DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 13 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear where the optical circulator is placed in the apparatus. The optical circulator would perform the same function as the beam splitter (see Paragraph [0012] of the specification), but is included in the apparatus with the beam splitter since claim 13 is dependent on claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the optical circulator is composed of a waveplate and a polarizing beam splitter” is unclear. An optical circulator is understood in the art to be a device with 3 or more input/output ports where light enters and exits. It is unclear how an optical circulator can include a waveplate and a polarizing beam splitter.
Claims 15-17 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by M. G. Soskind, N. P. Li, D. P. Moore, L. Wendt, Y. Chen, J. McSpiritt, M. Zondlo, and G. Wysocki, "UAV-aided Localization and Quantification of Methane using CLaDS," in OSA Optical Sensors and Sensing Congress 2021 (AIS, FTS, HISE, SENSORS, ES) 2 pages; 2021. (“Soskind”).
Regarding claim 1, Soskind discloses A retroreflector tracking and sensing system comprising:
a laser source (Fig. 1, laser diode LD, page 1); one or more optical components (Fig. 1, optical isolator OI, electro-optical modulator EOM, collimator Ca, OAP 2, page 1), and a beam steering component disposed along an optical transmit path (Fig. 1, gimbal mirror GM, page 1), the one or more optical components being disposed between the laser source and the beam steering component (Fig. 1, laser diode LD, optical isolator OI, electro-optical modulator EOM, collimator Ca, OAP 2, gimbal mirror GM, page 1); and
a position-sensitive detector (Fig. 1, photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1), where the beam steering component, at least one of the one or more optical components, and the position-sensitive detector are disposed along an optical return path (Fig. 1, OAP 2, gimbal mirror GM, beam splitter BS, photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1), the at least one of the one or more optical components being disposed between the beam steering component and the position-sensitive detector (Fig. 1, OAP 2, gimbal mirror GM, photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1);
wherein the position-sensitive detector is operably coupled to a position tracking analyzer and an optical sensing analyzer (Fig. 1, photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1), and wherein electrical signals generated by said position-sensitive detector are configured to be used for retroreflector tracking and/or optical sensing (Fig. 1, photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 1, wherein the laser source is a semiconductor laser (Fig. 1, laser diode LD, page 1).
Regarding claim 3, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 1, further comprising a retroreflective target forming an end of the optical transmit path and a beginning of the optical return path (Fig. 1, retroreflector mounted on drone, page 1).
Regarding claim 4, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 3, wherein the retroreflective target is mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), a blimp, a ground vehicle, a boat, a helicopter, or an outdoor fixed object (Fig. 1, retroreflector mounted on drone, page 1).
Regarding claim 5, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 3, wherein the retroreflective target is mobile (Fig. 1, retroreflector mounted on drone, page 1-2), and the position-sensitive detector, the laser source, and the one or more optical components are stationary (Fig. 2, CLaDS van containing setup was stationary, page 2).
Regarding claim 7, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical components comprise a first optical component with positive optical power disposed in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path (Fig. 1, lenses before photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1).
Regarding claim 8, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 7, further comprising at least one additional component with optical power between the first optical component and the position-sensitive detector (Fig. 1, lenses before photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Soskind discloses The method of claim 18, further comprising controlling the beam steering actuator based on a determination by the position tracking analyzer (page 2: “To track the target, the quadrant detector described in Fig. 1 was used in a PII2 loop with the motorized gimbal to control and track the retroreflector position”).
Regarding claim 20, Soskind discloses The method of claim 18, further comprising: extracting optical sensing data from the information generated by said position-sensitive detector with the optical sensing analyzer; and/or extracting spectroscopic data from the information generated by said position-sensitive detector with the optical sensing analyzer (Fig. 1, photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1-2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soskind in view of Kreitinger et al., US 9970756 B2 (“Kreitinger”).
Regarding claim 6, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 3.
Soskind does not teach: wherein the retroreflective target is stationary, and the position-sensitive detector, the laser source, the one or more optical components, and the beam steering component are mobile.
However, Kreitinger teaches a measurement apparatus that includes a laser transmitter and receiver that measures target distance and gas concentration. The sensor, which includes the laser source, position sensitive detector, rotating mirror scanner, and other optical components, are mounted to a mobile vehicle while the target surface is stationary (Fig. 5, sensor 510, vehicle 520, target surface 530, Col. 10 lines 54-61).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind’s apparatus by attaching the sensor to a mobile vehicle and keeping the target stationery, which is disclosed by Kreitinger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform measurements on long-range targets approaching 1 km or more, as suggested by Kreitinger (Col. 10 lines 64-67).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soskind in view of Milanovic et al., US 20120168605 A1 (“Milanovic”).
Regarding claim 9, Soskind discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 1.
Soskind does not teach: further comprising a beam splitter disposed in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path, between the laser source and the at least one of the one or more optical components.
However, Milanovic teaches an optical tracking system that includes a laser, scanning mirror, and detector to track a retroreflector target. A beam splitter is placed in both the transmit and return path between the laser the scanning mirror (Fig. 9, source 902, beam splitter 905, photodetector 904, Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind’s apparatus by replacing the OAPs with the Milanovic’s beam splitter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to place the detector further away from the scanning mirror while still receiving a significant portion of the reflected optical energy, as suggested by Milanovic (Paragraph [0075]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soskind in view of Milanovic in further view of LaChapelle et al., US 20200256960 A1 (“LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 10, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 9.
Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic, does not teach: further comprising an intermediate beam steering component disposed in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path, between the beam splitter and the at least one of the one or more optical components.
However, LaChapelle teaches a LIDAR system with a laser, a scanner, and a photodetector. The scanner may include two single-axis mirrors that are disposed in both the optical transmit path and the optical receive path (Fig. 6, single-axis scan mirrors 302-x and 302-y, Paragraph [0078]; See also: Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind and Milanovic’s tracking apparatus by adding an intermediate scanning mirror, which is disclosed by LaChappelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to scan the output beam along an x and y direction, as suggested by LaChapelle (Paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 10, further comprising additional optical elements disposed only in the optical return path between the beam splitter and the position-sensitive detector (Soskind, Fig. 1, lenses before photodiode PD3 and quadrant photodiode QPD, page 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soskind in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle in further view of Steffey et al., US 20140226145 A1 (“Steffey”).
Regarding claim 12, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 10.
Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle, does not teach: further comprising a mirror disposed in the optical transmit path between the laser source and the beam splitter.
However, Steffey teaches an optical measurement device with a laser, photodetector, and beam splitter that tracks a retroreflector. A mirror is placed between the laser and the beam splitter (Fig. 11, light emitter 160, mirror 170, dichroic beam splitter 172, Paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind and Milanovic and LaChappelle’s tracking apparatus by adding an intermediate mirror between the laser and the beam splitter, which is disclosed by Steffey. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the mirror with the laser, beam splitter, scanner, photodiode, and other optical elements, where each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale A).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soskind in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey in further view of Kreitinger.
Regarding claim 13, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 12.
Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey, does not teach: wherein the one or more optical components include an optical circulator in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path.
However, Kreitinger teaches a measurement apparatus that includes a laser transmitter and receiver that measures target distance and gas concentration. An optical circulator is placed in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path (Fig. 6, circulator 630, Col. 12, lines 36-39).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind and Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey’s tracking apparatus by adding an optical circulator, which is disclosed by Kreitinger. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the circulator with the laser, beam splitter, scanner, photodiode, and other optical elements, where each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale A).
Regarding claim 14, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 13.
Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger, does not teach: wherein the optical circulator is composed of a waveplate and a polarizing beam splitter in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path.
However, LaChapelle teaches a LIDAR system with a laser, a scanner, a photodetector, and other optical components. The LIDAR system may include wave plates and a polarizing beam splitter configured to reflect and modify light produced and received by the LIDAR system (Paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind and Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger’s tracking apparatus by adding wave plates and a polarizing beam splitter, which is disclosed by LaChapelle. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the wave plates and a polarizing beam splitter with the laser, beam splitter, scanner, photodiode, and other optical elements, where each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale A).
Regarding claim 15, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 14, wherein the polarizing beam splitter directs laser light from the laser source into the optical transmit path and light returning along the optical return path towards the position-sensitive detector (Milanovic, Fig. 9, source 902, beam splitter 905, photo-detector 904, Paragraph [0075]; LaChappelle, polarizing beam splitter, Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 14.
Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger, does not teach: wherein the at least one of the one or more optical components defines a telescope disposed in both the optical transmit path and the optical return path.
However, LaChapelle teaches a LIDAR system with a laser, a scanner, a photodetector, and other optical components. The LIDAR system may include a telescope configured to expand, focus, or collimate the output beam or the input beam to a desired beam diameter or divergence (Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soskind and Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger’s tracking apparatus by adding a telescope, which is disclosed by LaChapelle. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the telescope with the laser, beam splitter, scanner, photodiode, and other optical elements, where each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and the results would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 I KSR Rationale A).
Regarding claim 17, Soskind, as modified in view of Milanovic and LaChappelle and Steffey and Kreitinger, discloses The retroreflector tracking and sensing system of claim 16, wherein the telescope is disposed between the waveplate and the beam steering component (LaChappelle, Paragraph [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights