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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Examiner notes that there are double patenting rejections below with regard to two separate US patents below: US patent No. 11940571 B2 and US patent No. 12298440 B2
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11940571 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1
Regarding claim 1, 11940571 claim 1 teaches a method of operating a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system comprising: a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (claim 1); and
transforming a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target (claim 1).
11940571 claim 1 does not explicitly teach but Satyan teaches combining a first optical beam and a second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (CHDLs 510 and 570 generate cross-polarized co-propagating light, Fig. 5, [0064-65])
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 11940571 to include combining a first optical beam and a second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light similar to Satyan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing co-propagating cross-polarized light to enhance detection.
Regarding claim 2, 11940571 teaches in claim 4 (which depends on claim 1)
Regarding claim 3, 11940571 teaches in claim 4 (which depends on claim 1)
Regarding claim 4, 11940571 teaches in claim 4 (which depends on claim 1)
Regarding claim 5, 11940571 teaches in claim 5 (which depends on claims 4 and 1)
Regarding claim 6, 11940571 teaches in claim 6 (which depends on claims 4 and 1)
Regarding claim 7, 11940571 teaches in claim 1
Claims 8-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11940571 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1
Regarding claim 8, 11940571 claim 1 teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus comprising:
an optical source configured to generate a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (claim 8); and
a variable polarization rotator configured to transform a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target (claim 8).
11940571 claim 8 does not explicitly teach the optical source generates a first optical beam and second optical beam; a beam combiner to combine the first optical beam and the second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (CHDLs 510 and 570 generate cross-polarized co-propagating light, Fig. 5, [0064-65]).
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 11940571 to include a first optical beam and second optical beam; a beam combiner to combine the first optical beam and the second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light similar to Satyan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing co-propagating cross-polarized light to enhance detection.
Regarding claim 9, 11940571 teaches in claim 9 (which depends on claim 8)
Regarding claim 10, 11940571 teaches in claim 9 (which depends on claim 8)
Regarding claim 11, 11940571 teaches in claim 10 (which depends on claims 9 and 8)
Regarding claim 12, 11940571 teaches in claim 11 (which depends on claims 9 and 8)
Regarding claim 13, 11940571 teaches in claim 12 (which depends on claims 9 and 8)
Regarding claim 14, 11940571 teaches in claim 13 (which depends on claims 12, 9, and 8)
Regarding claim 15, 11940571 teaches in claim 14 (which depends on claims 13, 12, 9, and 8)
Regarding claim 16, 11940571 teaches in claim 15 (which depends on claims 9 and 8)
Claims 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11940571 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 17, 11940571 claim 16 teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus comprising:
a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) configured to combine a plurality of optical beams from a plurality of laser sources (claim 16); and
a variable polarization rotator to transform a polarization state of each of the plurality of optical beams of the plurality of optical beams at a rate faster than a rate of data collection of a plurality of optical detectors (claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, 11940571 teaches in claim 17 (which depends on claim 16)
Regarding claim 19, 11940571 teaches in claim 18 (which depends on claims 17 and 16)
Regarding claim 20, 11940571 teaches in claim 22 (which depends on claims 21, 20, 19, and16)
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1
Regarding claim 1, 12298440 claim 1 teaches a method of operating a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system comprising: a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (claim 1); and
transforming a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target (claim 1).
11940571 claim 1 does not explicitly teach but Satyan teaches combining a first optical beam and a second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (CHDLs 510 and 570 generate cross-polarized co-propagating light, Fig. 5, [0064-65])
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 Satyan to include combining a first optical beam and a second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light similar to Satyan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing co-propagating cross-polarized light to enhance detection.
Regarding claim 2, 12298440 teaches in claims 2 and 4-7 (depends on claims 6-4, and 2-1)
Regarding claim 3, 12298440 teaches in claims 2 and 4-7 (depends on claims 6-4, and 2-1)
Regarding claim 4, 12298440 teaches in claims 2 and 4-7 (depends on claims 6-4, and 2-1)
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1 and Halmos US 20190129016 A1
Regarding claim 5, 12298440 does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path.
Halmos teaches mixing light by biasing light in favor of the returned signal at a mixer (222b in Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 12298440 such that the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path similar to Halmos with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the return signal and LO signal are comparable in magnitude.
Claims 6-7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1 and Halmos US 20190129016 A1, and further in view of Embry US 20190011565 A1
Regarding claim 6, 12298440 teaches wherein transforming the polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam comprises applying a variable polarization rotator to the first optical beam and the second optical beam (claim 1),
12298440 does not explicitly teach wherein the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter in a transmission path.
Embry teaches a variable polarization rotator before a beam splitter (416 in Fig. 4A, [0037-43])
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 112298440 such that the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter in a transmission path similar to Embry with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle due to both polarization components.
Regarding claim 7, 12298440 teaches in claim 1
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1
Regarding claim 8, 12298440 claim 8 teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus comprising:
an optical source configured to generate a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (claim 8); and
a variable polarization rotator configured to transform a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target (claim 8).
12298440 claim 8 does not explicitly teach the optical source generates a first optical beam and second optical beam; a beam combiner to combine the first optical beam and the second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (CHDLs 510 and 570 generate cross-polarized co-propagating light, Fig. 5, [0064-65]).
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 12298440 to include a first optical beam and second optical beam; a beam combiner to combine the first optical beam and the second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light similar to Satyan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing co-propagating cross-polarized light to enhance detection.
Regarding claim 9, 12298440 teaches in claim 15 (depends on claims 14-12, and 10-9)
Regarding claim 10, 12298440 teaches in claim 15 (depends on claims 14-12, and 10-9)
Regarding claim 12, 12298440 does not explicitly teach but Satyan wherein the optical source comprises a laser source and a second polarizing beam splitter (CHDLs 510 and 570, and PBS 575, [0065]).
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 12298440 such the optical source comprises a laser source and a second polarizing beam splitter similar to Satyan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably combining multiple polarizations of light.
Claims 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1 and further in view of Halmos US 20190129016 A1
Regarding claim 11, 12298440 does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second optical detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path.
Halmos teaches mixing light by biasing light in favor of the returned signal at a mixer (222b in Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 12298440 such that the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second optical detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path similar to Halmos with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the return signal and LO signal are comparable in magnitude.
Claim 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1 and further in view of Embry 20190011565 A1
Regarding claim 13, 12298440 teaches the variable polarization rotator is configured to transform the first optical beam and the second optical beam between various orthogonal pairs of polarizations (claim 8).
12298440 does not explicitly teach wherein the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter and is configured to transform the first optical beam and the second optical beam between various orthogonal pairs of polarizations.
Embry teaches a variable polarization rotator before a beam splitter (416 in Fig. 4A, [0037-43])
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 12298440 such that the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter similar to Embry with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle due to both polarization components.
Claims 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1 and further in view of Lee US 20200064482 A1
Regarding claim 14, 12298440 does not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein the second beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter (PBS2 in Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 12298440 to include the second beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding returned light to the detectors and isolating desired polarizations at the detectors.
Regarding claim 15, 12298440 does not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein the third beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter (PBS1 in Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 Satyan to the third beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding LO light to the detectors and isolating desired polarizations at the detectors.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12298440 B2 in view of Satyan US 20190025426 A1 and further in view of Holleczek US 20180348348 A1
Regarding claim 16, 12298440 does not explicitly teach wherein the variable polarization rotator is located after the first beam splitter.
Holleczek teaches a Pockels cell on the transmit path (4 in Fig. 2, [0024-26])
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 Satyan such that the variable polarization rotator is located after the first beam splitter similar to Holleczek with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle (Triasnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49) in the transmitted light.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyan US 20190025426 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Satyan teaches a method of operating a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system comprising: combining a first optical beam and a second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (CHDLs 510 and 570 generate cross-polarized co-propagating light, Fig. 5, [0064-65]); and
Satyan does not explicitly teach transforming a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target.
Trisnadi teaches using a variable polarization rotator (electro-optic polarization rotator; Col. 9 lns. 55-59) that transforms polarization state of a beam of polarized light at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at detectors (“provided that a rotation frequency is sufficient, the eye or the intensity detector averages” the speckle patterns; Col. 9 lns. 42-49; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “sufficient” rotation frequency would inherently be a greater frequency than the rate of data collection of detectors or eye such that in any one detection period, multiple polarizations are present and the averaging reduces speckle (see averaging effect described in Col. 3 lns. 7-23).
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 Satyan to include transforming a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target similar to Trisnadi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49).
Regarding claim 2, Satyan as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: splitting the combined optical beam into an output beam and a combined local oscillator signal (520 in Fig. 5, [0065]); directing a return signal of the first optical beam and a first local oscillator signal for the first optical beam from the combined local oscillator signal to a first optical detector (580 splits combination of returned signal and LO to first and second detectors (550 and 585) in Fig. 5, [0065]); and directing a return signal of the second optical beam and a second local oscillator signal for the second optical beam from the combined local oscillator signal to a second optical detector (580 splits combination of returned signal and LO to first and second detectors (550 and 585) in Fig. 5, [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Satyan as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising splitting light reflected from the target into a first return signal directed to a first detector and a second return signal directed to a second detector (580 splits combination of returned signal and LO to first and second detectors (550 and 585) in Fig. 5, [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Satyan teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus comprising:
an optical source configured to generate a first optical beam and second optical beam; a beam combiner to combine the first optical beam and the second optical beam into a combined optical beam of co-propagating, cross-polarized light (CHDLs 510 an d570 generate cross-polarized co-propagating light, Fig. 5, [0064-65]);
Satyan does not explicitly teach a variable polarization rotator configured to transform a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target.
Trisnadi teaches using a variable polarization rotator (electro-optic polarization rotator; Col. 9 lns. 55-59) that transforms polarization state of a beam of polarized light at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at detectors (“provided that a rotation frequency is sufficient, the eye or the intensity detector averages” the speckle patterns; Col. 9 lns. 42-49; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “sufficient” rotation frequency would inherently be a greater frequency than the rate of data collection of detectors or eye such that in any one detection period, multiple polarizations are present and the averaging reduces speckle (see averaging effect described in Col. 3 lns. 7-23).
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 Satyan to include a variable polarization rotator configured to transform a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined beam at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at a plurality of detectors configured to detect light reflected from a target similar to Trisnadi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49).
Claims 4, 9-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyan US 20190025426 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1 and further in view of Lee US 20200064482 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Satyan as modified above teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
splitting the combined optical beam of cross-polarized light into a local oscillator path and a target path using a first beam splitter (coupler 520 splits into LO and target path in Fig. 5, [0006, 65]);
transmitting target path light to a target and directing the light reflected from the target to a third beam splitter using an optical path discriminator (circulator 530 in Fig. 5, [0006, 65]);
Satyan does not explicitly teach splitting local oscillator path light into a first local oscillator signal and a second local oscillator signal using a second beam splitter; mixing the first local oscillator signal of the second beam splitter and the first return signal of the third beam splitter using a first light mixer; mixing the second local oscillator signal of the second beam splitter and the second return signal of third beam splitter using a second light mixer; receiving first combined light from the first light mixer at the first detector; and receiving second combined light from the second light mixer at the second detector.
Lee teaches splitting light into target and LO paths using splitter c1, splitting LO light into two outputs using PBS1, splitting returning light into two outputs using PBS2, mixing the first output of PBS1 and PBS2 at c3, mixing the second outputs of PBS1 and PBS2 at c4, receiving combined light from c3 at detector 260a (and 260b), and receiving combined light from c4 at detector 260c (and 260d) (see Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 Satyan to include splitting local oscillator path light into a first local oscillator signal and a second local oscillator signal using a second beam splitter; mixing the first local oscillator signal of the second beam splitter and the first return signal of the third beam splitter using a first light mixer; mixing the second local oscillator signal of the second beam splitter and the second return signal of third beam splitter using a second light mixer; receiving first combined light from the first light mixer at the first detector; and receiving second combined light from the second light mixer at the second detector similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding LO and returned light to the detectors.
Regarding claim 9, Satyan teaches the apparatus of claim 8, further comprising:
a first beam splitter to split the combined optical beam into an output beam and a combined local oscillator signal (520 in Fig. 5, [0065]);
Satyan does not explicitly teach a second beam splitter to direct a first return signal of the first optical beam to a first optical detector a second return signal of the second optical beam to a second optical detector; and a third beam splitter to split the combined local oscillator signal and direct a first local oscillator signal for the first optical beam and a second local oscillator signal for the second optical beam to a second optical detector.
Lee teaches splitting light into target and LO paths using splitter c1, splitting LO light into two outputs using PBS1, splitting returning light into two outputs using PBS2, mixing the first output of PBS1 and PBS2 at c3, mixing the second outputs of PBS1 and PBS2 at c4, receiving combined light from c3 at detector 260a (and 260b), and receiving combined light from c4 at detector 260c (and 260d) (see Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 Satyan to include a second beam splitter to direct a first return signal of the first optical beam to a first optical detector a second return signal of the second optical beam to a second optical detector; and a third beam splitter to split the combined local oscillator signal and direct a first local oscillator signal for the first optical beam and a second local oscillator signal for the second optical beam to a second optical detector similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding LO and returned light to the detectors.
Regarding claim 10, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 9, further comprising: an optical path discriminator to transmit target path light to a target and direct the light reflected from the target to the second beam splitter (circulator 530 in Fig. 5, [0065]);
Satyan does not explicitly teach a first light mixer to mix the first local oscillator signal from the third beam splitter and the first return signal from the second beam splitter; a second light mixer to mix the second local oscillator signal from the third beam splitter and the second return signal from the second beam splitter; the first optical detector to receive first combined light from the first light mixer at the first optical detector; and the second optical detector to receive second combined light from the second light mixer.
Lee teaches splitting light into target and LO paths using splitter c1, splitting LO light into two outputs using PBS1, splitting returning light into two outputs using PBS2, mixing the first output of PBS1 and PBS2 at c3, mixing the second outputs of PBS1 and PBS2 at c4, receiving combined light from c3 at detector 260a (and 260b), and receiving combined light from c4 at detector 260c (and 260d) (see Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 Satyan to include a first light mixer to mix the first local oscillator signal from the third beam splitter and the first return signal from the second beam splitter; a second light mixer to mix the second local oscillator signal from the third beam splitter and the second return signal from the second beam splitter; the first optical detector to receive first combined light from the first light mixer at the first optical detector; and the second optical detector to receive second combined light from the second light mixer similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding LO and returned light to the detectors.
Regarding claim 12, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the optical source comprises a laser source and a second polarizing beam splitter (CHDLs 510 and 570, and PBS 575, [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 10,
Satyan does not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein the second beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter (PBS2 in Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 Satyan to include the second beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding returned light to the detectors and isolating desired polarizations at the detectors.
Regarding claim 15, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 10,
Satyan does not explicitly teach but Lee teaches wherein the third beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter (PBS1 in Fig. 7, [0081-92]).
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 Satyan to the third beam splitter is a polarizing beam splitter similar to Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of controllably guiding LO light to the detectors and isolating desired polarizations at the detectors.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyan US 20190025426 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1 and Lee US 20200064482 A1, and further in view of Halmos US 20190129016 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Satyan as modified above teaches the method of claim 4,
Satyan does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path.
Halmos teaches mixing light by biasing light in favor of the returned signal at a mixer (222b in Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 Satyan such that the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path similar to Halmos with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the return signal and LO signal are comparable in magnitude.
Regarding claim 11, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 10,
Satyan does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second optical detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path.
Halmos teaches mixing light by biasing light in favor of the returned signal at a mixer (222b in Fig. 2, [0057]).
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 Satyan such that the first and second light mixers are configured to bias an output of the first and second light mixers provided to the first and second optical detectors in favor of light received by the first and second light mixers from the target path similar to Halmos with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the return signal and LO signal are comparable in magnitude.
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyan US 20190025426 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1 and Lee US 20200064482 A1, and further in view of Embry US 20190011565 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Satyan as modified above teaches the method of claim 4,
Satyan does not explicitly teach wherein transforming the polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam comprises applying a variable polarization rotator to the first optical beam and the second optical beam, wherein the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter in a transmission path.
Embry teaches a variable polarization rotator before a beam splitter (416 in Fig. 4A, [0037-43])
Trisnadi teaches using a variable polarization rotator (“provided that a rotation frequency is sufficient, the eye or the intensity detector averages” the speckle patterns; Col. 9 lns. 42-59; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “sufficient” rotation frequency would inherently be a greater frequency than the rate of data collection of detectors or eye such that in any one detection period, multiple polarizations are present and the averaging reduces speckle (see averaging effect described in Col. 3 lns. 7-23) and that it would need applied to the combined beam or speckle due to one of the polarizations may remain).
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 Satyan to include transforming the polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam comprises applying a variable polarization rotator to the first optical beam and the second optical beam, wherein the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter in a transmission path similar to Trisnadi and Embry with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49) due to both polarization components.
Regarding claim 7, Satyan as modified above teaches the method of claim 6,
Satyan does not explicitly teach wherein transforming the polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam comprises transforming, by the variable polarization rotator, the first optical beam and the second optical beam between various orthogonal pairs of cross-polarizations.
Trisnadi teaches using a variable polarization rotator (“provided that a rotation frequency is sufficient, the eye or the intensity detector averages” the speckle patterns; Col. 9 lns. 42-59; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “sufficient” rotation frequency would inherently be a greater frequency than the rate of data collection of detectors or eye such that in any one detection period, multiple polarizations are present and the averaging reduces speckle (see averaging effect described in Col. 3 lns. 7-23) and that it would need applied to the combined beam or speckle due to one of the polarizations may remain). Additionally, Trisnadi’s polarization rotator (such as the mechanically rotated half wave plate; Col. 9 lns. 58-59) would inherently maintain cross-polarization such that the incoming beam of cross-polarized light would be transformed between a plurality of orthogonal pairs of polarizations.
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 Satyan such that transforming the polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam of the combined optical beam comprises transforming, by the variable polarization rotator, the first optical beam and the second optical beam between various orthogonal pairs of cross-polarizations similar to Trisnadi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49) due to both polarization components.
Regarding claim 13, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 10,
Satyan does not explicitly teach wherein the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter and is configured to transform the first optical beam and the second optical beam between various orthogonal pairs of polarizations.
Embry teaches a variable polarization rotator before a beam splitter (416 in Fig. 4A, [0037-43])
Trisnadi teaches using a variable polarization rotator (“provided that a rotation frequency is sufficient, the eye or the intensity detector averages” the speckle patterns; Col. 9 lns. 42-59; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “sufficient” rotation frequency would inherently be a greater frequency than the rate of data collection of detectors or eye such that in any one detection period, multiple polarizations are present and the averaging reduces speckle (see averaging effect described in Col. 3 lns. 7-23) and that it would need applied to the combined beam or speckle due to one of the polarizations may remain). Additionally, Trisnadi’s polarization rotator (such as the mechanically rotated half wave plate; Col. 9 lns. 58-59) would inherently maintain cross-polarization such that the incoming beam of cross-polarized light would be transformed between a plurality of orthogonal pairs of polarizations.
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 Satyan such that the variable polarization rotator is located before the first beam splitter and is configured to transform the first optical beam and the second optical beam between various orthogonal pairs of polarizations similar to Trisnadi and Embry with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49) due to both polarization components.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyan US 20190025426 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1 and Lee US 20200064482 A1, and further in view of Holleczek US 20180348348 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Satyan as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
Satyan does not explicitly teach wherein the variable polarization rotator is located after the first beam splitter.
Holleczek teaches a Pockels cell on the transmit path (4 in Fig. 2, [0024-26])
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 Satyan such that the variable polarization rotator is located after the first beam splitter similar to Holleczek with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have a predictable result of reducing reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49) in the transmitted light.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 20190257927 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1.
Regarding claim 17, Yao teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus comprising:
a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) configured to combine a plurality of optical beams from a plurality of laser sources (WDM and wavelength lasers in Figs 2a and 6; [0042, 51, 102]);
Yao does not explicitly teach a variable polarization rotator to transform a polarization state of each of the plurality of optical beams of the plurality of optical beams at a rate faster than a rate of data collection of a plurality of optical detectors.
Trisnadi teaches using a variable polarization rotator (electro-optic polarization rotator; Col. 9 lns. 55-59) that transforms polarization state of a beam of polarized light at a rate faster than a rate of data collection at detectors (“provided that a rotation frequency is sufficient, the eye or the intensity detector averages” the speckle patterns; Col. 9 lns. 42-49; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “sufficient” rotation frequency would inherently be a greater frequency than the rate of data collection of detectors or eye such that in any one detection period, multiple polarizations are present and the averaging reduces speckle (see averaging effect described in Col. 3 lns. 7-23).
Additionally, Yao does teach a plurality of detectors (RU in Figs. 2a and 6, [0042, 51, 102])
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 Yao to include a variable polarization rotator to transform a polarization state of each of the plurality of optical beams of the plurality of optical beams at a rate faster than a rate of data collection of a plurality of optical detectors similar to Trisnadi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would reduce speckle (Trisnadi: Col. 9 lns. 42-49).
Regarding claim 18, Yao as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the plurality of optical beams from the plurality of laser sources have dissimilar wavelengths (different wavelengths in TU in Figs. 2a and 6, [0042, 51, 102]).
Regarding claim 20, Yao as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the plurality of optical detectors are configured to detect light of different wavelengths (different wavelengths in RU PDs in Figs. 2a and 6, [0042, 51, 102]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao US 20190257927 A1 in view of Trisnadi US 6956878 B1 and further in view of Desai US 20190064358 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Yao as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 18,
Yao does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of laser sources has a unique chirp pattern.
Desai teaches different chirp amplitudes and rates for different lasers ([0031])
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 Yao such that each of the plurality of laser sources has a unique chirp pattern similar to Desai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of providing multiple range resolutions (Desai: [0031]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kreitinger US 20210293960 A1 teaches lasers with unique chirp patterns ([0032-33])
Gatt US 20060262319 A1 teaches 90/10 and 80/20 beamsplitting ([0029, 63])
Luff US 20200256956 A1 teaches using polarization or wavelength diversity to reduce speckle sensitivity ([0027])
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