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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 and15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 lns. 10-12: “birefringent plate lens” appears multiple times instead of “birefringent flat lens”
Claim 15 lns. 10-12: “birefringent plate lens” appears multiple times instead of “birefringent flat lens”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels US 20210389470 A1 in view of Islam US 20230366986 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Michaels teaches a Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Fig. 1, [0038]), comprising:
a laser source ([0046]);
a light engine, comprising an optical transmitter/receiver, wherein the light engine is configured to receive the laser beam, and transmit, as a detection beam, at least a part of the laser beam from the optical transmitter/receiver, and the optical transmitter/receiver is further configured to receive a reflected beam formed after the detection beam is incident on an obstacle (Fig. 1, [0045-47]);
a scanning component, arranged on one side of the optical transmitter/receiver and configured to deflect the detection beam to perform scanning on the detection beam (306 in Fig. 3, [0052-53]); and
a birefringent component, configured to compensate for a transmission and reception offset angle caused by motion of the scanning component, to enable the detection beam and the reflected beam to be transmitted and received by a same port of the optical transmitter/receiver (303 in Fig. 3, [0052-53]).
Michaels does not explicitly teach the laser source is configured to emit a frequency-swept laser beam.
Islam teaches FMCW lidar with a frequency chirp ([0003])
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 Michaels such that the laser source is configured to emit a frequency-swept laser beam similar to Islam with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping extract both range and velocity of a target (Islam: [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a lens component, arranged between the optical transmitter/receiver and the scanning component, and configured to collimate the detection beam and couple the reflected beam into the optical transmitter/receiver (304 in Fig. 3, [0052-53]),
wherein the detection beam is a beam in a first polarization mode with a first polarization direction, the reflected beam is a beam in a second polarization mode with a second polarization direction, the first polarization direction is perpendicular to the second polarization direction, and the beam in the first polarization mode and the beam in the second polarization mode have different refractive indices in the birefringent component (Fig. 3, [0052-54]; different refractive indices are implicit in the different shifts for different polarizations).
Regarding claim 3, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 2, wherein the birefringent component is configured with a compensation offset angle α for the reflected beam, and the compensation offset angle α is determined by the following formula: 0＜α≤θm where θm is a maximum value of the transmission and reception offset angle, and θm is determined by the following formula: θm=ω×∆t=ω×2Lmc where ω is a scanning angular velocity of the scanning component, Lm is a maximum detection distance of the FMCW LiDAR system, and c is the speed of light (compensation angle is within this range in Fig. 3, [0052-54]; if the angle was not within this range, the transmitted and reflected beams would not be collocated at 301 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the light engine comprises a LiDAR chip, and the LiDAR chip comprises:
a frequency-swept laser beam receiving port, configured to receive the frequency-swept laser beam (101 in Fig. 2, [0046]);
a beam splitter, connected to the frequency-swept laser beam receiving port, and configured to split the frequency-swept laser beam into the detection beam and a local oscillator beam (102 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]);
a mixer, configured to receive the local oscillator beam and the reflected beam, and mix the local oscillator beam and the reflected beam to obtain a frequency-mixed laser (109 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]); and
wherein the FMCW LiDAR system further comprises:
an obtaining and processing device, electrically connected to the detector, and configured to receive the detection electrical signal from the detector, and process the detection electrical signal to determine a distance of the obstacle relative to the FMCW LiDAR system and/or a velocity of the obstacle (receiver optoelectronic circuit, [0038, 47]).
Michaels does not explicitly teach a balanced detector, configured to receive the frequency-mixed laser and output a detection electrical signal based on the frequency-mixed laser
Islam teaches balanced photodiodes and processing output to determine range and velocity (49 in Fig. 6, [0003, 41])
Michaels does teach output of optical mixer 109 processed by a receiver optoelectronic circuit (Fig. 1, [0047])
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 Michaels to include a balanced detector, configured to receive the frequency-mixed laser and output a detection electrical signal based on the frequency-mixed laser similar to Islam with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping extract both range and velocity of a target (Islam: [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 7,
Michaels does not explicitly teach wherein the LiDAR chip further comprises: a polarization splitter-rotator, used as the optical transmitter/receiver, and configured to receive the detection beam and transmit the detection beam, receive the reflected beam and change a polarization direction of the reflected beam, the mixer is configured to receive the local oscillator beam from the beam splitter and the reflected beam from the polarization splitter-rotator.
Islam teaches a PSR used as a part of transmitter/receiver (78 in Fig. 6, [0040])
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 Michaels to include a polarization splitter-rotator, used as the optical transmitter/receiver, and configured to receive the detection beam and transmit the detection beam, receive the reflected beam and change a polarization direction of the reflected beam, the mixer is configured to receive the local oscillator beam from the beam splitter and the reflected beam from the polarization splitter-rotator similar to Islam with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of separating reflected light towards the detector using known elements.
Regarding claim 9, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 7, wherein the LiDAR chip further comprises:
a detection beam transmitting port, configured to receive the detection beam from the beam splitter and transmit the detection beam (port of 104 connected to splitter 102 through 103 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]); and
a reflected beam receiving port, configured to receive the reflected beam (port of 104 connected to mixer 109 through 107 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]),
the optical transmitter/receiver comprises a circulator (104 acts as a circulator in Fig. 1, [0045-47]), the circulator comprises a first port (port of 104 connected to 103 and 102 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]), a second port (output of 104 transmitting/receiving light 104 and 106 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]), and a third port (port of 104 connected to 107 and 109 in Fig. 1, [0045-47]), wherein the first port is connected to the detection beam transmitting port, and is configured to receive the detection beam transmitted by the detection beam transmitting port and transmit the detection beam to the second port, where the detection beam is transmitted out from the second port, the second port is further configured to receive the reflected beam and transmit the reflected beam to the third port, and the third port is connected to the reflected beam receiving port, and is configured to transmit the reflected beam to the reflected beam receiving port.
Regarding claim 10, Michaels teaches a mobile device (500 in Figs. 5A-5B, [0060]), comprising
a Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Fig. 1, [0038]), wherein, the FMCW LIDAR system comprises:
a laser source ([0046]);
a light engine, comprising an optical transmitter/receiver, wherein the light engine is configured to receive the laser beam, and transmit, as a detection beam, at least a part of the laser beam from the optical transmitter/receiver, and the optical transmitter/receiver is further configured to receive a reflected beam formed after the detection beam is incident on an obstacle (Fig. 1, [0045-47]);
a scanning component, arranged on one side of the optical transmitter/receiver and configured to deflect the detection beam to perform scanning on the detection beam (306 in Fig. 3, [0052-53]); and
a birefringent component, configured to compensate for a transmission and reception offset angle caused by motion of the scanning component, to enable the detection beam and the reflected beam to be transmitted and received by a same port of the optical transmitter/receiver (303 in Fig. 3, [0052-53]).
Michaels does not explicitly teach the laser source is configured to emit a frequency-swept laser beam.
Islam teaches FMCW lidar with a frequency chirp ([0003])
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 Michaels such that the laser source is configured to emit a frequency-swept laser beam similar to Islam with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping extract both range and velocity of a target (Islam: [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, see rejection to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection to claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection to claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection to claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection to claim 9.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels US 20210389470 A1 in view of Islam US 20230366986 A1 and further in view of Talty US 20200110179 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 3,
Michaels does not explicitly teach wherein the birefringent component comprises an optical wedge, the optical wedge is located between the lens component and the scanning component, an inclined surface of the optical wedge is farther from the lens component than a plane surface of the optical wedge, an optical axis of the optical wedge is perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens component, and the compensation offset angle α satisfies the following formula:
α
=
a
r
c
t
a
n
(
n
2
s
i
n
β
)
-
a
r
c
t
a
n
(
n
1
s
i
n
β
)
where n1 is a refractive index of the beam in the first polarization mode in the optical wedge, n2 is a refractive index of the beam in the second polarization mode in the optical wedge, and β is a wedge angle of the optical wedge.
Talty teaches a birefringent wedge (1104 in Fig. 11, [0053]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that orientation and compensation of the wedge would be obvious to return the reflected beam to the coherent pixel of Michaels using well-known optics of birefringent optical wedges)
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 Michaels such that the birefringent component comprises an optical wedge, the optical wedge is located between the lens component and the scanning component, an inclined surface of the optical wedge is farther from the lens component than a plane surface of the optical wedge, an optical axis of the optical wedge is perpendicular to an optical axis of the lens component similar to Talty with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping correct beam walk-off.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection to claim 4.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels US 20210389470 A1 in view of Islam US 20230366986 A1 and further in view of Kocaoglu US 20200081106 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 3,
Michaels does not explicitly teach wherein the birefringent component comprises a polarization beam-splitter prism group, the polarization beam-splitter prism group is arranged between the lens component and the scanning component, the polarization beam-splitter prism group comprises a first right-angle prism and a second right-angle prism having inclined surfaces bonded together, an optical axis of the first right-angle prism is parallel to an optical axis of the lens component, the second right-angle prism is arranged on a side of the first right-angle prism away from the lens component, an optical axis of the second right-angle prism is perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens component, and the compensation offset angle α satisfies the following formula:
α
=
arctan
0.7
n
4
-
a
r
c
t
a
n
(
0.7
n
3
)
where n3 is a refractive index of the beam in the first polarization mode in the polarization beam-splitter prism group, and n4 is a refractive index of the beam in the second polarization mode in the polarization beam-splitter prism group.
Kocaoglu teaches birefringent polarization selective component (208 in Fig. 3, [0054-56]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that orientation and compensation of the polarization beam-splitter prism group would be obvious to return the reflected beam to the coherent pixel of Michaels using well-known physics of birefringent polarization beam-splitter prisms)
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 Michaels such that the birefringent component comprises a polarization beam-splitter prism group, the polarization beam-splitter prism group is arranged between the lens component and the scanning component, the polarization beam-splitter prism group comprises a first right-angle prism and a second right-angle prism having inclined surfaces bonded together, an optical axis of the first right-angle prism is parallel to an optical axis of the lens component, the second right-angle prism is arranged on a side of the first right-angle prism away from the lens component, an optical axis of the second right-angle prism is perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens component similar to Kocaoglu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping correct beam walk-off.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection to claim 5.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels US 20210389470 A1 in view of Islam US 20230366986 A1 and further in view of Samarao US 11698444 B1.
Regarding claim 6, Michaels as modified above teaches the FMCW LiDAR system according to claim 3,
Michaels does not explicitly teach wherein the birefringent component comprises a birefringent flat lens, the birefringent flat lens is arranged between the lens component and the optical transmitter/receiver, the birefringent flat lens is arranged parallel to the lens component, an optical axis of the birefringent flat lens intersects with an optical axis of the lens component, and the compensation offset angle α satisfies the following formula:
α
=
arctan
d
f
,
d
=
D
⋅
(
1
-
n
5
2
n
6
2
)
⋅
(
t
a
n
γ
)
/
(
1
+
n
5
2
n
6
2
⋅
tan
2
γ
)
where n5 is a refractive index of the beam in the first polarization mode in the birefringent plate lens, n6 is the refractive index of the beam in the second polarization mode in the birefringent plate lens, γ is an angle between the optical axis and a plane surface of the birefringent plate lens, d is a thickness of the birefringent plate lens, and f is a focal length of the lens component.
Samarao teaches a birefringent flat lens and lens component (130 and 512 in Figs. 4-5, Col. 8 ln. 59 – Col. 12 ln. 2; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that orientation and compensation of the polarization beam-splitter prism group would be obvious to return the reflected beam to the coherent pixel of Michaels using well-known physics of birefringent plates and lenses)
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 Michaels such that the birefringent component comprises a birefringent flat lens, the birefringent flat lens is arranged between the lens component and the optical transmitter/receiver, the birefringent flat lens is arranged parallel to the lens component, an optical axis of the birefringent flat lens intersects with an optical axis of the lens component similar to Samarao with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping correct beam walk-off.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hajati US 20250327912 A1 teaches using birefringence for shifting polarized beams into channels ([0147])
Chan US 20240142705 A1 teaches using birefringence for shifting polarized beams into channels ([0150, 313])
Moebius US 20210341585 A1 teaches using birefringent wedge for shifting polarized beams to detecting channels ([0030])
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