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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 05/18/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 16-21, and, 24-30 are pending.
The application filed on 06/14/2023 is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/086401 12/17/2021. claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority date for application GERMANY 10 2020 134 194.6 12/18/2020. The certified copy has been filed on 06/14/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the 05/18/2026 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claims, on page 6-10 argues “second perpendicular polarization”, “Light detection device”. While the applicant’s argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because Philipp in view of Amor further in view of Thayer teaches (MPEP 2141.I, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability”, also, MPEP 2144.04.VI.B, “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”, Philip, [0042], Fig. 2, it is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art that the received light can have any polarization, US 10,181,200 B1, Column 9, line 47-67, Column 10, line 1-4; also, Amor, [0006], detection hardware, so, it is obvious to the ordinary skill art that the prior arts read one the scope of the current claims, so, rejection is maintained, US 20200257915 A1, [0033]).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 16-20 refer to "A LIDAR System”, Claim 21, 24-29 refer to " A LIDAR System”, and Claim 30 refers to " A LIDAR System”. Claims 16-20 and 30 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 21, 24-29, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 21, 24-29, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. Examiner requests to keep the scope of the independent claims similar for the advancement of the prosecution.
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 21, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philipp (US 20200072950 A1 A1) in view of Amor et al. (US 20200003879 A1), hereinafter Amor.
Regarding claim 21, Philipp discloses a LIDAR system comprising: a light detection system comprising (Abstract): a first optical component configured to: receive polarized light from a field of view of the LIDAR system, and convert a polarization of the received light (Fig. 2, [0031]); and a light deflection device configured to deflect light output by the first optical component in accordance with a polarization of light output by the first optical component (Fig. 2, [0031]).
Philipp discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Philipp does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section the polarized light comprising a first portion having a first linear polarization aligned along a first direction and second portion having a second linear polarization aligned along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; the first linear polarization to a first circular polarization with a first handedness and convert the second linear polarization to a second circular polarization with a second handedness opposite the first handedness.
However, Amor from the same or similar endeavor teaches ([0009]-[0011]); the polarized light comprising a first portion having a first linear polarization aligned along a first direction and second portion having a second linear polarization aligned along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction ([0024]-[0025]); the first linear polarization to a first circular polarization with a first handedness and convert the second linear polarization to a second circular polarization with a second handedness opposite the first handedness ([0024], [0026], [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Philipp to incorporate the teachings of Amor to improve signal to noise ratio (Amor, [0001]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 24, Philipp in view of Amor discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 21, wherein the first optical component comprises a quarter-wave plate (Philipp, Fig. 2, [0031], Amor, [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 25, Philipp in view of Amor discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 21, wherein the light deflection device comprises a liquid crystal polarization grating (Philipp, Fig. 2, [0031], Amor, [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 26, Philipp in view of Amor discloses the LIDAR system according to The LIDAR system according to wherein the light detection system further comprises an optical arrangement configured to receive the light deflected by the light deflection device, and wherein the optical arrangement comprises: a second optical component configured to convert a type of the polarization of the deflected light from circular polarization to linear polarization, and a third optical component configured to absorb or reflect the linear polarization along a predetermined direction (Philipp, Fig. 2, [0031], Amor, [0009]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 27, Philipp in view of Amor discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 21, wherein the light detection system further comprises a fourth optical component arranged optically upstream of the first optical component, the fourth optical component being configured to absorb or reflect a second portion of the received light having circular polarization (Philipp, Fig. 2, [0031], Amor, [0009]-[0011], Fig. 1).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philipp in view of Amor further in view of Thayer et al. (US 20190018143 A1), hereinafter Thayer.
Regarding claim 28, Philipp in view of Amor disclose in the cited section the LIDAR system according to claim 21, wherein the light detection system further comprises an optical component configured to: receive the light from the field of view, change the first linear polarization of the first portion of the received light from being aligned along the first direction to being aligned along the the second linear polarization of the second portion of the received light is aligned to the first direction (Philipp, Fig. 2, [0031], Amor, [0009]-[0011], Fig. 1).
Philipp in view of Amor discloses all the elements of claim 28 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section a switchable optical component.
However, Thayer from the same or similar endeavor teaches a switchable optical component ([0248]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Philipp in view of Amor to incorporate the teachings of Thayer to improve resolution of pulses (Thayer, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 29, Philipp in view of Amor further in view of Thayer discloses the LIDAR system according to claim 28, wherein the switchable optical component comprises a switchable half-wave plate (Philipp, Fig. 2, [0031], Amor, [0009]-[0011], Fig. 1, Thayer, [0248]).
Regarding claim 16-20, 30, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights