka anticipates a vehicle comprising at least one Lidar system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one Lidar system is configured to scan an environment of the vehicle ([0015], [0016], where objects like cars and vehicle sin an environment are most well known in the art of lidar to be detected by LIDAR systems equipped on vehicles).
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) 5, 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetsuka (US 20220404498 A1) in view of Campbell et al. (hereinafter Campbell, US 20180284237 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Uetsuka teaches the Lidar system of claim 3, but does not explicitly state the maximum range of the system.
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes frequency-modulation of one or more lasers, where the intended maximum range R is at least 0.1 km and at most 0.5 km ([0046]).
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 Uetsuka to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to operate the system with a maximum range of between 0.1 and 0.5 km with a reasonable expectation of success. Utilizing LIDAR systems in such a range is well known in the art, and would be a predictable variation based on the operational requirements of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Uetsuka teaches the Lidar system of claim 10, but does not explicitly describe the scanning pattern of the system or specifics on how the pixels are analyzed.
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes frequency-modulation of one or more lasers, where the lasers are configured to scan pixels, the detection unit being configured to detect emission wavelengths from a pixel currently exposed by the lasers and from at least five pixels immediately preceding in time ([0067], [0073], [0119] - [0121]; Fig. 6, where the system scans along a scan path which covers a portion of an entire FoV (401), determined by a field of regard (FOR) and captures a succession of many pixels to form a complete frame or image and may include anywhere from 100-2000 pixels in a horizontal direction and 4-400 in a vertical direction, all of which are utilized in creation of the point cloud of the frame).
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 Uetsuka to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to analyze collected pixels from scanning the environment where at least 5 prior pixels are also included in the analysis with a reasonable expectation of success. As Campbell notes, and is known in the field of LIDAR (or object detection in general), allowing for a variable scan pattern, where the system collects multiple scan points in time, allows for the system to maintain an appropriate resolution for an environment, while also balancing power usage and data storage ([0005] – [0007], [0119] – [0120])
Regarding claim 12, Uetsuka teaches the Lidar system of claim 1, but does not explicitly state the pulse width (duration).
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes frequency-modulation of one or more lasers, where 0.1
μ
s
≤
T
1
≤
2
μ
s
([0056], where a standard pulse width may be between 10 ps and 100 ns, or 0.1 micros).
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 Uetsuka to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to utilize a pulse width within a specific range with a reasonable expectation of success. Utilizing LIDAR systems in such a range of pulse width is well known in the art, and would be a predictable variation based on the operational requirements of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Uetsuka teaches the Lidar system of claim 31, but does not explicitly discuss the laser types.
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes frequency-modulation of one or more lasers, where the lasers are formed by semiconductor lasers and configured to have wavelength ranges in the near-infrared spectral range ([0041] - [0042], [0058]; where the laser may be a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) and may operate in the region of 900 nm).
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 Uetsuka to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to utilize a VCSEL with emissions in the near-infrared with a reasonable expectation of success. Utilizing LIDAR systems in such a range is well known in the art, and would be a predictable variation based on the operational requirements of the system. Additionally, while Uetsuka does outline that the two wavelengths of the two lasers could be 1.55 and 1.53
μ
m
, respectively, they also indicate that this is an example of wavelengths, and do not restrict functionality of the system to emitters within that wavelength range.
Regarding claim 15, Uetsuka teaches a method for operating a Lidar system according to claim 1, further comprising:
scanning pixels of a solid angle range with the lasers ([0053], [0117]);
and detecting laser radiation of the lasers coming from pixel ranges, wherein in a range determination and/or in a velocity determination of an object reflecting the laser radiation back to the Lidar system ([0023]). Uetsuka does not describe the scanning pattern or specifics on how the pixels are analyzed.
Campbell teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes frequency-modulation of one or more lasers, where laser radiation from pixel ranges previously scanned is also taken into account ([0067], [0073], [0119] - [0121]; Fig. 6, where the system scans along a scan path which covers a portion of an entire FoV (401), determined by a field of regard (FOR) and captures a succession of many pixels to form a complete frame or image and may include anywhere from 100-2000 pixels in a horizontal direction and 4-400 in a vertical direction, all of which are utilized in creation of the point cloud of the frame).
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 Uetsuka to incorporate the teachings of Campbell to analyze collected pixels from scanning the environment where at least 5 prior pixels are also included in the analysis with a reasonable expectation of success. As Campbell notes, and is known in the field of LIDAR (or object detection in general), allowing for a variable scan pattern, where the system collects multiple scan points in time, allows for the system to maintain an appropriate resolution for an environment, while also balancing power usage and data storage ([0005] – [0007], [0119] – [0120]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetsuka (US 20220404498 A1), alone.
Regarding claim 8, Uetsuka teaches the Lidar system of claim 1, where two lasers emit in two wavelength ranges, which are configured for periodically tuning a respective emission wavelength ([0024], [0054] - [0058], where lasers 1 (1a) and 2 (1b) operate at differing wavelengths), wherein the wavelengths do not overlap ([0027], where example wavelengths of 1550 nm and 1530 nm differ by a range of 1-35 nm, but preferably within the mid of this range to avoid signal deterioration or too-high beat frequencies).
Uetsuka does not explicitly teach use of a third and fourth laser emitting at third and fourth wavelengths.
However, use of a third and fourth laser, in addition to but in an identical fashion to the first and second lasers, would be a duplication of the parts and orientation already taught by Uetsuka, and would represent arrangement choices that are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as allowing for more succinct scanning due to more lasers, larger scan coverage of the field of view/environment, and therefore reduced scanning time. Further choosing to have wavelength ranges that do not overlap would continue to avoid problems such as signal deterioration, as noted by Uetsuka.
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 Uetsuka to
incorporate a rearrangement or duplication of parts with a reasonable expectation of success. As the basic premise and arrangement of two lasers is already disclosed in Uetsuka, the extension into use of four lasers would be obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art and would not introduce a novel or unexpected result. It has been held that "a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced" (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uetsuka (US 20220404498 A1) in view of Davydenko et al. (hereinafter Davydenko, US 20180284237 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Uetsuka as modified above teaches the Lidar system according to claim 8, but does not explicitly teach tuning times matching while slopes differ simultaneously.
Davydenko teaches a system for scanning and determining distance to an object in an environment, where the third laser and the first laser form a first laser pair and the fourth laser and the second laser form a second laser pair;
wherein within the laser pairs the associated tuning times are the same but the tuning slopes are different so that the lasers within each laser pair are arranged configured to be tuned synchronously in time;
and wherein the detection unit is also configured to detect laser radiation of the third and the fourth lasers ([0064], [0067], [0073]; Figs. 5a-b, 6a-b and 8a-b, where laser pairs include tuning slopes that are tuned synchronously but with slopes of opposite signs and differing wavelengths, and where the detector is arranged to collect all reflected light from all sources).
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 Uetsuka to incorporate the teachings of Davydenko to simultaneously align timing, and slopes, of different emitters undergoing modulation with a reasonable expectation of success. As Davydenko teaches, simultaneous use of more than one laser with distinct frequency modulation patterns allows for reduced scan times and using differing (or similar) frequency ranges can allow a system to be reduced in components (such as AWGs), and therefore reduce size and cost while maintaining resolution ([0023] – [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sandborn et al. (US 20200142066 A1) teaches a LIDAR system which may include N lasers, all of which are modulated for emission and may include differing frequency sweeps and wavelengths.
Donovan (US 20170307736 A1) teaches a multiwave LIDAR system where two laser sources generate optical beams by using higher-level modulation and coding of the laser pulses, wherein the emitted pulses may have various properties such as differing pulse widths or wavelengths.
Desai et al. (US 20190064358 A1) teaches a frequency modulated continuous wave optical system which includes a plurality of modulated lasers, wherein each laser may have a differing frequency chirps, chirp rates, and central frequencies for use in optical distance measuring.
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 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
Prosecution Insights