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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that prior art references Hosseini (US 2018/0306925 A1), Efimov (US 2018/0210068 A1), and Steinberg (US 2019/0227175 A1) are not combinable due to their different structures, specifically their different architectures to effectuate signal mixing for beat generation and their different structures vis-à-vis the planar and integrated structure of Hosseini. The examiner notes 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." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.");
Thus there is no requirement that the TX/RX systems of Hosseini and Efimov or the detection system of Steinberg be physically integrable with each other. It is sufficient that the teachings of Efimov and Steinberg would have suggested the claimed limitations to a worker already familiar with the work of Hosseini. The examiner notes here that the instant application does not claim specific structure that would conflict with any of the cited prior art references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2018/0306925 A1) in view of Efimov (2018/0210068 A1) and further in view of Steinberg (US 2019/0227175 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hosseini discloses a LIDAR system (Abstract) comprising at least one laser source (Figure 2B, the tunable diode laser and a waveguide; [0038]: “the present disclosure advantageously employ more than one laser”) and an optical detection system for detecting radiation emitted by the laser source and reflected by a scene to be observed ([0049]: “Of further advantage, with such an active chip, LiDAR receivers, for example made from germanium photodetectors, can also be fabricated on-chip and a common (same) phased array may be used as a receiving aperture.”), wherein:
the laser source is designed to emit simultaneously at n>1 separate wavelengths λi, where i is taken from [1,n] ([0054]: “Note that at each moment in time, the phased array emits each wavelength in one direction in space”);
the LIDAR system also comprises a diffractive optical component configured to direct the radiation emitted by the laser source to the scene to be observed in a different direction for each said wavelength ([0039]: “a multi-wavelength input signal generated from the output of several independent lasers (not specifically shown) is split into scan lines by the grating.”) in a simultaneous manner ([0054]: “Note that at each moment in time, the phased array emits each wavelength in one direction in space”), said directions being located in a same plane xz (Grating devices such as the one shown in Figure 2B typically separate input light into a planar fan of subcomponents based on the wavelength, Figure 3B shows the angle dependence as a function of wavelength) ; and
the optical detection system comprises a plurality of photodiodes arranged so as to be illuminated by the radiation reflected by the scene to be observed ([0049]: “Of further advantage, with such an active chip, LiDAR receivers, for example made from germanium photodetectors, can also be fabricated on-chip).
Hosseini does not teach and Efimov does teach an optical system, which is configured to direct laser radiation ([0035]: “Here, the frequencies ν1 and ν2 of laser radiation vary linearly with time by current modulation of a laser 10, which may be a semiconductor laser”), emitted by said laser source and having a wavelength λ0 (equivalent to Efimov’s v1m) which is different from said n wavelengths λi,(equivalent to Efimov’s v2m) to the plurality of photodiodes, such that the one or more photodiodes generate a signal comprising the beats of the wavelengths of the radiation reflected by the scene to be observed with the radiation having the wavelength λ0 ([0035] discloses that v1m couples to and passes through the bandpass filter 18 to the photodetector (PD), and that v2m does not couple and instead illuminates the target; [0036] discloses that the received light passes to the photodetector where it mixes with v1m and produces a beat frequency).
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 LiDAR device of Hosseini with the teaching of Efimov to split a reference wavelength from the laser source and direct it towards the photodiode. Efimov notes in [0024] that “an advantage of this method is that by using two frequencies from the same laser for FMCW lidar, an unambiguous measurement of velocity may be obtained because of the real frequency shift from 0 Hz of the beat frequency at the photodetector (PD)”.
Hosseini in view of Efimov does not teach and Steinberg does teach wherein the optical detection system comprises a plurality of photodiodes (Figure 2E, element 116, is a sensor array; [0084], Figure 4C, the sensor array may be a 2D array of detectors) arranged along an axis y not parallel to the plane xz (In the arrangement of Figure 2E, each column sensors is arranged along an axis not parallel to the emission plane) and a convergent lens designed to associate with each of the photodiodes the light rays coming from the scene to be observed (Figure 2E, element 124B, [0069]: “The light reflected from the object may be captured by second optical window 124B and may be redirected to sensor 116.” Thus 124B is acting as a lens and directing light to the sensor array) and which form with the y-axis an angle comprised in a determined range, which is different for each photodiode (It is a necessary condition of this configuration that light rays from the target scene will have different angles for each photodiode).
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 LiDAR system of Hosseini in view of Efimov with the teaching of Steinberg to use a receiver system with a plurality of detectors not parallel to the emission plane xz. Steinberg notes in [0090] that the signal-to-noise ratio may depend on the number of detector elements in the sensor, so that a worker trying to increase the SNR of a LiDAR system would consider implementing a larger sensor array with more individual elements.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Hosseini does not teach and Efimov further teaches wherein the laser system is designed to emit at the wavelength λ0, said LIDAR system comprising an interference filter ([0035]: “The narrow bandpass filter 18 may be an optical microresonator, a microring resonator, a plurality of mutually coupled ring resonators, or a plurality of coupling microresonators.” Each of these options utilizes the optical principle of interference to operate) designed to select and spatially separate radiation having the wavelength λ0 from the laser radiation emitted by the laser system ([0035] discloses that v1m couples to and passes through the bandpass filter 18 to the photodetector (PD), and that v2m does not couple and instead illuminates the target; [0036] discloses that the received light passes to the photodetector where it mixes with v1m and produces a beat frequency).
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 LiDAR device of Hosseini with the teaching of Efimov to split a reference wavelength from the laser source and direct it towards the photodiode. Efimov notes in [0024] that “an advantage of this method is that by using two frequencies from the same laser for FMCW lidar, an unambiguous measurement of velocity may be obtained because of the real frequency shift from 0 Hz of the beat frequency at the photodetector (PD)”.
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Hosseini further discloses that the LiDAR system comprises a means for processing the one or more signals generated by the one or more photodiodes ([0007], Claims 1, 2, and 6), designed to determine at least one parameter among the radial velocity, the distance, and the position of at least one reflecting object present in the scene to be observed. ([0040]: “These signals are subsequently processed such that an angle, and potentially distance, to the object from which light is backscattered.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Hosseini discloses a method for using a LIDAR system (Abstract) comprising a laser system (Figure 2B, the tunable diode laser and a waveguide; [0038]: “the present disclosure advantageously employ more than one laser”), a diffractive optical component ([0039]: “a multi-wavelength input signal generated from the output of several independent lasers (not specifically shown) is split into scan lines by the grating.”), and an optical detection system comprising a plurality of photodiodes arranged so as to be illuminated by the radiation reflected by the scene to be observed ([0049]: “Of further advantage, with such an active chip, LiDAR receivers, for example made from germanium photodetectors, can also be fabricated on-chip and a common (same) phased array may be used as a receiving aperture.”), said method comprising the following steps:
a. emitting, simultaneously, radiation at least n>1 separate wavelengths λi, where i is taken from [1,n] by the laser system ([0054]: “Note that at each moment in time, the phased array emits each wavelength in one direction in space”);
b. diffracting, by the diffractive element, the radiation emitted by the laser source to the scene to be observed in a different direction for each said wavelength in a simultaneous manner ([0054]: “Note that at each moment in time, the phased array emits each wavelength in one direction in space”), said directions being located in a same plane xz (Grating devices such as the one shown in Figure 2B typically separate input light into a planar fan of subcomponents based on the wavelength, Figure 3B shows the angle dependence as a function of wavelength);
Hosseini does not teach and Efimov does teach wherein the method also comprises the following steps:
c. illuminating, by means of an optical system of the optical detection system, the one or more photodiodes with laser radiation emitted by said laser source and having a wavelength λ0 (equivalent to v1m) different from said n wavelengths λi (equivalent to v2m) ([0035]: “Here, the frequencies ν1 and ν2 of laser radiation vary linearly with time by current modulation of a laser 10, which may be a semiconductor laser”; ([0035] discloses that v1m couples to and passes through the bandpass filter 18 to the photodetector (PD)); and
d. generating, by the one or more photodiodes, a signal comprising the beats of the wavelengths of the radiation reflected by the scene to be observed with the radiation having the wavelength λ0 ([0035] discloses that v1m couples to and passes through the bandpass filter 18 to the photodetector (PD), and that v2m does not couple and instead illuminates the target; [0036] discloses that the received light passes to the photodetector where it mixes with v1m and produces a beat frequency).
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 LiDAR device of Hosseini with the teaching of Efimov to split a reference wavelength from the laser source and direct it towards the photodiode. Efimov notes in [0024] that “an advantage of this method is that by using two frequencies from the same laser for FMCW lidar, an unambiguous measurement of velocity may be obtained because of the real frequency shift from 0 Hz of the beat frequency at the photodetector (PD)”.
Hosseini in view of Efimov does not teach and Steinberg does teach wherein the optical detection system comprises a plurality of photodiodes (Figure 2E, element 116, is a sensor array; [0084], Figure 4C, the sensor array may be a 2D array of detectors) arranged along an axis y not parallel to the plane xz (In the arrangement of Figure 2E, each column sensors is arranged along an axis not parallel to the emission plane) and a convergent lens designed to associate with each of the photodiodes the light rays coming from the scene to be observed (Figure 2E, element 124B, [0069]: “The light reflected from the object may be captured by second optical window 124B and may be redirected to sensor 116.” Thus 124B is acting as a lens and directing light to the sensor array) and which form with the y-axis an angle comprised in a determined range, which is different for each photodiode (It is a necessary condition of this configuration that light rays from the target scene will have different angles for each photodiode).
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 LiDAR system of Hosseini in view of Efimov with the teaching of Steinberg to use a receiver system with a plurality of detectors not parallel to the emission plane xz. Steinberg notes in [0090] that the signal-to-noise ratio may depend on the number of detector elements in the sensor, so that a worker trying to increase the SNR of a LiDAR system would consider implementing a larger sensor array with more individual elements.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazed (US 11,320,588 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 1 above, Hosseini further discloses wherein the diffractive optical component is an integrated optical circuit comprising waveguides opening out on output faces of the integrated optical circuit ([0053], the grating waveguides are integrated into the overall optical circuit);
Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg does not teach and Mazed does teach divergent lenses at the output faces (Figure 3U3 and Column 27, Para 2 show and describe a diverging lens on the output face of the circulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a diverging lens on the output. A worker skilled in the optical arts would be aware of the effects of a diverging lens, which could easily be characterized with well-known mathematical methods and commercially available software. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find their inclusion in such a device to have predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Weidmann (US 2015/0014543 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg does not teach and Weidmann does teach wherein the system further comprises an optical component configured to wavelength-shift a spectral component of the laser radiation to obtain λ0 ([0008], [0039], Figure 1; The acousto-optical modulator provides a frequency shift to the reference component, which goes directly to the detector and not to the target).
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 LiDAR device of Hosseini in view of Efimov with the teaching of Weidmann to use a frequency shifting component to generate a reference beam. Weidmann notes in [0090] that “AOM frequency shifting ensures efficient cancellation of any laser frequency drifts without the need of an experimentally complex frequency stabilisation scheme,” so the inclusion of such a component can therefore simplify the overall design.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao (US 2022/0050187 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1 above, Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg does not teach and Yao does teach wherein the laser system is a pulse mode-locked laser ([0106]: “In some implementations, a mode-locked laser is used to generate laser pulses with the frequency comb at the different WDM wavelengths”).
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 LiDAR apparatus of Hosseini in view of Efimov with the teaching of Yao to use a pulse mode-locked laser. Yao notes in [0106] that “a multi-wavelength laser or a frequency comb, such as a mode-locked laser is used to replace the multiple lasers used in FIG. 2A.” Fewer components in an integrated optical circuit can often result in lower cost and smaller package size.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner (US 2020/0225332 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg does not teach and Wagner does teach wherein the laser system is a continuous wave laser with a fixed phase relationship between the n wavelengths generated by the laser system ([0016]), further comprising means designed to perform frequency modulation of the n separate wavelengths ([0087]: “Each tile can beam steer on its own to different angles (indicated by the beam-steered array functions emerging from some of the tiles in the array) or can be driven simultaneously by light at multiple wavelengths to produce multiple beam-steered beams simultaneously.”), said modulation being less than 1GHz, preferably less than 100MHz, preferably less than 10MHz ([0094]: “4 GHz modulated pulses”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wagner into the LiDAR device of Hosseini in view of Efimov. A worker skilled in the LiDAR arts would be aware that larger frequency modulation would result in more accurate retrievals of position, radial velocity, etc., largely through more precise retrievals of resultant beat frequencies.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sampson (US 11,668,803 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg does not teach and Sampson does teach wherein the one or more photodiodes have a spectral bandwidth greater than 8GHz, preferably 10GHz, and more preferably 12 GHz (Column 13, Para 3 discloses that the detector 118 may have a bandwidth as high as 50 GHz).
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 LiDAR device of Hosseini in view of Efimov with the high bandwidth detectors of Sampson. A worker skilled in the LiDAR and radar arts would know that increasing the spectral bandwidth of a detector would effectively result in more precise retrievals of distance and radial velocity, and would thus find the inclusion of a higher performance device to have predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini in view of Efimov and further in view of Steinberg as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Henderson (US 5,237,331 A).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 10, Henderson teaches a step of determining the radial velocity (Column 1, Para 1) and the position of at least one reflecting object present in the scene to be observed (Abstract, Column 2 Para 2) by means for processing the one or more signals generated by the one or more photodiodes (Column 9, Para 1).
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 LiDAR of Hosseini in view of Efimov with the teaching of Henderson to have the device measure radial velocity and position. Henderson notes in Column 9, Paragraph 2 that repeated measurements of position and radial velocity can be acquired. Such measurements can be used for the tracking of an object in space and time more effectively than just using velocity and distance since an absolute location is known.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boehmke (US 10,281,923 B2) discloses a LiDAR system emitting a planar beam further comprising a detector array with a plurality of detector elements which are not parallel with the planar beam.
Schmalenberg (US 2020/0249350 A1) discloses a LiDAR sensor for instantaneous scanning at multiple wavelengths.
Baloorian (US 2020/0333443 A1) discloses a LiDAR system which concurrently outputs multiple signals that concurrently illuminate a sample region.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights