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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 11/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that having a control circuit that is connected to the light source, detector array, and loss modulators, that controls the activation of these elements, somehow does not teach their “synchronized” acquisition of an image. According to applicant’s own specifications, the claimed synchronization circuit is intended to control the timing between the emission of light and the detection (page 25) and to synchronize emission of modulated light (page 18). Section 2144.01 of the MPEP states that "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that a control circuit that controls (1) the illumination source, (2) the phase delay imparted to the light, (3) the demodulation of the reflected light, and (4) the acquisition of an image by the detector, would constitute the claimed synchronization circuit. A person with ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to modulate and then demodulate this illumination light, synchronization is required.
Applicant further argues that Heenan and Swanson do not teach synchronization of the emission and detection of light by the light emitter. Heenan was not relied upon to teach a synchronization circuit so that argument is moot. Swanson was relied upon to teach the limitation where the synchronization circuit is enclosed within a sensor package along with a light emitter and detector. The PIC taught by Swanson has a circuit, where the transmission and detection are synchronized by the k-clock module (See Swanson, [0008] for example). MPEP section 2145.IV states that attacking individual references where the rejection was based on a combination of references does not show non-obviousness. Arguing that Heenan and Swanson do not teach a limitation that they were not relied upon to teach is not convincing.
Furthermore, as applicant points out, the Swanson reference teaches systems that employ coherent detection. Coherent detection requires that a received signal is mixed with a local oscillator in order to yield distance information. This means that there needs to be a synchronization between the emission and detection of light. As recited above, MPEP 2144.01 states that one must take into account the inferences one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw from the disclosure of a reference. Because the Swanson reference teaches a coherent detection system, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that there is synchronization between light emission and detection. This is because synchronization between emitted and received light is required in order to perform coherent detection. Thus, Swanson teaches a system where the synchronization circuit is enclosed within a sensor package.
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, 3, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandusky (US 7495748 B1), in view of Heenan (US 20190293797 A1), further in view of Swanson (US 20140376001 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Sandusky discloses an imaging system (Fig. 3, apparatus 300 and target 324) comprising: a sensor package (Fig. 3, apparatus 300) comprising:
a light emitter arranged to emit light of modulated intensity (Fig. 3, light source 302, modulation source 336 and loss modulator 304a),
a detector array (Fig. 3, array detector 322),
a synchronization circuit to synchronize the acquisition with the light emitter (Fig. 3, light source 302 and array detector 322 are both controlled with control unit 328);
a modulating circuit arranged to drive emission of light by the light emitter (Fig. 3, light source 302, controller 328 and modulation source 336),
a processing unit which is arranged to (Fig. 3, controller 28; Col. 12, lines 17-20: “Control of the scannerless loss modulated flash color range imaging apparatus 300 can be implemented by a control unit 328 interconnected to the light source 302, array detector 322 and loss modulators 304a-b via the modulation source 336”):
control the light emitter via the modulating circuit to emit a first, unmodulated light pulse in order to acquire a first image using the detector array (Fig. 4, step 410 illuminate target, but with unmodulated light as is required for step 414 the acquisition of unmodulated image when the modulation frequency is zero, which is listed first in step 414);
control the light emitter via the modulating circuit to emit a second, modulated light pulse in order to acquire a second image using the detector array (Fig. 4, step 410, emit modulated light and step 414 receive modulated light for each wavelength), wherein the imaging system is operable to carry out a LIDAR detection method (Fig. 4, determine range information in step 416, and step 418, generate image of target).
Sandusky does not disclose wherein the intensity is modulated monotonously during an acquisition frame. Sandusky also does not disclose wherein the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit.
Heenan teaches the intensity is modulated monotonously during an acquisition of a frame (Fig. 7, step 201, intensity is monotonously modulated with a linearly increasing attenuation; [0030] “the modulation may vary linearly throughout the modulation period”); a modulating circuit arranged to drive emission of light by the light emitter ([0063] “A driver circuit 105 is provided that, in use, applies a variable voltage to the modulator. This modulator functions as a transmissive filter where the amplitude attenuation of different wavelengths of light passing through the filter may be varied as a function of time”); control the light emitter via the modulating circuit to emit a second, modulated light pulse in order to acquire a second image using the detector array (Fig. 7, step 201, modulator operating in first mode with linearly increasing attenuation of selected wavelength, and step 202, capture first image; [0028] “One suitable optical modulator comprises a variable wavelength filter that, in a first mode of operation, differentially modulates the two wavelengths such that the first wavelength is increasingly attenuated over time during the modulation period”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by Sandusky with the invention taught by Heenan, such that the intensity modulation for acquiring the intensity modulated signal is ramped as taught by Heenan, and not sinusoidal as disclosed by Sandusky. This way there is an unmodulated DC image and an intensity-ramped image obtained for determining distance. This would be accomplished by replacing the modulation source, intensity modulator, demodulator, and delay lines disclosed by Sandusky, with just the driver and intensity modulator taught by Heenan to obtain an intensity modulated image where the intensity is linearly modulated. Both of these inventions generate a 3D image of a scene using a light source with multiple wavelengths and modulating the attenuation, or also known as loss, of the intensity of the light. This would be a combination of prior art elements from the invention disclosed by Sandusky and the invention taught by Heenan, such that (1) an image acquired with unmodulated intensity, and (2) an image acquired with linearly modulated intensity, are processed such that they yield distance information. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
However, this combination of Sandusky and Heenan still does not teach the limitation wherein the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit.
Swanson teaches this limitation where the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip (Fig. 2, transmit laser, k-clock and detector, and photodetector PD, are all on the same PIC) and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit (Figs. 33a-c, the PIC is located within a housing, where there is a window that allows light to be transmitted and received to and from the environment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Sandusky and Heenan, such that the light source, light detector, and circuitry for synchronizing acquisition of light, are all located on a photonic integrated circuit chip that is shielded by a housing, as taught by Swanson. A PIC is a commonly known design option for lidar imaging systems, and it is also commonly known that a housing can be used to enclose the sensor elements, as taught by Swanson. Modifying the imaging system taught by Sandusky and Heenan would be a predictable variation of system architecture and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 3: Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. In this combination, Heenan further teaches: emission of light is pulsed such that, due to modulation, at least some pulses have an intensity profile which is monotonously increasing or monotonously decreasing as a function of time ([0028] “One suitable optical modulator comprises a variable wavelength filter that, in a first mode of operation, differentially modulates the two wavelengths such that the first wavelength is increasingly attenuated over time during the modulation period.” and [0030] “the modulation may vary linearly throughout the modulation period”).
Regarding Claim 9: Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. This current combination does not expressly teach that an emission wavelength of the light emitter is larger than 800 nm and smaller than 10,000 nm.
However, Swanson further teaches this in the specifications in paragraph [0061], stating that they use light sources with center wavelengths of 1310 nm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the imaging system taught by Sandusky, Heenan, and Swanson, by replacing the light source and detector of the current system, with the light source and detector taught by Swanson such that infrared pulses are used. Heenan teaches that their system is not limited to visible light and that any suitable wavelength may be used in their invention in paragraph [0079] of the specification. In this same paragraph, Heenan also states that in practice, their system is likely to operate using infrared wavelengths so the emitted beam is not visible, which would be beneficial for applications in road vehicles because non-visible light will not distract other road users. This motivation identified by Heenan, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Sandusky, Heenan, and Swanson, to use infrared light, which is further taught by Swanson. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G.
Regarding Claim 13: Sandusky discloses a detection method (Fig. 4, method 400) comprising:
providing a first, unmodulated light pulse by a light emitter arranged to emit light of modulated intensity in order to acquire a first image (Fig. 4, step 410 illuminate target, but with unmodulated light as is required for step 414 the acquisition of unmodulated image when the frequency is 0; Col. 13, lines 16-20: “Unmodulated (DC) images are additionally obtained for each wavelength wherein the modulator and loss demodulator are not sinusoidally modulated, i.e. the modulation frequency
f
0
, is set substantially equal to zero”; Fig. 3, light source 302, modulation source 336 and loss modulator 304a),
providing a second, modulated light pulse in order to acquire a second image by the light emitter (Fig. 4, step 410, emit modulated light and step 414 receive modulated light),
determining a distance of the scene depending on the first and second image by a detector array (Fig. 4, step 416, determine range information; Fig. 3, array detector 322),
and wherein the synchronization circuit is configured to synchronize the acquisition with the light emitter (Fig. 3, light source 302 and array detector 322 are both controlled with control unit 328; Fig, 4, in method 400, the illumination source emits light whose amplitude is then modulated in step 406. The received signals are then demodulated in step 412 and detected at step 414. The illumination, modulation, demodulation, and detection are synchronized. This is because modulating and demodulating the correct signals requires synchronization. The illumination and detection must also be synchronized in order for the received light to be detected after the illumination source has emitted light).
Sandusky does not disclose: wherein the intensity is modulated monotonously during an acquisition of a frame by a synchronization circuit, or wherein the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip and a sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit.
Heenan teaches providing a second, modulated light pulse in order to acquire a second image by the light emitter (Fig. 7, step 201, modulator operating in first mode with linearly increasing attenuation of selected wavelength, and step 202, capture first image; [0028] “One suitable optical modulator comprises a variable wavelength filter that, in a first mode of operation, differentially modulates the two wavelengths such that the first wavelength is increasingly attenuated over time during the modulation period”), wherein the intensity is modulated monotonously during an acquisition of a frame by a synchronization circuit (Fig. 7, step 201, intensity is monotonously modulated with a linearly increasing attenuation; [0030] “the modulation may vary linearly throughout the modulation period”; [0063] “A driver circuit 105 is provided that, in use, applies a variable voltage to the modulator. This modulator functions as a transmissive filter where the amplitude attenuation of different wavelengths of light passing through the filter may be varied as a function of time”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by Sandusky with the invention taught by Heenan, such that the intensity modulation for acquiring the intensity modulated signal is ramped as taught by Heenan, and not sinusoidal as disclosed by Sandusky. This way there is an unmodulated DC image and an intensity-ramped image obtained for determining distance. This would be accomplished by replacing the modulation source, intensity modulator, demodulator, and delay lines disclosed by Sandusky, with just the driver and intensity modulator taught by Heenan to obtain an intensity modulated image where the intensity is linearly modulated. Both of these inventions generate a 3D image of a scene using a light source with multiple wavelengths and modulating the attenuation, or also known as loss, of the intensity of the light. This would be a combination of prior art elements from the invention disclosed by Sandusky and the invention taught by Heenan, such that (1) an image acquired with unmodulated intensity, and (2) an image acquired with linearly modulated intensity, are processed such that they yield distance information. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
However, this combination of Sandusky and Heenan still does not teach the limitation wherein the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit.
Swanson teaches this limitation where the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip (Fig. 2, transmit laser, k-clock and detector, and photodetector PD, are all on the same PIC) and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit (Figs. 33a-c, the PIC is located within a housing, where there is a window that allows light to be transmitted and received to and from the environment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Sandusky and Heenan, such that the light source, light detector, and circuitry for synchronizing acquisition of light, are all located on a photonic integrated chip that is shielded by a housing, as taught by Swanson. A PIC is a commonly known design option for lidar imaging systems, and it is also commonly known that a housing can be used to enclose the sensor elements, as taught by Swanson. Modifying the imaging system taught by Sandusky and Heenan would be a predictable variation of system architecture and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandusky, in view of Heenan, further in view of Swanson, and further in view of Zhang (CN 101788673 A).
Regarding Claim 4: Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. They do not expressly teach that the synchronization is operable to control a delay between emission of light and a time frame for detection.
However, Zhang teaches the synchronization circuit is operable to control a delay between emission of light and a time frame for detection ([0121] “Using the light pulses with different timing states designed above, three gate gating imaging is performed through the receiver gating gate with a unit time τ to obtain three light intensity images”; Fig. 5; [0146] “using the light pulses of different timing states designed above, n gate gating imaging is performed through a receiver gating gate with a unit time τ to obtain n light intensity images”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined invention taught by Sandusky, Heenan, and Swanson, such that the synchronization circuit can control a delay in time frames for detecting light, as further taught by Zhang. This would be beneficial because using a gated measurement method, the influence of background light can be minimized (Zhang, [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Sandusky, Heenan, Swanson, and Zhang, teaches the imaging system according to claim 4. Zhang further teaches wherein the emission of light is pulsed and the synchronization circuit sets a delay between an end of a pulse and a beginning of a time frame for detection respectively ([0012] “The gate or light pulse has a time difference between the light pulse emission time and the gate time, and the time difference is determined by the shortest distance to be detected and the speed of light”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined invention taught by Sandusky, Heenan, Swanson, and Zhang, such that the synchronization circuit controls a delay time between the end of a pulse and the beginning of a detection period, as further taught by Zhang. This would be beneficial because the time difference can be configured such that it corresponds to the closest distance to be detected, reducing the influence of background noise or radiation that might be incident on the detector (Zhang, [0025]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandusky, in view of Heenan, further in view of Swanson, and further in view of Banks (US 20200057149 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. They do not teach wherein the detector array comprises pixels, which have a polarizing function.
Banks teaches a detector array with pixels having a polarization function (Figs. 2A and 2B, with polarizer array 30, which has vertical and horizontal polarization functions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, by using a detector array where adjacent pixels have orthogonal polarization functions as taught by Banks. This is beneficial because it would enable the system to measure polarization states of incoming light, and these polarization states can be used to estimate a change in surface normal of an object in the environment (Banks, [0010]).
Regarding Claim 7: Sandusky, in view of Heenan, Swanson, and Banks, teaches the imaging system according to claim 6. In this combination, Banks further teaches: wherein adjacent pixels have orthogonal polarization functions (Figs. 2A and 2B, with polarizer array 30. Vertically and horizontally polarized pixels are adjacent to each other).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandusky, in view of Heenan, further in view of Swanson, and further in view of Plank (US 20200300986 A1). Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, teaches the imaging system according to claim 1. However, they do not expressly teach wherein the light emitter comprises at least one semiconductor laser diode.
Plank teaches the use of a semiconductor laser diode in the specifications in paragraph [0015], explaining that the light source may be a vertical-cavity surface emitting laser. A VCSEL is a type of semiconductor laser diode.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system taught by Sandusky, Heenan, and Swanson, by replacing the light sources and detector array disclosed by Sandusky, with the VCSELs and detector array, as taught by Plank. This would be a simple substitution of a light emitter and detector array, for another light emitter and detector array, which would obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandusky, in view of Heenan, further in view of Swanson, and further in view of Kugimiya (US 20200057149 A1). Sandusky, in view of Heenan and Swanson, teaches an imaging system according to claim 1. However, they do not expressly teach a vehicle that comprises said imaging system, and board electronics embedded in the vehicle, wherein the imaging system is arranged to provide an output signal to the board electronics.
Kugimiya teaches a vehicle (Fig. 19; [0208] “a vehicle control system which is an example of a mobile body control system to which the technology according to the present disclosure can be applied”) and board electronics embedded in the vehicle, wherein the imaging system is arranged to provide an output signal to the board electronics ([0209] “A vehicle control system 12000 includes a plurality of electronic control units connected to each other via a communication network 12001”; [0212] “The vehicle external information detection unit 12030 causes the imaging unit 12031 to capture an image outside the vehicle, and receives the captured image”), where this imaging system employes infrared light sources ([0042] light emitting device 11 emits infrared pulses).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Sandusky, Heenan, and Swanson, by implementing it into a vehicle, as well as using infrared light sources and a detector for detecting infrared light, as taught by Kugimiya. The reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this system on a vehicle is because the imaging system can be used for control of an autonomous vehicle, as described by Kugimiya in paragraph [0216]. The reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would use infrared light sources and detectors compatible with infrared light sources, as further taught by Kugimiya, would be because non-visible light will not distract other road users, as explained by Heenan in paragraph [0079] of their disclosure.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandusky, in view of Heenan, further in view of Swanson, and further in view of Abdallah et al. (S. Abdallah, B. Saleh and A. K. AboulSoud, "ITO transparent gates over Si/sub 3/N/sub 4/ layer for a novel IT-CCD image sensor with reduced VOD structure," Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Radio Science Conference, Alexandria, Egypt, 2002, pp. 565-574). Sandusky discloses an imaging system (Fig. 3, apparatus 300 and target 324) comprising a sensor package (Fig. 3, apparatus 300) comprising:
a light emitter arranged to emit light of modulated intensity (Fig. 3, light source 302, modulation source 336 and loss modulator 304a),
a detector array (Fig. 3, CCD array detector 322),
a synchronization circuit to synchronize the acquisition with the light emitter (Fig. 3, light source 302 and array detector 322 are both controlled with control unit 328);
a modulating circuit arranged to drive emission of light by the light emitter (Fig. 3, light source 302, controller 328 and modulation source 336),
a processing unit which is arranged to (Fig. 3, controller 28; Col. 12, lines 17-20: “Control of the scannerless loss modulated flash color range imaging apparatus 300 can be implemented by a control unit 328 interconnected to the light source 302, array detector 322 and loss modulators 304a-b via the modulation source 336”):
control the light emitter via the modulating circuit to emit a first, unmodulated light pulse in order to acquire a first image using the detector array (Fig. 4, step 410 illuminate target, but with unmodulated light as is required for step 414 the acquisition of unmodulated image when the modulation frequency is zero, which is listed first in step 414);
control the light emitter via the modulating circuit to emit a second, modulated light pulse in order to acquire a second image using the detector array (Fig. 4, step 410, emit modulated light and step 414 receive modulated light for each wavelength), wherein the imaging system is operable to carry out a LIDAR detection method (Fig. 4, determine range information in step 416, and step 418, generate image of target).
Sandusky does not disclose wherein the intensity is modulated monotonously during an acquisition frame. Sandusky also does not disclose wherein the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit or that the detector array expressly comprises a sensor region and a plurality of grid elements that are arranged at a distance from one another on a surface of an isolation region above the sensor region, wherein a refractive index of the isolation region is lower than a refractive index of the plurality of grid elements.
Heenan teaches the intensity is modulated monotonously during an acquisition of a frame (Fig. 7, step 201, intensity is monotonously modulated with a linearly increasing attenuation; [0030] “the modulation may vary linearly throughout the modulation period”); a modulating circuit arranged to drive emission of light by the light emitter ([0063] “A driver circuit 105 is provided that, in use, applies a variable voltage to the modulator. This modulator functions as a transmissive filter where the amplitude attenuation of different wavelengths of light passing through the filter may be varied as a function of time”); control the light emitter via the modulating circuit to emit a second, modulated light pulse in order to acquire a second image using the detector array (Fig. 7, step 201, modulator operating in first mode with linearly increasing attenuation of selected wavelength, and step 202, capture first image; [0028] “One suitable optical modulator comprises a variable wavelength filter that, in a first mode of operation, differentially modulates the two wavelengths such that the first wavelength is increasingly attenuated over time during the modulation period”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by Sandusky with the invention taught by Heenan, such that the intensity modulation for acquiring the intensity modulated signal is ramped as taught by Heenan, and not sinusoidal as disclosed by Sandusky. This way there is an unmodulated DC image and an intensity-ramped image obtained for determining distance. This would be accomplished by replacing the modulation source, intensity modulator, demodulator, and delay lines disclosed by Sandusky, with just the driver and intensity modulator taught by Heenan to obtain an intensity modulated image where the intensity is linearly modulated. Both of these inventions generate a 3D image of a scene using a light source with multiple wavelengths and modulating the attenuation, or also known as loss, of the intensity of the light. This would be a combination of prior art elements from the invention disclosed by Sandusky and the invention taught by Heenan, such that (1) an image acquired with unmodulated intensity, and (2) an image acquired with linearly modulated intensity, are processed such that they yield distance information. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
However, this combination of Sandusky and Heenan still does not teach the limitation wherein the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit or that the detector array expressly comprises a sensor region and a plurality of grid elements that are arranged at a distance from one another on a surface of an isolation region above the sensor region, wherein a refractive index of the isolation region is lower than a refractive index of the plurality of grid elements.
Swanson teaches this limitation where the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit are integrated into a single chip (Fig. 2, transmit laser, k-clock and detector, and photodetector PD, are all on the same PIC) and the sensor package encloses the light emitter, the detector array, and the synchronization circuit (Figs. 33a-c, the PIC is located within a housing, where there is a window that allows light to be transmitted and received to and from the environment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system disclosed by Sandusky and Heenan, such that the light source, light detector, and circuitry for synchronizing acquisition of light, are all located on a photonic integrated circuit chip that is shielded by a housing, as taught by Swanson. A PIC is a commonly known design option for lidar imaging systems, and it is also commonly known that a housing can be used to enclose the sensor elements, as taught by Swanson. Modifying the imaging system taught by Sandusky and Heenan would be a predictable variation of system architecture and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
However, this combination of Sandusky, Heenan, and Swanson, does not expressly teach that the detector array expressly comprises a sensor region and a plurality of grid elements that are arranged at a distance from one another on a surface of an isolation region above the sensor region, wherein a refractive index of the isolation region is lower than a refractive index of the plurality of grid elements.
Abdallah et al. teaches that the pixels of a CCD detector array are comprised of different materials. In Fig. 9 and section 3.2, they show a model of a detector pixel. The incident light passes through conducting glass, then
S
i
3
N
4
, then
S
i
O
2
, and then the depleted Si space charge region and un-depleted bulk n-Si substrate.
S
i
3
N
4
(n=2) has a higher refractive index compared to
S
i
O
2
(n=1.46) (Abdallah et al., Section 3.1 para. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the CCD detector array in the system taught by Sadusky, Heenan, and Swanson, by using the pixel architecture taught by Abdallah. This is beneficial because their pixel architecture enables improved detection and photoresponsivity across the visible light spectrum and the IR region (Abdallah, Abstract). Implementing this pixel architecture for each pixel would mean that each pixel has a sensor region, a grid element (
S
i
3
N
4
) and an isolation region (
S
i
O
2
). Because each pixel will adopt this architecture, there will be a plurality of grid elements spaced apart from each other because there is a plurality of pixels spaced apart from each other in a detector array.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645