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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Group I: claims 1-13, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
The group require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or non patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one group would not likely be applicable to another group; and/or the group are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Furthermore, the group require separate classification searches (i.e. G02F1/29, G01N 21/3581) such as there are mutually exclusive features and these mutually exclusive features are categorized in the separate classes. Additionally, the group require different text searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 1-13, will be considered for examination and claims 14-20 will be considered withdrawn from consideration.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSSEINI et al. (US 20180306925 A1) (hereinafter HOSSEINI) [cited in the IDs filed by the applicant] in view of Knapp (JP 2005-532537 A) (herein after Knapp).
As to claim(s) 1, HOSSEINI discloses a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) apparatus, comprising:
optics to project an optical beam onto a field of view [This scanning mirror provides steering in the other dimension thereby producing a 2D FOV with multiple scan lines, one for each wavelength of input light…¶0042]; and
a dispersive element, operatively coupled with the optics, to deflect the optical beam based on a wavelength of the optical beam [a free space multi-wavelength beam is shown incident upon a grating (i.e., reflective (FIG. 5(A) or transmissive (FIG. 5(B)). The grating splits the beam into separate beams in the grating dimension. These multiple beams are then directed to—and incident upon—a controllable scanning mirror…¶0042].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
HOSSEINI discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “wherein the dispersive element shifts the field of view across a target in response to changes of the wavelength of the optical beam”.
However, Knapp from the same field of endeavor discloses a dispersive element [22] shifts the field of view across a target in response to changes of the wavelength of the optical beam [The illustrated variable disperser system 20 includes a disperser 22 having two optical devices formed by a set of paired optical elements 24,26. Each set 24, 26 can be selectively and independently rotated to change at least one of the amount and direction of dispersion of the incident wavelength while passing through the unshifted center wavelength and substantially without dispersion…page 3][To simplify the design of the tunable disperser 22, the center wavelength shift provides a first and second set of optical elements 24, 26 that pass the desired center wavelength with minimal or no dispersion. Therefore, both optical elements can be set equally…page 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of HOSSEINI such that the dispersive element shifts the field of view across the target in response to changes of the wavelength of the optical beam; as taught by Knapp, for the advantages such as: in order to achieve different imaging modes and to optimize the measuring results depending on the properties of the sample.
As of claim 2, HOSSEINI discloses the LIDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical beam is deflected along a first axis, the LIDAR apparatus further comprising: a scanner to deflect the optical beam along a second axis that is orthogonal to the first axis [¶0032, 0044].
As of claim 4, HOSSEINI discloses the LIDAR apparatus wherein the optical beam comprises a first portion having an increasing frequency over time and a second portion (¶0034, 0050 and fig. 8) having a decreasing frequency over time [par. 0045, 0048, 0056].
As of claim 5, HOSSEINI discloses the LIDAR apparatus further comprising: a photodetector to receive a first combined signal comprising a first target signal and first local oscillator signal associated with the optical beam [¶0049, 0056].
As of claim 6, HOSSEINI discloses the LIDAR apparatus wherein the optics and the photodetector are positioned on a photonic chip [¶0049, 0061].
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSSEINI et al. in view of KNAPP and further in view of Magarill et al. (US 20100277796 A1) (herein after Magarill) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant].
As to claim 3, Hosseini when modified by KNAPP discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The LIDAR apparatus further comprising: a polarization beam splitter (PBS) to pass a first polarization state of light through the PBS in a first direction and reflect a second polarization state of light in a second direction different than the first direction”.
However, Magarill from the same field of endeavor discloses a polarization beam splitter (PBS) to pass a first polarization state of light through the PBS in a first direction and reflect a second polarization state of light in a second direction different than the first direction [@ fig. 1, par. 0024, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Hosseini when modified by KNAPP such that the polarization beam splitter (PBS) to pass the first polarization state of light through the PBS in the first direction and reflect the second polarization state of light in the second direction different than the first direction as taught by Magarill, for the advantages such as: increased efficiency to provide a light output with an adequate level of brightness without excessive power consumption by light sources.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSSEINI et al. in view of KNAPP and further in view of Cai et al. (US 20110063728 A1) (herein after Cai) [cited in the IDs filed by the applicant].
As to claims 7-9, Hosseini when modified by KNAPP discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The LIDAR apparatus further comprising a polarization wave plate to transform a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam.
The LIDAR apparatus wherein the polarization wave plate comprises one of a quarter-wave plate or a half-wave plate.
The LIDAR apparatus wherein the polarization wave plate further comprises a reflector or a coating to return a portion of the first optical beam as a first local oscillator signal and a portion of the second optical beam as a second local oscillator signal”.
However, Cai from the same field of endeavor discloses a polarization wave plate to transform a polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam [par. 0013, 0015]; the polarization wave plate comprises one of a quarter-wave plate or a half-wave plate [par. 0019, 0021] and wherein the polarization wave plate further comprises a reflector or a coating to return a portion of the first optical beam as a first local oscillator signal [¶0016] and a portion of the second optical beam as a second local oscillator signal [¶0018-0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Hosseini when modified by KNAPP such that the polarization wave plate to transform the polarization state of the first optical beam and the second optical beam, the polarization wave plate comprises one of the quarter-wave plate or the half-wave plate, the polarization wave plate further comprises the reflector or the coating to return the portion of the first optical beam as the first local oscillator signal and the portion of the second optical beam as the second local oscillator signal, as taught by Cai, for the advantages such as: providing precision optical performance.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOSSEINI et al. in view of KNAPP and further in view of SEBASTIAN et al. (US 20140269790 A1) (herein after SEBASTIAN) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant].
As to claims 11-13, Hosseini when modified by KNAPP discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The LIDAR apparatus further comprising: a reference arm circuit to receive a portion of the first optical beam as a first reference signal and a portion of the second optical beam as a second reference signal.
The LIDAR apparatus wherein the reference arm circuit comprises: an interferometer to receive the first reference signal and the second reference signal; and a photodetector to receive the first reference signal and the second reference signal from the interferometer.
The LIDAR apparatus wherein the reference arm circuit further comprises: a coupler to split a portion of the first reference signal to generate a first local oscillator signal and a portion of the second reference signal to generate a second local oscillator signal”.
However, SEBASTIAN from the same field of endeavor discloses a reference arm circuit to receive a portion of the first optical beam as a first reference signal and a portion of the second optical beam as a second reference signal [par. 0027]; the reference arm circuit comprises: an interferometer to receive the first reference signal and the second reference signal; and a photodetector to receive the first reference signal and the second reference signal from the interferometer [par. 0029]; the reference arm circuit further comprises: a coupler to split a portion of the first reference signal to generate a first local oscillator signal and a portion of the second reference signal to generate a second local oscillator signal [par. 0031, 0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Hosseini when modified by KNAPP such that the reference arm circuit to receive the portion of the first optical beam as the first reference signal and the portion of the second optical beam as the second reference signal, the interferometer to receive the first reference signal and the second reference signal; and the photodetector to receive the first reference signal and the second reference signal from the interferometer, the coupler to split the portion of the first reference signal to generate the first local oscillator signal and the portion of the second reference signal to generate the second local oscillator signal, as taught by SEBASTIAN, for the advantages such as: to ensure proper temporal alignment between reference and target arm signals so to enable to improve the performance of the lidar system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights