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 .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 13 October 2025
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the objection to the claims.
Claims 1 and 23 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-26 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). On pages 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Shveykin’s disclosure is narrowly focused on the semiconductor heterostructure of an amplifying element or laser and does not disclose a LIDAR direct or coherent detection system. However, Shveykin used in combination with Villeneuve, would teach a LIDAR system with a multi-junction light source, specifically a multi-junction SOA. Furthermore, the abstract of Shveykin discloses that the semiconductor optical amplifier can be used for pumping solid-state and fiber lasers and amplifiers, which are well known devices used in LIDAR systems.
On page 10, the Applicant also argues that Shveykin does not address the technical challenges in using a multi-junction SOA in a coherent system. MPEP 2145 III states that "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." Thus, obviousness can be established without simply plugging in Shveykin’s SOA using “some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention” (MPEP 2143 I (G)).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the Remarks, filed 13 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the argument that the combination of Villeneuve and Shveykin do not teach a coherent LIDAR system. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Brown et al., US 20200186258 A1 in view of Shveykin, US 20090147812 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
All of the limitations of claim 16 are included in the amended claim 1, and claim 16 no longer further limits the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 17-19 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 10, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al., US 20200186258 A1 ("Brown") in view of Shveykin, US 20090147812 A1 ("Shveykin").
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a lidar system comprising: a multi-junction light source configured to emit an optical signal, the multi-junction light source comprising: a seed laser diode configured to produce a seed optical signal (Fig. 16A, laser 1600, Paragraph [0144]: seed laser); and a (Fig. 16A, laser 1600, Paragraph [0144]: light may be amplified by SOA); a receiver configured to detect a portion of the emitted optical signal scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system (Fig. 16A, receiver 1608, Paragraph [0144]); and a processor configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based on a round-trip time for the portion of the scattered optical signal to travel from the lidar system to the target and back to the lidar system (Fig. 2C, PCs 216, 218, Paragraph [0072]-[0073]; See also Paragraph [0027]-[0028], [0067]), wherein the seed laser diode is further configured to produce a local-oscillator (LO) optical signal that is coherent with the seed optical signal (Fig. 16A, LO 1604, Paragraph [0144]), and the receiver is a coherent receiver configured to combine the portion of the scattered optical signal with the LO optical signal and detect the combined signal to determine a time of flight (Fig. 16A, receiver 1608, LO 1604, RL 1610, Paragraph [0144]; See also Paragraph [0073).
Brown does not teach: a multi-junction semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA).
However, Shveykin teaches an SOA with a master laser optically coupled to a semiconductor amplifying element (SAE) (Fig. 10, laser 30, SAE 40, Paragraph [0128]). The SAE may have two active layers surrounded by p- and n-doped sublayers. The active layers are separated by a central adjusting layer (Fig. 4, two identical active layers 2, confining layers 10 and 11 and reflective layers 5 and 6, central adjusting layer 20, Paragraph [0107], Paragraph [0112], Paragraph [0126]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brown semiconductor optical amplifier by implementing the amplifying element with two active layers, which is disclosed by Shveykin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase output power by a factor proportional to the number of active layers, as suggested by Shveykin (Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the multi-junction SOA comprises: two or more SOA junctions (Shveykin, Fig. 4, two identical active layers 2, Paragraph [0112]), wherein each SOA junction comprises a semiconductor p-n junction comprising an active region configured to amplify a portion of the seed optical signal (Shveykin, Fig. 4, two identical active layers 2, confining layers 10 and 11 and reflective layers 5 and 6 were p-type or n-type sublayers, Paragraph [0107]); and one or more tunnel junctions, wherein one of the tunnel junctions is located between each pair of adjacent SOA junctions (Shveykin, Fig. 4, main central adjusting layer 20, Paragraph [0113] and [0120]: consists of p-type and n-type sublayers).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brown’s semiconductor optical amplifier by implementing the amplifying element with two active layers, which is disclosed by Shveykin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase output power by a factor proportional to the number of active layers, as suggested by Shveykin (Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein: the seed optical signal comprises N seed-optical-signal portions, wherein N is an integer greater than or equal to 2; the emitted optical signal comprises N amplified seed-optical-signal portions; and the multi-junction SOA comprises N SOA junctions, wherein each SOA junction is configured to amplify one of the seed-optical-signal portions to produce one of the amplified seed- optical-signal portions.
However, Shveykin teaches an SOA with a master laser optically coupled to a semiconductor amplifying element (SAE) (Fig. 10, laser 30, SAE 40, Paragraph [0128]). The master laser may have two active layers surrounded by p- and n-doped sublayers. The active layers are separated by a central adjusting layer (Fig. 8, laser 30, two identical active layers 2, confining layers 10 and 11 and reflective layers 5 and 6, central adjusting layer 20, Paragraph [0107], Paragraph [0112], Paragraph [0118]-[0119]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brown’s seed laser diode by implementing the laser diode with two active layers, which is disclosed by Shveykin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase output power by a factor proportional to the number of active layers, as suggested by Shveykin (Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 3, wherein the seed laser diode is a multi-junction laser diode comprising N laser junctions (Shveykin, Fig. 8, laser 30, two identical active layers 2, Paragraph [0118]-[0119]), wherein each laser junction is configured to produce one of the N seed-optical-signal portions (Shveykin, Fig. 8, laser 30, two identical active layers 2, Paragraph [0118]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 16, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the lidar system is a coherent pulsed lidar system (Brown, Fig. 16A, Paragraph [0144]), wherein: the emitted optical signal comprises pulses of light, and the seed laser diode is further configured to produce local-oscillator light, wherein each emitted pulse of light is coherent with a corresponding portion of the local-oscillator light (Brown, Fig. 16A, laser 1600, LO 1604, Paragraph [0144]); the portion of the scattered optical signal comprises a received pulse of light comprising a portion of one of the emitted pulses scattered by the target (Brown, Fig. 16A, RL 1610, Paragraph [0144]); and detecting the portion of the scattered optical signal comprises coherently mixing the received pulse of light and the local-oscillator light (Brown, Fig. 16A, LO 1604, RL 1610, BS 1606, Paragraph [0144]).
Regarding claim 18, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 16, wherein the receiver comprises one or more detectors (Brown, Fig. 2C, detector element 214, Paragraph [0070]), each detector configured to produce a photocurrent signal corresponding to the coherent mixing of the received pulse of light and the local-oscillator light (Brown, Fig. 16A, LO 1604, RL 1610, BS 1606, Paragraph [0144]), wherein each photocurrent signal includes a coherent-mixing term that is proportional to a product of (i) an amplitude of an electric field of the received pulse of light and (ii) an amplitude of an electric field of the local-oscillator light (Brown, Paragraph [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 19, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 18, wherein the coherent-mixing term of the photocurrent signal is proportional to ERX(t) ELo(t) -Cos[(wRx-wLO)t + ΦRx(t) - ΦLO(t)], wherein: ERX(t) represents the amplitude of the electric field of the received pulse of light; ELo(t) represents the amplitude of the electric field of the local-oscillator light; wRx represents a frequency of the electric field of the received pulse of light; wLO represents a frequency of the electric field of the local-oscillator light; ΦRx(t) represents a phase of the electric field of the received pulse of light; and ΦLO(t) represents a phase of the electric field of the local-oscillator light (Brown, Paragraph [0079]-[0080]).
Claims 4-7, 9, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, in further view of Villeneuve et al., US 20170155225 A1 ("Villeneuve '225").
Regarding claim 4, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 3.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source further comprises an optical combiner configured to (i) receive the N amplified seed-optical-signal portions from the N SOA junctions and (ii) combine the N amplified seed-optical-signal portions to produce the emitted optical signal.
However, Villeneuve '225 teaches a multiplexer that is configured to combine light produced from by multiple laser diodes into a single output (Fig. 11, multiplexer 412, Paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode and SOA with multiple active layers, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Villeneuve '225’s multiplexer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result of a single output from the laser.
Regarding claim 5, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 3, wherein: the seed laser diode is a single-junction laser diode (Brown, Fig. 16A, laser 1600, Paragraph [0144]: seed laser).
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: and the multi-junction light source further comprises an optical coupler disposed between the seed laser diode and the multi-junction SOA, wherein the optical coupler is configured to (i) split the seed optical signal into the N seed-optical-signal portions and (ii) couple each of the seed- optical-signal portions into a respective SOA junction of the multi-junction SOA.
However, Villeneuve '225 teaches a 1 x N optical demultiplexer that receives seed laser pulses and distributes the seed laser pulses between N optical links (Fig. 28, demultiplexer 410, Paragraph [0177]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode and SOA with multiple active layers, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Villeneuve '225’s demultiplexer placed in between the seed laser diode and SOA. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result optically linking the seed laser diode and SOA.
Regarding claim 6, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225, discloses the lidar system of Claim 5.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225 does not teach: wherein the optical coupler comprises a diffractive optical element configured to split the seed optical signal into the N seed-optical-signal portions.
However, Villeneuve '225 teaches that the demultiplexer may include a wavelength demultiplexer that may perform wavelength splitting through a diffraction grating (Fig. 28, demultiplexer 410, Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode and SOA with multiple active layers, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Villeneuve '225’s demultiplexer implemented as a diffraction grating placed in between the seed laser diode and SOA. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result optically linking the seed laser diode and SOA.
Regarding claim 7, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225, discloses the lidar system of Claim 5.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225 does not teach: wherein the optical coupler comprises an optical-waveguide splitter configured to split the seed optical signal into the N seed-optical-signal portions.
However, Villeneuve '225 teaches that the demultiplexer may include a 1xN fiber-optic power splitter that may be fabricated on an optical waveguide (Fig. 28, demultiplexer 410, Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode and SOA with multiple active layers, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Villeneuve '225’s optical power-splitter on a waveguide placed in between the seed laser diode and SOA. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result optically linking the seed laser diode and SOA.
Regarding claim 9, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225, discloses the lidar system of Claim 5.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225 does not teach: wherein the optical coupler comprises an optical isolator configured to (i) transmit the seed optical signal to the multi-junction SOA and (ii) reduce an amount of light that propagates from the multi-junction SOA toward the seed laser diode.
However, Villeneuve '225 teaches that a coupler and isolator may be coupled together by a fiber-optic cable (Fig. 16, coupler 600A, isolator 620A, Paragraph [0132]). Villeneuve '225 also teaches that an optical isolator reduces the amount of back-reflected light (Paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode and SOA with multiple active layers, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Villeneuve '225’s demultiplexer combined with an isolator placed in between the seed laser diode and SOA. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result optically linking the seed laser diode and SOA.
Regarding claim 26, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein: the emitted optical signal comprises a pulse of light; the portion of the scattered optical signal comprises a received pulse of light comprising a portion of the emitted pulse of light scattered by the target; the receiver comprises one or more detectors, each detector configured to produce a pulse of electrical current corresponding to the received pulse of light; and the receiver further comprises: an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the pulse of electrical current to produce a voltage pulse that corresponds to the pulse of electrical current; one or more comparators, wherein each comparator is configured to produce an electrical-edge signal when the voltage pulse rises above or falls below a particular threshold voltage; and one or more time-to-digital converters (TDCs), wherein each TDC is coupled to one of the comparators and is configured to produce a time value corresponding to a time when the electrical-edge signal was received by the TDC, wherein the round-trip time is determined based at least in part on one or more time values produced by one or more of the TDCs.
However, Villeneuve '225 teaches an APD coupled to a pulse detection circuit that includes a transimpedance amplifier (TIA), a gain circuit, a comparator, and a time-to-digital converter (TDC) (Fig. 38, APD 760, pulse-detection circuit 780, TIA 782, gain 784, comparator 786, TDC 788, Paragraph [0211]-[0214]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lidar system’s receiver, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, by adding Villeneuve '225’s pulse-detection circuit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine a time associated with receipt of an optical pulse by APD, as suggested by Villeneuve '225 (Paragraph [0211]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225, in further view of Meyer et al., US 20140022628 A1 ("Meyer").
Regarding claim 8, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225 discloses the lidar system of Claim 5.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '225 does not teach: wherein the optical coupler comprises one or more lenses configured to focus each of the seed-optical-signal portions into the respective SOA junction.
However, Meyer teaches an optical splitter device that splits input light into the different active units of an SOA. The optical splitter device may be a lens system with a diverging lens (Fig. 2, optical splitter devices 34, lens system 38 with a diverging lens 40, Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode and SOA with multiple active layers, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Meyer’s optical splitter device placed in between the seed laser diode and SOA. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result optically linking the seed laser diode and SOA.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, in further view of Heberle et al., US 20210083458 A1 ("Heberle").
Regarding claim 11, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 10.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the seed laser diode further comprises a grating disposed within or near one of the laser junctions, wherein the grating is configured to stabilize a wavelength of the seed-optical-signal portion produced by the one laser junction.
However, Heberle teaches an output coupling grating that is formed on the semiconductor substrate. The output coupling grating helps guide light into and out of a waveguide. (Fig. 1, output coupling grating 114, Paragraph [0016]-[0017])
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seed laser diode, disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, with Heberle’s output coupling grating layer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these two known elements to yield the predictable result of directing seed laser light based on wavelength.
Claims 12-15, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, in further view of Villeneuve et al., US 20190221988 A1 ("Villeneuve '988")
Regarding claim 12, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source further comprises an output lens configured to collimate the emitted optical signal.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches a pre-amplifier assembly that includes a seed laser diode, an SOA, and an output lens to collimate amplified light produced by the SOA. (Fig. 15, Paragraph [0202]: output lens, which may be similar to lens 820 in FIG. 18).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding an output lens after the SOA, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect, collimate, or focus the amplified light produced by the SOA”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0202]).
Regarding claim 13, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source further comprises a fiber-optic amplifier configured to receive the emitted optical signal from the multi-junction SOA and further amplify the emitted optical signal.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches a booster-amplifier assembly where the input beam from an SOA is coupled into a gain fiber. (Fig. 18, booster amplify assembly 800, SOA produces input beam 814 combines with might from pump laser diode 830 into gain fiber 860, Paragraph [0203]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding booster amplifier with a gain fiber, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “allow for the optimization of beam parameters”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0188]).
Regarding claim 14, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the light source of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction SOA comprises one or more tapered optical waveguides, each tapered optical waveguide extending from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein a width of the tapered optical waveguide increases from the input end to the output end.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches an SOA where the waveguide of a SOA may be tilted or angled with respect to the front or back facet (Villeneuve '988, Paragraph [0200]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SOA disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding a tapered waveguide to the SOA, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “further reduce the reflectivity of light at the facets”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0200]).
Regarding claim 15, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction SOA comprises an output end configured to emit the optical signal, wherein the output end comprises an anti-reflection coating configured to reduce a reflectivity of the output end at a wavelength of the emitted optical signal.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches an SOA that may include an AR coating on the front or back facet. (Villeneuve '988, Paragraph [0200]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SOA disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding an AR coating on one of the facets, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “reduce the reflectivity of the facet”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0200]).
Regarding claim 21, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the lidar system is a pulsed lidar system, wherein the emitted optical signal comprises pulses of light with optical characteristics comprising: a wavelength between 900 nanometers and 2000 nanometers; a pulse energy between 0.01 uJ and 100 uJ; a pulse repetition frequency between 80 kHz and 10 MHz; and a pulse duration between 1 ns and 100 ns.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches an output beam with the following characteristics: “a wavelength between approximately 1400 nm and approximately 1600 nm; a pulse duration less than or equal to 100 nanoseconds; a duty cycle less than or equal to 10%; a pulse energy greater than or equal to 100 nanojoules; and a peak power greater than or equal to 100 watts.” (Villeneuve ‘988, Paragraph [0195]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser transmitter disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by outputting a beam with the characteristics disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve performance, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 22, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '988, discloses the lidar system of Claim 21.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '988, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source further comprises an electronic driver configured to: supply a substantially constant electrical current to the seed laser diode so that the seed optical signal comprises light having a substantially constant optical power; and supply pulses of electrical current to the multi-junction SOA, wherein each pulse of current causes the multi-junction SOA to amplify a temporal portion of the seed optical signal to produce one of the emitted pulses of light.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches an electronic seed-laser driver configured to supply electrical current to a seed laser diode such that the seed laser produces light with a substantially constant output power (Villeneuve '988, Fig. 15, seed-laser driver 718, seed laser diode 710, Paragraph [0150], [0201]). Villeneuve '988 also teaches supplying current to the SOA to amplify optical pulses at the output of the SOA (Villeneuve '988, Paragraph [0199], Paragraph [0201]-[0202]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding driver to supply current to the seed laser and SOA, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “produce amplified optical pulses at the output of the SOA”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 23, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '988, discloses the lidar system of Claim 21.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Villeneuve '988, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source further comprises an electronic driver configured to: supply pulses of electrical current to the seed laser diode so that the seed optical signal comprises seed pulses of light; and supply pulses of electrical current to the multi-junction SOA, wherein: the pulses of current supplied to the SOA are supplied synchronously with the pulses of current supplied to the seed laser diode; and each pulse of current supplied to the SOA causes the SOA to amplify one of the seed pulses of light to produce one of the emitted pulses of light.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches an electronic seed-laser driver configured to supply electrical current to a seed laser diode with current pulses (Villeneuve '988, Fig. 15, seed-laser driver 718, seed laser diode 710, Paragraph [0150], [0201]). Villeneuve '988 also teaches supplying current to the SOA to match the pulse repetition frequency of the seed laser to amplify optical pulses at the output of the SOA (Villeneuve '988, Paragraph [0199], Paragraph [0201]-[0202]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding driver to supply current to the seed laser and SOA, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “produce amplified optical pulses at the output of the SOA”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 25, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source is configured as a four-terminal device comprising: a seed laser anode and a SOA anode, wherein the seed laser anode and the SOA anode are electrically isolated from one another; and a seed laser cathode and a SOA cathode, wherein the seed laser cathode and the SOA cathode are electrically isolated from one another.
However, Villeneuve '988 teaches a seed laser diode and an SOA where the SOA may include DC or pulsed current and the seed laser diode has its own seed-laser driver. Having separate drivers electrically isolates the seed laser from the SOA (Villeneuve '988, Fig. 15, Paragraph [0201]-[0202]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter disclosed by Brown and Shveykin by adding drivers to supply current to the seed laser and SOA, which is disclosed by Villeneuve '988. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “produce amplified optical pulses at the output of the SOA”, as suggested by Villeneuve '988 (Paragraph [0201]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, in further view of Chen et al., US 20170288370 A1 ("Chen").
Regarding claim 17, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, discloses the lidar system of Claim 16, wherein the multi-junction SOA comprises a plurality of SOA junctions (Shveykin, Fig. 4, two identical active layers 2, Paragraph [0112]), wherein each emitted pulse of light comprises pulses of light emitted from each of the SOA junctions (Shveykin, Fig. 4, two identical active layers 2, Paragraph [0112], Fig. 10, laser 30, SAE 40, Paragraph [0128]).
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin and Bamji does not teach: wherein the pulses of light emitted from the SOA junctions are coherent with one another.
However, Chen teaches a coherent multi-junction laser diode with two active regions separated by a tunnel junction (Fig. 6, first active region 610 and a second active region 630, Paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SOA disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, by coherently coupling the laser junctions, which is disclosed by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase fast axis brightness as well as suppress the performance penalty at the tunnel junctions, as suggested by Chen (Paragraph [0004]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, in further view of Drummer et al., US 10340651 B1 ("Drummer").
Regarding claim 20, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin does not teach: wherein the lidar system is a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) lidar system, wherein: the emitted optical signal comprises a frequency-modulated (FM) output-light signal; the multi-junction light source is further configured to emit a FM local-oscillator optical signal that is coherent with the FM output-light signal; and detecting the portion of the scattered optical signal comprises mixing the portion of the scattered optical signal with the FM local-oscillator optical signal to produce a beat signal, wherein the distance to the target is determined based on a frequency of the beat signal.
However, Drummer teaches a lidar system that may be configured as a FMCW lidar system. The light source may emit a CW or FM light waveform and determine the distance to a target through mixing the received light with a portion of the emitted light and determining the resulting beat frequency (Col. 12 lines 17-54).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lidar system disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, by implementing the known technique of emitting FMCW light and determining the distance to a target from the frequency difference of the mixed emitted and scattered light, which is disclosed by Drummer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known lidar technique to the lidar system disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, and yielded predictable results.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, in further view of Fisher, US 20040042069 A1 ("Fisher").
Regarding claim 24, Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin discloses the lidar system of Claim 1.
Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin does not teach: wherein the multi-junction light source is configured as a three-terminal device, wherein (i) the light source comprises a common anode, wherein an anode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to an anode of the multi-junction SOA or (ii) the light source comprises a common cathode, wherein a cathode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to a cathode of the multi-junction SOA.
However, Fisher teaches a laser and SOA that are electrically coupled in parallel. The anode of the laser is coupled to the anode of the SOA (Fig. 1B, laser 106, SOA 118, anode contacts 108 and 120, bond 130, Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed laser diode and SOA disclosed by Brown, as modified in view of Shveykin, by placing the laser and SOA in series electrically, which is disclosed by Fisher. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the voltage requirements of the supply, as suggested by Fisher (Paragraph [0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skirlo et al., US 20170371227 A1 discloses a LIDAR chip that includes a seed laser and an SOA. The seed laser produces a local oscillator signal.
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645