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 .
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, 3-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US20190310375A1) in view of Watanabe (US20170012407A1).
Regarding claim 1, Finkelstein discloses a three-dimensional sensing system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100; ¶¶ 2, 39, 41) comprising:
a [1: …] laser array in which a plurality of [2: …] laser elements are arranged on a plane (Fig. 1, emitter array 115 including emitters 115e, as further exampled in Fig. 3, emitter array 315 including optical emitter elements 315e; ¶¶ 39, 54-55);
a control unit configured to control an operation mode of a laser light source (Fig. 1, control circuit 105 as further detailed in Fig. 2, control circuit 205; ¶¶ 47, 50);
a driving unit configured to execute a drive control of the photonic crystal laser array in accordance with the operation mode controlled by the control unit (Fig. 1, driver circuit 116; ¶¶ 39-40, 50, 57);
a light receiving unit configured to receive reflected light that is laser light emitted from the photonic crystal laser array reflected from a measuring object (Fig. 1, detector array 110, detectors 110d, target 150; ¶ 41);
a signal processing unit configured to execute signal processing of the reflected light received by the light receiving unit in accordance with the operation mode (Fig. 1, control circuit 105; ¶¶ 41-43);
a distance calculation unit configured to execute calculation processing of a distance to the measuring object with respect to a signal processed by the signal processing unit, in accordance with the operation mode, and to output a calculation result as distance data (Fig. 1, control circuit 105 / pixel processor; ¶¶ 41-43, control circuit 105 may include “a pixel processor that measures the time of flight” from emitter array 115 to target 150 and back to detector array 110 and “calculates the distance to the target 150”); and [3: …], [4: …].
Finkelstein does not disclose:
(1) “photonic crystal” [laser array in which a plurality of photonic crystal laser elements are arranged on a plane]; and,
(2) “photonic crystal” [laser element]; and,
(3) “a photo diode configured to detect a feedback laser light”; and,
(4) “wherein the driving unit detects a variation in light intensity in the photonic crystal laser array on the basis of the feedback laser light, and executes the drive control so that an injection current is changed for each photonic crystal laser element of the photonic crystal laser array.”
However, Watanabe teaches limitation (2) in Fig. 1, surface emitting laser element 1; ¶ 26, “surface emitting laser element 1 is a … photonic crystal surface emitting laser (PCSEL)”; and teaches (3) in Fig. 10, monitoring light detection element 101d; ¶ 51, “monitoring light detection element 101d is a photodiode”; ¶¶ 49 & 66, photodiode detects peak light intensity of sub-beam L2 for monitoring main-beam L1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser array of Finkelstein by implementing each emitter 115e/315e as Watanabe’s PCSEL element with associated photodiode feedback and current control circuitry in order to improve beam directionality and output stability (Watanabe, ¶¶ 5, 49, 53, 66-68), thereby predictably improving measurement consistency and reliability for the sensing system.
Finkelstein in view of Watanabe further teaches limitation (1), where the planar laser array of emitters 115e/315e of Finkelstein (¶¶ 39, 54-55) as modified by Watanabe’s PCSEL element (Fig. 1; ¶ 26) naturally yields a PCSEL laser array in which a plurality of photonic crystal laser elements are arranged on a plane.
Furthermore, the combination of Finkelstein in view of Watanabe further teaches limitation (4). Specifically, Watanabe teaches that the PCSEL sub-beam L2 provides feedback light correlated with main-beam intensity, and that driving current is controlled based on the photodiode light intensity signal (¶¶ 49, 53, 68). Finkelstein teaches per-emitter drive control, including respective driver circuits and applying different current levels to individual emitter elements (¶¶ 40, 57). Accordingly, the application of Watanabe’s PCSEL and photodiode feedback arrangement applied to Finkelstein’s emitter element, as previously combined, yields a system which detects light intensity variation of the PCSEL array based on feedback laser light and adjusts the injection current supplied to each PCSEL element. Therefore, Finkelstein as modified by Watanabe teaches each limitation of claim 1 and renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Finkelstein in view of Watanabe teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the light receiving unit comprises an imaging lens and an image sensor (Finkelstein, Fig. 1, lens 112 and detector array 110; ¶ 41), wherein the distance calculation unit calculates the distance to the measuring object on the basis of a light receiving position on an imaging surface of the image sensor and a time from light emission to light reception of the laser light emitted from the photonic crystal laser array, in accordance with the operation mode controlled by the control unit (Finkelstein, Fig. 1, control circuit 105 / pixel processor; ¶ 42, detector array outputs photon arrival time signals and the pixel processor “measures the time of flight” and “calculates the distance to the target 150”; ¶¶ 49, 54-55, spatial correlations between emitter positions, detector positions, and FOV regions; Watanabe supplies the PCSEL laser source as applied in claim 1), and outputs a calculation result is as distance data (Finkelstein, ¶¶ 41-42, distance calculation and “3-D point cloud representation 170”).
Regarding claim 4, Finkelstein in view of Watanabe teaches the system of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the operation mode comprises a LiDAR operation mode (Finkelstein, ¶¶ 2, 39, 42, LIDAR system and ToF distance calculation), a flash LiDAR operation mode (Finkelstein, ¶¶ 3, 36, 39, flash LIDAR using emitter array to illuminate a field of view), and a light-section method operation mode (Finkelstein, ¶ 36, non-flash/scanning LIDAR may use “a point scan or line scan”; ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 7, Finkelstein in view of Watanabe teaches the system of claim 4, and further teaches: when the operation mode is the flash LiDAR operation mode, the driving unit executes the drive control of the photonic crystal laser array so that the laser light is simultaneously emitted to a specific region from a plurality of elements of the photonic crystal laser array (Finkelstein, Fig. 1, emitter array 115 and driver circuit 116; ¶ 45, “multiple or all of the emitters 115e are activated simultaneously”; ¶¶ 60-63, flash LIDAR emitter subsets illuminate corresponding FOV regions; Watanabe supplies PCSEL emitters as applied in claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Finkelstein in view of Watanabe teaches the system of claim 7, and further teaches: wherein the distance calculation unit measures the time from the emission to the light reception in each pixel of the image sensor, when the reflected light is detected (Finkelstein, Fig. 1, detector array 110 and control circuit 105; ¶ 42, detector array outputs photon-arrival-time signals and the pixel processor measures ToF; ¶ 43, each detector element 110d connected to timing circuit 106).
Regarding claim 9, Finkelstein in view of Watanabe teaches the system of claim 4, and further teaches: wherein when the operation mode is the light-section method operation mode (Finkelstein, ¶ 36, non-flash/scanning LIDAR may use “a point scan or line scan”), the driving unit executes the drive control of the photonic crystal laser array so as to irradiate the measuring object with stripe-shaped laser light generated by the photonic crystal laser array (Finkelstein, Fig. 3, 302; Watanabe supplies PCSEL emitters as applied in claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Finkelstein in view of Watanabe teaches the system of claim 9, and further teaches: wherein the distance calculation unit when the reflected light is detected, obtains a reflected light image as an imaging pattern, executes triangular ranging with the imaging pattern (Finkelstein, Fig. 4, 402; Fig. 7), calculates the distance to the measuring object, and obtains three-dimensional distance data for one line of the stripe-shaped light (Finkelstein, ¶ 42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11, 13, 15 and 17-18 are allowed.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Claims 2, 5-6 and 12-13 was previously objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the features of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Amended claim 5, now independent, recites all the features of previous dependent claim 5, intervening claims 3-4, and base claim 1, and is therefore allowed.
Amended independent claim 11 recites all the features of previous dependent claim 12, and is therefore allowed.
Claims 6, 13, 15 and 17-18 are allowed by virtue of dependency.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for the same reasons set forth in the Office action dated September 17, 2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Kushimoto (JP6789541B2) which discloses a laser radar device employing a laser device with a photonic crystal structure, a drive circuit that selectively drives a two-dimensional scan, photodiodes that receive reflected light from an object, and processing blocks that calculate object direction and distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights