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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/20/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81. Accordingly, the drawings are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification submitted on 10/20/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.71. Accordingly, the specification is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 21, 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 3; "lower as ” appears to be --lower than--;
Claim 21, line 2-3; “higher as” appears to be --higher than-- ; "lower as ” appears to be --lower than--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18, 23, 24, and 27-28 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.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 18, 23-24, and 27-28 are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the broad recitation “supercontinuum comprises at least the spectral range of [1450 nm-1650 nm]”, and the claim also recites “preferably a larger spectral range, such as for instance [1400 nm - 1700 nm]” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 24 is rejected due to claim dependency.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the broad recitation “having a full width at half maximum lower as 10nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably lower as 1 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the broad recitation “unamplified power peak and an amplified power peak of the laser beam is higher than 10”, and the claim also recites “preferably higher than 1000”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claims 28 is rejected due to claim dependency.
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 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslim et al. (US 20140168631 A1, "Haslim") in view of Braunecker et al. (US 7436492 B2, "Braunecker") and Heidt1
Regarding claim 16, Haslim teaches an optical arrangement for a light detecting system, the optical arrangement being configured:
- to steer an illumination beam along an illumination optical path from a laser source to a target to be sensed, in a transmitting direction (Haslim, Para [0057], Fig 2, where optical rays are transmitted from light source 1 through fiber core 16 towards a target surface 17 to be sensed);
- to transmit a reflected beam along a return optical path from the target to an optical detector, in a receiving direction, wherein the reflected beam comprises a reflection of the illumination beam on the target (Haslim, Para [0057], Fig 2, where the inner cladding 15 is configured to receive the reflected optical rays and route them toward the detector 3);
the optical arrangement comprising:
- the optical fiber arrangement comprising a multi-clad optical fiber which comprises a core, at least one inner cladding, and an outer cladding (Haslim, Para [0056], Fig 2 where the multi clad fiber 5 has core 16, inner cladding 15 and outer cladding 18);
said core is arranged to receive the source beam having a first wavelength, such that the source beam propagates in the core in said transmitting direction (Haslim, Para [0053] and [0057], Fig 2, where fiber core 16 is arranged to receive optical rays from the light source 1 with a wavelength);
said at least one inner cladding is configured to receive the reflected beam, comprising the at least second wavelength, such that the reflected beam propagates in the inner cladding in said receiving direction (Haslim, Para [0057], Fig 2, where the inner cladding 15 is configured to receive the reflected optical rays and route them toward the detector 3);
- a scanning unit optically coupled to a second end of the optical fiber arrangement, the scanning unit being configured to steer the scanning beam to said target, and to receive the reflected beam from the target (Haslim, Para [0057], Fig 2, where optical lens is configured to direct the optical rays toward target surface 17 and reflected from the target towards the fiber).
However, Haslim does not teach
- a transceiver arrangement comprising a dichroic beamsplitter, the transceiver arrangement being configured for:
* transmitting a source beam from the laser source to a first end of an optical fiber arrangement, in one way selected among: through or by reflection on the dichroic beamsplitter;
* transmitting the reflected beam from said first end of the optical fiber arrangement to the optical detector in the other way selected among: through or by reflection on the dichroic beamsplitter;
the core is further configured to generate a scanning beam from the source beam propagating in the core, wherein the scanning beam comprises at least a second wavelength which is different from the first wavelength.
On the other hand, Braunecker teaches a transceiver with a dichroic beamsplitter (Braunecker, Col. 4, lin. 9-22, where the dichroic beam splitter is arranged for the emission of the measuring radiation ES and for received radiation S), where the transceiver is transmitted by the dichroic beam splitter (Braunecker, Col. 4, lin. 22-39, where pump light source 9 emits light into the fiber laser 6a via dichroic beam splitter 10) and received by the dichroic beam splitter (Braunecker, Col. 4, lin. 22-39, where pump light source 9 emits light into the fiber laser 6a via dichroic beam splitter 10 and is filtered back to the dichroic beam splitter 10 to sensor 11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker, by including a dichroic beam splitter for a simplified design for forward and backward mode detection (Braunecker, Col. 4, lin. 36-39).
However, Haslim in view of Braunecker still does not teach,
the core is further configured to generate a scanning beam from the source beam propagating in the core, wherein the scanning beam comprises at least a second wavelength which is different from the first wavelength.
On the other hand, Heidt teaches the propagation of a second wavelength through the supercontinuum of a fiber with an input of a first wavelength (Heidt, Section "Results" Para [0003], Fig 3, where supercontinuum generation of the all-normal dispersion photonic crystal fiber (ANDi PCF) broadens a seed pulse with first wavelength 1560 to a second wavelength range 1750-2200nm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker and now Heidt, by taking the optical fiber core 16 of Haslim and applying the supercontinuum method of Heidt to generate a second wavelength to eliminate noise dispersion when extending wavelength range (Heidt, Section "Introduction" Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 16, wherein the light detecting system is a light detecting and ranging (LiDAR) system and the source beam is a pulsed laser beam (Haslim, Para [0058], where laser 1 fires a light pulse in optical apparatus 62 as a part of a lidar sensing system as disclosed in Para [0056])
Regarding claim 19, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17, wherein the at least second wavelength is shifted from the first wavelength by at least 300 nm (Heidt, Section "Results" Para [0003], Fig 3, where supercontinuum generation of the ANDi PCF broadens a seed pulse with first wavelength 1560 shifting about 200nm to a second wavelength range 1750-2200nm).
Regarding claim 20, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17, wherein the first wavelength is 1064nm (Heidt, Section "Results" Para [0003], Fig 3, where supercontinuum generation of the all-normal dispersion photonic crystal fiber (ANDi PCF) broadens a seed pulse with first wavelength 1560. See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 22, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17, wherein the core is further configured to generate a supercontinuum in a range comprising the second wavelength (Heidt, Section "Results" Para [0003], Fig 3, where supercontinuum generation of the ANDi PCF broadens a seed pulse with first wavelength 1560 shifting about 200nm to a second wavelength range 1750-2200nm).
Regarding claim 23, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17, wherein the supercontinuum comprises at least the spectral range of [1450 nm-1650 nm], preferably a larger spectral range, such as for instance [1400 nm - 1700 nm] (Heidt, Section "Results" Para [0003], Fig 3, where supercontinuum generation of the ANDi PCF broadens a seed pulse with first wavelength 1560 shifting to a second wavelength range 1750-2200nm See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 29, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 16, wherein the light detecting system is a spectral analysis and/or imaging system (Haslim, Para [0058], where optical apparatus 62 is an optical imaging arrangement as disclosed in Para [0019]).
Regarding claim 30, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches a vehicle comprising a LiDAR system comprising the optical arrangement according to claim 17 (Haslim, Para [0083], Fig 2, where the optical apparatus 62 may be integrated into an autonomous vehicle).
Claims 18, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Asami (US 6295306 B1, "Asami").
Regarding claim 18, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17.
Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt does not teach wherein the source beam at the first end of an optical fiber arrangement is a monochromatic pulsed beam centered on the first wavelength, and having a full width at half maximum lower as 10nm, preferably lower as 1 nm.
However, Asami teaches a tunable bandpass filter to generate a beam with a narrow bandwidth to be received by a fiber (Asami, Col. 5 lin. 30-35, Fig 1, where tunable band pass filter 140 transmits with FWHM of 1-2nm to fiber grating 150).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Asami, by generating a beam with a narrow bandwidth to have high stability in wavelength and control accuracy (Asami, Col. 2 lin. 60-Col. 3 lin. 5)
Regarding claim 25, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17.
However, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt does not teach
On the other hand, Asami teaches a tunable bandpass filter to generate a beam with a narrow bandwidth to be received by a source on a return path (Asami, Col. 5 lin. 59-63, Fig 1, where tunable band pass filter 140 directs the beam back to the laser source 110).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Asami, by generating a beam using a tunable bandpass filter to more easily have a wavelength selection of narrow spectral width. Asami, Col. 2 lin. 10-19.
Regarding claim 26, Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Asami teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 25, wherein the notch filter or the wavelength bandpass filter is wavelength-tunable (Asami, Col. 5 lin. 30-35, Fig 1, where tunable band pass filter 140 transmits with FWHM of 1-2nm to fiber grating 150).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Ding et al. (CN 102244344 A, "Ding")
Regarding claim 21, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teaches the optical arrangement according to claim 17,
However, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt does not teach wherein the dichroic beamsplitter has a high transmittance for wavelength higher as 1100 nm and a high reflectivity for wavelengths lower as 1100nm.
On the other hand, Ding teaches the transmittance and reflectivity of a dichroic mirror (Ding, Para [0042], Fig 2, where the transmittance for the dichroic mirror is 880 nm and the reflectivity is 1060 nm).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Ding to use a dichroic beam splitter with a specified transmittivity and reflectivity to maintain the feasibility of the band of the laser in the present application (Ding, Para [0042]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, Asami and Matsuo et al. (US 7526168 B2, "Matsuo").
Regarding claim 24, Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, and Asami teach the optical arrangement according to claim 18,
However Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, and Asami do not teach wherein the multi-clad optical fiber is selected such that a ratio of a P x L / D is above a threshold equal to 250W, wherein P denotes for a power peak of light of the monochromatic pulsed beam at one end of the multi-clad fiber, L denotes for a length of the multi-clad optical fiber, and D denotes for the diameter of the core of the multi-clad optical fiber.
On the other hand Matsuo teaches a power threshold taught by a relationship between optical fiber power, length and area (Matsuo, Col. 5 lin. 36- 60, Fig 1, where the ratio between power, length and diameter is expressed as a power threshold using fiber cross sectional area, and can reach 14.3 dBm (about 0.0269 W) (Col. 17 lin. 14-29)) (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, Asami and Matsuo, by using a threshold such that light above a certain power does not propagate (Matsuo, Col. 5 lin. 36-47).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, and Li et al. (CN 111711062 A, “Li”).
Regarding claim 27, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt teach the optical arrangement according to claim 17.
However, Haslim in view of Braunecker and Heidt do not teach wherein the optical fiber arrangement further comprises an amplifying optical fiber coupled to the multi-clad optical fiber, such that the laser beam propagates in the amplifying optical fiber, wherein the amplifying optical fiber is configured to optically amplify the laser beam propagating in said amplifying optical fiber such that a ratio between an unamplified power peak and an amplified power peak of the laser beam is higher than 10, preferably higher than 1000.
On the other hand, Li teaches an amplifying fiber for multiplying the power of a signal coupled with a second fiber for generating a supercontinuum signal (Li, Para [0030], Fig 4, where the distorted 2 micrometer seed source with 100mW is incident to the fiber optic amplifier 40. This signal light is transmitted in the core of a thulium-doped fiber to be amplified using a pump light, reaching W units of power. See MPEP 2144.05.I. This light is then incident of nonlinear fiber 411 to generate supercontinuum, therefore the thulium fiber in fiber optic amplifier 40 is coupled to nonlinear fiber 411).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Li, by coupling the optical fiber of Haslim with the amplifying fiber of Li to manage the dispersion of the generated signal light (Li, Para [0030]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, Li, and Wang et al. (CN 102820608 A, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 28, Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Li teach the optical arrangement according to claim 27.
However, Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt and Li do not teach wherein the amplifying optical fiber and the multi-clad optical fiber are optically coupled by a welding of the first end of the multi-clad fiber with an end of the amplifying optical fiber, in order to form a single optical fiber.
On the other hand, Wang teaches the coupling of optical fiber through welding (Wang, Para [0032], Fig 2, where to connect the ends of a quartz photonic crystal fiber 3 and a chalcogenide glass fiber 4, fusion splicing is used to improve coupling efficiency).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical arrangement of Haslim in view of Braunecker, Heidt, Li and Wang to weld the optical fiber of Haslim and the amplifying fiber of Li using fusion splicing to improve coupling efficiency (Wang, Para [0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKI HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-6595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-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, YUQING XIAO can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ZAKI KEHINDE HAWKINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Heidt, A.M., Modupeh Hodasi, J., Rampur, A. et al. Low noise all-fiber amplification of a coherent supercontinuum at 2 µm and its limits imposed by polarization noise. Sci Rep 10, 16734 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73753-2
Prosecution Insights