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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 5-12, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US20190257927A1) in view of Chang (US20120206712A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 8), comprising:
a light source (Fig. 8, Multi-wavelength tunable frequency COEO) configured to generate an outgoing light signal that includes multiple channels, each of the channels having a different wavelength (¶ 53, generation of multiple different wavelengths; Fig. 8, transmitted light from beam forming unit BFU having wavelengths λ1, λ2, λ3, …);
a waveguide (Fig. 8, optical fiber waveguide link between motor stage and rotary connector in beam forming unit BFU) configured to guide at least a portion of the outgoing light signal and to guide an incoming light signal (¶ 47, same optical fiber guides outgoing light to collimator in the BFU and guiding incoming light from the collimator towards the circulator);
a comparative waveguide (Fig. 8, optical fiber waveguide link between circulator and receiver unit RU; ¶ 43) configured to guide a comparative incoming light signal, a portion of the incoming light signal received by the comparative waveguide serving as the comparative incoming light signal (¶¶ 42-43, circulator directs incoming return light to RU through connecting optic fiber link),
the comparative incoming light signal including multiple comparative light signals that each carries a different one of the channels (¶ 42, return light comprising the different emitted wavelengths; Fig. 8, receiver unit RU with corresponding λ1, λ2, λ3, …);
[1: multiple mixers that each generate a different composite signal from the electrical readout of a comparative light signal combined with a reference signal] (Fig. 8, each mixer generates a different composite signal from the photodetector readouts of one of the comparative light signals combined with a reference signal),
the comparative light signals each including light that was reflected by an object located apart from the LIDAR system and that was included in one of the channels (¶¶ 42, 51 & 53, return light reflected from targets in surroundings, comprising the different emitted wavelengths; Fig. 8, receiver unit RU with corresponding λ1, λ2, λ3, …), and [2: …].
Although Yao discloses signal mixing in the electrical domain between each comparative light signal and reference signal (¶ 53 and Fig. 8, Mixers), Yao does not disclose the alterative of signal mixing within the optical domain, specifically:
“multiple light-combining components that each generates a different composite light signal such that each of the different composite light signals includes one of the comparative light signal combined with a reference signal”; and,
”the reference signals do not include light that was reflected by the object but include light from one of the channels, and each of the composite light signals carrying light from a different one of the channels and being generated such that the light signal and the comparative signal included in the composite light signal includes light from the same channel.”
However, Chang teaches the limitation in Fig. 10, in particular:
(1) multiple light-combining components (Fig. 10, optical mixers 1086-1-1,…,1086-1-m, corresponding to wavelength channels λ1,…, λm, where each mixer is further detailed in Fig. 5 & ¶ 96) that each generates a different composite light signal (Fig. 5, combined signal 425) such that each of the different composite light signals includes one of the comparative light signal combined with a reference signal (Fig. 5, receive comparative light signal 405 combined with reference signal 255; Fig. 10, optical signal mixing between received comparative light signal 1050-1 and corresponding reference signal 1030-1); and,
(2) the reference signals do not include light that was reflected by the object but include light from one of the channels (Fig. 10, reference signal in 1070-1 tapped from output of multi-wavelength source 1020; ¶¶ 82 and 90-92), and each of the composite light signals carrying light from a different one of the channels and being generated such that the light signal and the comparative signal included in the composite light signal includes light from the same channel (Fig. 5, combined signal 425, ¶ 95).
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 the LIDAR system of Yao with the teachings of Chang since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would have recognized that modifying the LIDAR system of Yao (i.e., Fig. 8, RU Electronics board and Mixers) with the light-combining components of Chang (i.e., Fig. 10, optical mixers 1080) such that the comparative light signal and reference signal were optically mixed prior to photodetection would reduce detector/electronics noise contributions and provide for greater signal detection sensitivity, thereby yielding a lidar system with enhanced measurement precision and reduced interference susceptibility. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the light source includes a comb laser (Yao, ¶¶ 49 & 53, COEO generates a frequency comb).
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1. The present combination of Yao in view of Chang does not teach: wherein the light source is one of multiple light sources included in the LIDAR system, the light sources each configured to generate a light signal that includes a plurality of the channels, the outgoing light signal combining the light signals from the multiple light sources; and the channels in the outgoing light signal with adjacent wavelengths are generated by different light sources. However, Yao, in a separate embodiment teaches the limitation in Fig. 11A and ¶ 61, specifically: wherein the light source is one of multiple light sources included in the LIDAR system (Fig. 11A, TU1, TU-2, TU3, TU4), the light sources each configured to generate a light signal that includes a plurality of the channels (¶ 61), the outgoing light signal combining the light signals from the multiple light sources (Fig. 11A & ¶ 61, fiber cable with combined signal towards FBB); and the channels in the outgoing light signal with adjacent wavelengths are generated by different light sources (¶ 61, each TU multi-wavelength source have a set of distinct wavelength channels). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the LIDAR system of Yao in view of Chang with the further teachings of Yao with a reasonable expectation for success in order to cover a wider azimuth and vertical field of view without the introduction of moving parts or active beaming scanning hardware (Yao, ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: electronics configured to tune the light source such that the frequency of each channel changes concurrently (Yao, ¶¶ 34, 75 & 79, tuning resonate frequency of COEO shifts spacing between comb lines).
Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 6, and further teaches: wherein the light source is a comb-laser (Yao, ¶¶ 49 & 53, COEO generates a frequency comb).
Regarding claim 8, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: a demultiplexing component (Yao, Fig. 8, diffraction grating; ¶¶ 7, 41 & 89) that receives the at least a portion of the outgoing light signal from the waveguide, the demultiplexing component being configured to separate the outgoing light signal into multiple LIDAR output signals that are each at a different wavelength and exit from the demultiplexing component traveling in different directions through free space (Yao, ¶ 89, “wavelength demultiplexing device in the beam forming unit can include a beam collimator and a diffraction grating to direct light beams of different wavelengths into different directions” of Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 8, and further teaches: wherein the different LIDAR output signals are each directed to a different sample region in a field of view (Yao, ¶¶ 7, 41 & 45, each wavelength directed to a different beam direction / different vertical angle, i.e., a different region in FOV).
Regarding claim 10, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 8, and further teaches: electronics configured to tune a direction that the LIDAR output signals travel away from the demultiplexing component (Yao, ¶¶ 53 & 100, signal processor used to determine encoder angle for rotation of the beam forming unit BFU, i.e., tuning LIDAR output signals; Fig. 8, motor stage).
Regarding claim 11, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the waveguide terminates at a demultiplexing component that receives the portion of the outgoing light signal from the waveguide (Yao, ¶¶ 41 & 47, Fig. 8, optic fiber carrying outgoing light signal terminates at collimator + diffraction grating; where ¶ 89, “wavelength demultiplexing device in the beam forming unit can include a beam collimator and a diffraction grating”).
Regarding claim 12, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 11, and further teaches: wherein the comparative waveguide terminates at a comparative demultiplexer configured to receive the comparative light signals from the comparative waveguide (Yao, Fig. 8, RU demultiplexer receives comparative light signals from fiber connection between the circulator and RU demultiplexer; ¶¶ 7, 42, 83, “optical receiver module coupled to receive returned probe light via the fiber link… and including a WDM demultiplexer”).
Regarding claim 14, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein each of the reference signals includes light from the outgoing light signal (Chang, ¶¶ 28 & 95 and Fig. 10, reference signal along 1070-1 split/tapped from outgoing light signal path 1026, as previously combined with Yao).
Regarding claim 15, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 14, and further teaches: wherein a reference waveguide is configured to guide the reference signals (Chang, Fig. 10, reference waveguide 1070-1) and the reference waveguide terminates at a reference demultiplexer configured to receive the reference signals from the reference waveguide (Chang, Fig. 10, reference waveguide 1070-1 terminates at reference demultiplexer 1084-1).
Regarding claim 18, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein a signal directing component receives the outgoing light signal and the incoming light signal (Yao, Fig. 8, circulator).
Regarding claim 19, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 18, and further teaches: wherein the signal-directing component directs at least a portion of the incoming light signal to the comparative waveguide (Yao, ¶¶ 42-43, circulator directs incoming return light to RU through the comparative waveguide; Fig. 8, optic fiber link between circulator and RU).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Chang further in view of Swanson (US20170299697A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, however does not teach dual-polarization detection. However, Swanson teaches: wherein the composite light signals (Fig. 7, outputs of 90º hybrids) include first composite light signals (Fig. 7, light signals to photodetectors Ix and Qx) and second composite light signals (Fig. 7, light signals to photodetectors Iy and Qy), a first portion of the comparative light signals being light of a first polarization state (Fig. 7, x-polarization light signals corresponding to Ix and Qx) and a second portion of the comparative light signals being light of a second polarization state that is different from the first polarization state (Fig. 7, y-polarization light signals corresponding to Iy and Qy), the first composite light signals including light from the first portion of the comparative light signals (Fig. 7, Ix and Qx), and the second composite light signals including light from the second portion of the comparative light signals (Fig. 7, Iy and Qy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Yao in view of Chang with the polarization detection scheme as taught by Swanson with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enable polarization-diversity and polarization-sensitivity in the measurement system, thereby enhancing signal detection sensitivity and improving measurement accuracy and reliability (Swanson, ¶ 99).
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Chang and Swanson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the first composite light signals do not substantially include light from the second portion of the comparative light signals (Swanson, Fig. 7, x-polarization light signals Ix and Qx do not include y-polarization light) and the second composite light signals do not substantially including light from the first portion of the comparative light signals (Swanson, Fig. 7, y-polarization light signals Iy and Qy do not include x-polarization light).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Chang further in view of Amzajerdian (US5317376A).
Regarding claim 20, Yao in view of Chang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 19, however does not teach: wherein when the signal-directing component directs the at least a portion of the incoming light signal to the comparative waveguide, the signal-directing component also directs a portion of the outgoing light signal to a reference waveguide, the portion of the outgoing light signal directed to the reference waveguide carrying the reference signals. Amzajerdian teaches in Fig. 1 a signal-directing component (AOM 5) directing the reference signal (LO beam 35), which is a portion of the outgoing light signal (33), towards the reference waveguide optical path (along 5 to 15) when at least a portion of the incoming light signal (signal along 17 to 15) is directed towards the comparative waveguide optical path (path along 17 to 15) is to be detected (Col. 2: 26-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal-directing component of Yao in view of Chang and incorporate the AOM along the reference signal path as taught by Amzajerdian, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in lidar systems would have recognized that adopting the teachings of Amzajerdian would confer the advantages of avoiding reference light outside the return detection window, thereby yielding a system with reduced signaling artifacts and improved measurement integrity. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Ando (WO2019180924A1) which discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 1) employing a multi-wavelength light source (2), a waveguide to guide incoming and outgoing light (between 7 and 8), a comparative waveguide (between 7 and 10), and the mixing and detection of reference and comparative signals (10).
Sakimura (US20140233013A1) which discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 6) employing two different frequencies (51, 52), a waveguide to guide incoming and outgoing light (between 7 and 8), a comparative waveguide (between 7 and 9), and the mixing and detection of reference and comparative signals (9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645