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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 3rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, Patent 11353558 teaches a lidar system (claim 13, line 1), comprising:
a first laser (claim 13, line 2);
a second laser (claim 13, line 3);
an optical resonator that is optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, wherein the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator (claim 13, lines 4-8);
a controller configured to independently enable or disable operating states of the first laser and the second laser such that one of: the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled; or the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled (claim 19)
a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material (claim 13, lines 9-12), the modulation of the optical property causes:
the first laser to generate a first frequency modulated optical signal comprising a first series of optical chirps when the first laser is enabled (claim 13, lines 12-14) and
the second laser to generate a second frequency modulated optical signal comprising a second series of optical chirps when the second laser is enabled (claim 13, lines 14-16);
a beam combiner configured to selectively output an outputted frequency modulated optical signal corresponding only to the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled by the controller, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output (claim 13, lines 17-20); and
front end optics configured to transmit at least a portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into an environment from the lidar system (claim 13, lines 21-23).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 5, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the controller configured to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period (claim 19).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 6, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the optical resonator is a whispering gallery mode (WGM) resonator (claim 14).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 7, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the first laser and the second laser operate at a substantially similar wavelength (claim 15).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 8, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the first laser operates at a first wavelength and the second laser operates at a second wavelength, wherein the first wavelength differs from the second wavelength (Claim 16).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 9, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the first laser and the second laser operate at one of 905 nm, 1550 nm, or 3um (claim 2).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 10, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, further comprising: a beam splitter configured to split the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into the portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal to be transmitted into the environment from the lidar system and a local oscillator portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal (Claim 17).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 11, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 10, wherein:
the front end optics further configured to receive a reflected optical signal, the reflected optical signal corresponds to at least a part of the portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal that reflected off an object in the environment (claim 9, lines 5-11);
the lidar system further comprises: a sensor (claim 9, line 2) configured to mix the reflected optical signal with the local oscillator portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal (claim 9, lines 12-17); and
processing circuitry that is configured to compute distance and velocity data of the object based on the reflected optical signal mixed with the local oscillator portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal (claim 9, lines 18-23).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 12, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1, further comprising: a photonics integrated circuit, wherein at least the first laser, the second laser, and the optical resonator are integrated on the photonics integrated circuit (Claim 20).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, Patent 11353558 teaches a method of operating a lidar system (claim 10, line 1), comprising:
independently enabling or disabling a first laser of the lidar system and a second laser of the lidar system such that at least one of the first laser or the second laser is enabled (claim 10, lines 2-6);
applying a time-varying voltage to an optical resonator of the lidar system, the time-varying voltage being applied to the optical resonator by a single modulator of the lidar system, the optical resonator being optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material (claim 10, lines 7-16);
forming an outputted frequency modulated optical signal by selectively outputting only the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output (claim 10, lines 17-23); and
transmitting at least a portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into an environment from the lidar system (claim 10, line 17).
Claim 5, 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2 in view of Slobodyanyuk et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20180067195 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 5, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1,
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the controller configured to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the controller configured to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment; [0028] For example, the laser emitters 122a-b may be driven by an amount of power that limits the range at which reflected laser light may be detected to approximately 300 meters in front of the vehicle; [0042] FIG. 3 shows an example computing device 300 suitable for controlling laser emitter components 106a-b, 108a-b, 208a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
Regarding claim 17, Patent 11353558 teaches the method of claim 15,
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the method wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the method wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment; [0028] For example, the laser emitters 122a-b may be driven by an amount of power that limits the range at which reflected laser light may be detected to approximately 300 meters in front of the vehicle; [0042] FIG. 3 shows an example computing device 300 suitable for controlling laser emitter components 106a-b, 108a-b, 208a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2 in view of Roos et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200241139 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 14, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the lidar system being included in an autonomous vehicle.
However, Roos teaches the lidar system being included in an autonomous vehicle (Fig. 5; [0065] The LiDAR application includes automobile 502, lidar system 504).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the implementation of the lidar system in an autonomous vehicle similar to Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing an autonomous vehicle to scan an area that it is driving in with the included advantages.
Claim 16 and 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2 in view of Roos et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200241139 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 16, Patent 11353558 teaches the method of claim 15,
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the method wherein forming the outputted frequency modulated optical signal comprises: combining the first frequency modulated optical signal and the second frequency modulated optical signal to form the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled; outputting the first frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; and outputting the second frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled
However, Roos teaches the method wherein forming the outputted frequency modulated optical signal comprises: combining the first frequency modulated optical signal and the second frequency modulated optical signal to form the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled; outputting the first frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; and outputting the second frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source [0031] The circulator 106 may receive the transmit beam and provide to transceiver 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise method of combining frequency modulated optical signals similar to Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of creating a wide spectrum output beam for scanning the environment.
Regarding claim 18, Patent 11353558 teaches the method of claim 15,
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the method wherein the first laser and the second laser operate at a substantially similar wavelength
However, Roos teaches the method wherein the first laser and the second laser operate at a substantially similar wavelength ([0036] In some examples, certain of the chirped lasers may have a same frequency and/or chirp rate.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise method of similar wavelength first and second wavelengths similar to Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a coherent emitting laser.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2 in view of Maleki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20160299228 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 13, Patent 11353558 teaches the lidar system of claim 1,
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the optical property of the electrooptic material comprises an index of refraction.
However, Maleki teaches the optical property of the electrooptic material comprises an index of refraction ([0047] The electrode pair is in electronic communication with a controller 540 that can apply a current and/or voltage potential to the electrode pair, thereby modifying the refractive index of the whispering gallery mode optical resonator (and thereby altering the frequencies supported in whispering gallery mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the modifiable index of refraction in the resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating easily modifiable outgoing beams for a variety of situations.
Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11353558 B2 in view of Roos et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200241139 A1), Maleki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20160299228 A1), and Slobodyanyuk et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20180067195 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 19, Patent 11353558 teaches a lidar system (claim 13, lines 1), comprising:
a first laser (claim 13, line 2);
a second laser (claim 13, line 3);
an optical resonator that is optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, wherein the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator (claim 13, lines 4-8)
the first laser to generate a first frequency modulated optical signal comprising a first series of optical chirps when the first laser is enabled (claim 13, lines 12-14) and
the second laser to generate a second frequency modulated optical signal comprising a second series of optical chirps when the second laser is enabled (claim 13, lines 14-16);
a beam combiner configured to selectively output an outputted frequency modulated optical signal corresponding only to the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled by the controller, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output (claim 13, lines 17-20); and
front end optics configured to transmit at least a portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into an environment from the lidar system (claim 13, lines 21-23).
Patent 11353558 fails to teach an autonomous vehicle comprising:
a controller configured to independently enable or disable operating states of the first laser and the second laser such that one of: the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled; or the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled;
a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material;
a computing system, comprising: a processor; and
memory that comprises computer-executable instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: transmitting a control signal to the lidar system to cause the controller to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser.
However, Roos teaches a controller configured to for operating states of the first laser and the second laser such that one of: the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled; or the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled ([0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source);
a computing system, comprising: a processor ([0031] processor 118);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the controller and computer similar to Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of selectively deciding the active laser in engaged in the lidar device at any given time.
Roos still fails to teach a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material,
However, Maleki teaches a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material ([0047] In some embodiments of the inventive concept the whispering gallery mode resonator can be modulated...FIG. 5A shows an electronically modulated resonator assembly 500 that includes a whispering gallery mode optical resonator 510 constructed of an electro-optical material, which is in contact with an electrode pair 520, 530. The electrode pair is in electronic communication with a controller 540 that can apply a current and/or voltage potential to the electrode pair, thereby modifying the refractive index of the whispering gallery mode optical resonator (and thereby altering the frequencies supported in whispering gallery mode)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the single modulator to act on the resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a controlled beam with desired properties from either or both of the two beams.
Maleki still fails to teach independently enabling or disabling the two lasers or the memory that comprises computer executable instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts to perform signal control.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches a controller configured to independently enable or disable operating states of the first laser and the second laser ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment;) and
memory that comprises computer-executable instruction that, when executed by the processor to perform signal control ([0079] computer-readable storage media, that may store instructions that, when executed by the processor, can cause the processor to perform the steps described herein as carried out, or assisted, by a processor)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
Regarding claim 20, Patent 11353558, as modified above teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 19,
Patent 11353558 fails to teach the vehicle wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the vehicle wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment; [0028] For example, the laser emitters 122a-b may be driven by an amount of power that limits the range at which reflected laser light may be detected to approximately 300 meters in front of the vehicle; [0042] FIG. 3 shows an example computing device 300 suitable for controlling laser emitter components 106a-b, 108a-b, 208a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Patent 11353558 to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200241139 A1), hereinafter Roos, in view of Maleki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20160299228 A1), hereinafter, Maleki, and further in view of Slobodyanyuk et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20180067195 A1), hereinafter Slobodyanyuk.
Regarding claim 1, Roos teaches a lidar system (Fig. 1; [0030] Examples described herein may be utilized in automotive lidar), comprising:
a first laser (Fig. 1; [0031] laser source 102);
a second laser (Fig. 1; [0031] laser source 120);
an optical resonator that is optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, wherein the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator (Fig. 1; [0031] The two beams may be combined by the combiner 122 and the combined beam provided to the beam splitter 104);
a controller configured to selectively control operating states of the first laser and the second laser such that one of: the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled; or the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled ([0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source)
the first laser to generate a first frequency modulated optical signal comprising a first series of optical chirps when the first laser is enabled ([0034]Generally, a chirping a laser beam or a chirped laser beam may refer to frequency modulation of a laser output (e.g., a frequency modulated laser beam)...The laser frequency may be directly chirped via a frequency actuator within the laser, or the frequency chirp may be imparted to the laser frequency by a modulator that may be external to the laser, or the frequency chirp may be generated in any other fashion.); and
the second laser to generate a second frequency modulated optical signal comprising a second series of optical chirps when the second laser is enabled ([0045] In some examples, the laser source 102 may provide a first chirped laser beam, while the laser source 120 (which may in some examples be implemented using the same laser source 102) may provide a second chirped laser beam. Generally, the chirp rate of the first chirped laser beam may be different than the chirp rate of the second chirped laser beam);
front end optics configured to transmit at least a portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into an environment from the lidar system ([0031] The transceiver 108 may direct the transmit beam toward object 110).
Roos fails to teach a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material, the modulation of the optical property causes:
However, Maleki teaches a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material, the modulation of the optical property causes ([0047] In some embodiments of the inventive concept the whispering gallery mode resonator can be modulated...FIG. 5A shows an electronically modulated resonator assembly 500 that includes a whispering gallery mode optical resonator 510 constructed of an electro-optical material, which is in contact with an electrode pair 520, 530. The electrode pair is in electronic communication with a controller 540 that can apply a current and/or voltage potential to the electrode pair, thereby modifying the refractive index of the whispering gallery mode optical resonator (and thereby altering the frequencies supported in whispering gallery mode)):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the single modulator to act on the resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a controlled beam with desired properties from either or both of the two beams.
Roos and Maleki still fail to teach the system comprising a controller configured to independently enable or disable operating states of the first laser and the second laser, and a beam combiner configured to selectively output an outputted frequency modulated optical signal corresponding only to the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled by the controller, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the system comprising a controller configured to independently enable or disable operating states of the first laser and the second laser ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment;), and
a beam combiner configured to selectively output an outputted frequency modulated optical signal corresponding only to the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled by the controller, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output ([0018] In addition, each laser emitter is driven by a circuit that modulates the laser light according to a particular frequency, with each set of laser emitters modulated at a different frequency, which allows the multi-tier LIDAR system to discriminate between laser light emitted by the multi-tier LIDAR system and other ambient light sources, including other LIDAR systems.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers and selectively output respective frequencies for each similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed and operating them independently from one another.
Regarding claim 2, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the beam combiner configured to combine the first frequency modulated optical signal and the second frequency modulated optical signal to form the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source [0031] The circulator 106 may receive the transmit beam and provide to transceiver 108).
Regarding claim 3, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the beam combiner configured to output the first frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source [0031] The circulator 106 may receive the transmit beam and provide to transceiver 108).
Regarding claim 4, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the beam combiner configured to output the second frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source [0031] The circulator 106 may receive the transmit beam and provide to transceiver 108).
Regarding claim 5, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1,
Roos fails to teach the controller configured to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the controller configured to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment; [0028] For example, the laser emitters 122a-b may be driven by an amount of power that limits the range at which reflected laser light may be detected to approximately 300 meters in front of the vehicle; [0042] FIG. 3 shows an example computing device 300 suitable for controlling laser emitter components 106a-b, 108a-b, 208a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
Regarding claim 6, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1,
Roos fails to teach the optical resonator is a whispering gallery mode (WGM) resonator.
However, Maleki teaches the optical resonator is a whispering gallery mode (WGM) resonator ([0042] In the arrangement shown in FIG. 1, a source laser 1 provides a laser beam la that is coupled into a whispering gallery mode resonator 4 (WGM resonator) using a an optical coupler 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the whispering gallery mode resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of enhancing the sensitivity of the source beam.
Regarding claim 7, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the first laser and the second laser operate at a substantially similar wavelength ([0036] In some examples, certain of the chirped lasers may have a same frequency and/or chirp rate.).
Regarding claim 8, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the first laser operates at a first wavelength and the second laser operates at a second wavelength, wherein the first wavelength differs from the second wavelength ([0036] Certain of the chirped lasers may have different frequencies and/or chirp rates).
Regarding claim 9, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, the first laser and the second laser operate at one of 905 nm, 1550 nm, or 3 μm ([0033] Generally, a laser source may produce coherent light (e.g., a laser beam) having a frequency that is often in the optical or infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum).
Regarding claim 10, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1, further comprising: a beam splitter configured to split the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into the portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal to be transmitted into the environment from the lidar system and a local oscillator portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal (Fig. 1; [0031] The beam splitter 104 may split the laser beam into a transmit (Tx) beam and a local oscillator (LO) beam).
Regarding claim 11, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 10, wherein:
the front end optics further configured to receive a reflected optical signal, the reflected optical signal corresponds to at least a part of the portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal that reflected off an object in the environment ([0031] The transmit beam may be reflected from object 110. Reflection as used herein may refer to laser beams that are reflected and/or scattered from an object. The reflected laser beam (Rx), which may be referred to as a range return, may be received by transceiver 108.);
the lidar system further comprises: a sensor configured to mix the reflected optical signal with the local oscillator portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal ([031] The circulator 106 may provide the reflected laser beam to the combiner 112. The combiner 112 may combine the local oscillator beam and the reflected laser beam to provide a combined beam); and
processing circuitry that is configured to compute distance and velocity data of the object based on the reflected optical signal mixed with the local oscillator portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal ([0031] The combined beam detected by the detector 114 may produce an interference signal corresponding to one or more range returns… The digital signal may be processed by processor 118 to determine one or more properties of the object 110 (e.g., distance to the target). The digital signal may be processed to produce signal strength as a function of range, which may be referred to as a range profile; [0044] Any of a variety of properties may be determined (e.g., measured) using systems described herein, including distance (e.g., range), velocity and or acceleration.).
Regarding claim 12, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1
Roos fails to teach a lidar system comprising a photonics integrated circuit, wherein at least the first laser, the second laser, and the optical resonator are integrated on the photonics integrated circuit.
However, Maleki teaches a lidar system comprising a photonics integrated circuit, wherein at least the first laser, the second laser, and the optical resonator are integrated on the photonics integrated circuit ([0050] For example, integrated circuitry utilized to generate the electronic signal used to modulate the optical characteristics of the optical resonator can be fabricated on the same silicon chip as the laser and resonator, along with appropriate electrical connections.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the photonic integrated circuit similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating fast and reliable signals between optical components.
Regarding claim 13, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1,
Roos fails to teach the optical property of the electrooptic material comprises an index of refraction.
However, Maleki teaches the optical property of the electrooptic material comprises an index of refraction ([0047] The electrode pair is in electronic communication with a controller 540 that can apply a current and/or voltage potential to the electrode pair, thereby modifying the refractive index of the whispering gallery mode optical resonator (and thereby altering the frequencies supported in whispering gallery mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the modifiable index of refraction in the resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating easily modifiable outgoing beams for a variety of situations.
Regarding claim 14, Roos, as modified above, teaches the lidar system of claim 1 being included in an autonomous vehicle (Fig. 5; [0065] The LiDAR application includes automobile 502, lidar system 504).
Regarding claim 15, Roos teaches a method of operating a lidar system, comprising:
selectively enabling or disabling a first laser of the lidar system and a second laser of the lidar system such that at least one of the first laser or the second laser is enabled (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source);
forming an outputted frequency modulated optical signal (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source [0031] The circulator 106 may receive the transmit beam and provide to transceiver 108); and
transmitting at least a portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into an environment from the lidar system ([0031] The transceiver 108 may direct the transmit beam toward object 110).
Roos fails to teach applying a time-varying voltage to an optical resonator of the lidar system, the time-varying voltage being applied to the optical resonator by a single modulator of the lidar system, the optical resonator being optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material;
However, Maleki teaches applying a time-varying voltage to an optical resonator of the lidar system, the time-varying voltage being applied to the optical resonator by a single modulator of the lidar system, the optical resonator being optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material ([0047] In some embodiments of the inventive concept the whispering gallery mode resonator can be modulated...FIG. 5A shows an electronically modulated resonator assembly 500 that includes a whispering gallery mode optical resonator 510 constructed of an electro-optical material, which is in contact with an electrode pair 520, 530. The electrode pair is in electronic communication with a controller 540 that can apply a current and/or voltage potential to the electrode pair, thereby modifying the refractive index of the whispering gallery mode optical resonator (and thereby altering the frequencies supported in whispering gallery mode);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the single modulator to act on the resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a controlled beam with desired properties from either or both of the two beams.
Roos and Maleki still fail to teach the method comprising independently enabling or disabling a first laser of the lidar system and a second laser of the lidar system such that at least one of the first laser or the second laser is enabled; and forming an outputted frequency modulated optical signal by selectively outputting only the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the method comprising independently enabling or disabling a first laser of the lidar system and a second laser of the lidar system such that at least one of the first laser or the second laser is enabled ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment;); and
forming an outputted frequency modulated optical signal by selectively outputting only the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output ([0018] In addition, each laser emitter is driven by a circuit that modulates the laser light according to a particular frequency, with each set of laser emitters modulated at a different frequency, which allows the multi-tier LIDAR system to discriminate between laser light emitted by the multi-tier LIDAR system and other ambient light sources, including other LIDAR systems.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the independent laser control and independent frequency control similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed and operating them independently from one another.
Regarding claim 16, Roos, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 15, wherein forming the outputted frequency modulated optical signal comprises:
combining the first frequency modulated optical signal and the second frequency modulated optical signal to form the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled; outputting the first frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; and outputting the second frequency modulated optical signal as the outputted frequency modulated optical signal when the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled (Fig. 1; [0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source [0031] The circulator 106 may receive the transmit beam and provide to transceiver 108).
Regarding claim 17, Roos, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 15,
Roos fails to teach the method wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the method wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment; [0028] For example, the laser emitters 122a-b may be driven by an amount of power that limits the range at which reflected laser light may be detected to approximately 300 meters in front of the vehicle; [0042] FIG. 3 shows an example computing device 300 suitable for controlling laser emitter components 106a-b, 108a-b, 208a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
Regarding claim 18, Roos, as modified above, teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first laser and the second laser operate at a substantially similar wavelength ([0036] In some examples, certain of the chirped lasers may have a same frequency and/or chirp rate.).
Regarding claim 19, Roos, as modified above, teaches an autonomous vehicle ([0065] The LiDAR application includes automobile 502, lidar system 504, automotive controls 506), comprising:
a lidar system (Fig. 1; [0030] Examples described herein may be utilized in automotive lidar), comprising:
a first laser (Fig. 1; [0031] laser source 102);
a second laser (Fig. 1; [0031] laser source 120);
an optical resonator that is optically coupled to both the first laser and the second laser, the optical resonator being formed of an electrooptic material, wherein the first laser and the second laser are optically injection locked to the optical resonator (Fig. 1; [0031] The two beams may be combined by the combiner 122 and the combined beam provided to the beam splitter 104);
a controller configured to selectively control operating states of the first laser and the second laser such that one of: the first laser is enabled and the second laser is disabled; the first laser is disabled and the second laser is enabled; or the first laser and the second laser are concurrently enabled ([0036] For example, in FIG. 1, the laser source 102 and the laser source 120 may provide two chirped laser beams. In some examples multiple chirped laser beams be generated by a single laser source);
the first laser to generate a first frequency modulated optical signal comprising a first series of optical chirps when the first laser is enabled ([0034]Generally, a chirping a laser beam or a chirped laser beam may refer to frequency modulation of a laser output (e.g., a frequency modulated laser beam)...The laser frequency may be directly chirped via a frequency actuator within the laser, or the frequency chirp may be imparted to the laser frequency by a modulator that may be external to the laser, or the frequency chirp may be generated in any other fashion.); and
the second laser to generate a second frequency modulated optical signal comprising a second series of optical chirps when the second laser is enabled ([0045] In some examples, the laser source 102 may provide a first chirped laser beam, while the laser source 120 (which may in some examples be implemented using the same laser source 102) may provide a second chirped laser beam. Generally, the chirp rate of the first chirped laser beam may be different than the chirp rate of the second chirped laser beam);
front end optics configured to transmit at least a portion of the outputted frequency modulated optical signal into an environment from the lidar system ([0031] The transceiver 108 may direct the transmit beam toward object 110); and
a computing system, comprising: a processor ([0031] processor 118); and
Roos fails to teach a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material;
However, Maleki teaches a single modulator configured to apply a time-varying voltage to the optical resonator, the time-varying voltage controls modulation of an optical property of the electrooptic material ([0047] In some embodiments of the inventive concept the whispering gallery mode resonator can be modulated...FIG. 5A shows an electronically modulated resonator assembly 500 that includes a whispering gallery mode optical resonator 510 constructed of an electro-optical material, which is in contact with an electrode pair 520, 530. The electrode pair is in electronic communication with a controller 540 that can apply a current and/or voltage potential to the electrode pair, thereby modifying the refractive index of the whispering gallery mode optical resonator (and thereby altering the frequencies supported in whispering gallery mode);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the single modulator to act on the resonator similar to Maleki, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a controlled beam with desired properties from either or both of the two beams.
Roos, as modified by Maleki fails to teach the system comprising a controller configured to independently enable or disable operating states of the lasers, a beam combiner configured to selectively output an outputted frequency modulated optical signal corresponding only to the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled by the controller, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output, or a memory that comprises computer-executable instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising: transmitting a control signal to the lidar system to cause the controller to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches a controller configured to selectively control independently enable or disable operating states of the first laser and the second laser ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment;)
a beam combiner configured to selectively output an outputted frequency modulated optical signal corresponding only to the frequency modulated optical signal(s) generated by the laser(s) that are enabled by the controller, such that when only one laser is enabled, only the corresponding frequency modulated optical signal is output, and when both lasers are enabled, both frequency modulated optical signals are output ([0018] In addition, each laser emitter is driven by a circuit that modulates the laser light according to a particular frequency, with each set of laser emitters modulated at a different frequency, which allows the multi-tier LIDAR system to discriminate between laser light emitted by the multi-tier LIDAR system and other ambient light sources, including other LIDAR systems.)
memory that comprises computer-executable instruction that, when executed by the processor ([0079] computer-readable storage media, that may store instructions that, when executed by the processor, can cause the processor to perform the steps described herein as carried out, or assisted, by a processor), cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
transmitting a control signal to the lidar system to cause the controller to selectively control the operating states of the first laser and the second laser ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers and selectively output respective frequencies for each similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed and operating them independently from one another.
Regarding claim 20, Roos, as modified above, teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 19,
Roos fails to teach the vehicle wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period.
However, Slobodyanyuk teaches the vehicle wherein the first laser and the second laser are selectively enabled or disabled based on a desired power level of the lidar system for a given time period, wherein the power level of the lidar system is based on a number of lasers concurrently enabled during the given time period ([0020] Because the two different sets of laser emitters are arranged to project laser light into different angular fields of view, and have different effective ranges, the LIDAR system may enable one or the other set of laser emitters based on a driving environment; [0028] For example, the laser emitters 122a-b may be driven by an amount of power that limits the range at which reflected laser light may be detected to approximately 300 meters in front of the vehicle; [0042] FIG. 3 shows an example computing device 300 suitable for controlling laser emitter components 106a-b, 108a-b, 208a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Roos to comprise the controller able to alternate the operating states of two lasers similar to Slobodyanyuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of efficiently alternating power requirements for the emitted beam by only using lasers as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 through 14 of the remarks, filed September 3rd, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art of record.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that neither Roos or Maleki teaches the system or method in which the lasers are independently controlled, as required by the amendments made outlining the system operating in such a way, the examiner accepts that such a new limitation is not taught by the combination of prior art, as it was not required under the language of the original claim limitations. However, the prior art of record in it total does teach the new claim limitation under the combination of Roos, Maleki, and Slobodyanyuk. Slobodyanyuk clearly teaches the system and method of operating the multiple lasers independently and with respective output frequencies. While not necessary to combine under the previous claim limitations, the new rejection seen above with accompanying statement for obviousness to combine teach the claim as currently presented. As such the rejection is maintained in this Final Office Action.
Regarding the Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection, the claims have not been amended in their current form in such a way to be sufficient to overcome the previous rejection, and as such the rejection is maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 8:00-5:00 PST.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights