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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 1/12/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 is amended and claims 1-7,9-11, 13-18 and 20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of the remarks, applicant argues that the Steinberg reference does not teach the limitation of having a “first region” on the periphery of a “second region”, where the “first region” detects light that has been internally reflected. However, applicant misunderstands the grounds of rejection. Applicant mistakenly interprets that the claimed “first region” is supposed to be mapped to the ring within boundary line 878 and outside boundary line 876, in Fig. 8C of the Steinberg reference. Applicant then includes an excerpt of the Final Rejection mailed 11/13/2025. Page 7 of the Final rejection sates: “Steinberg teaches a light detection array (Fig. 8C, sensor array 806) wherein the first region is on an entire periphery of the second region ([0233] and Fig. 8C, the calibration sensor 888 may include a contiguous group of sensor elements which fall outside the outer boundary line 878. As seen in Fig. 8C, there can be a configuration where a contiguous group of pixels outside the boundary line 878 that enclose the incident light spot, forming a region on an entire periphery of the central region where measurement light is incident).” (bolded for emphasis).
In Fig. 8C, there can be a configuration of contiguous pixels outside the boundary line 878. Boundary line 878/877 represents a boundary beyond which no light being reflected back from the environment is incident. Any light reflected back by the environment is inside boundary line 878/877. Therefore, the claimed “second region”, which is configured to detect light reflected from an object in the environment, would be contained within the boundary line of 878/877. The claimed “first region” would be a contiguous group of pixels outside the boundary line of 878/877. There is a configuration of pixels outside boundary line 878 that would be contiguous and would completely surround the pixels inside the boundary line 878. Therefore, the grounds of rejection are maintained.
Furthermore, applicant argues, on page 6, that the Steinberg reference only illustrates a grouping of 4 sensors as an example of a calibration sensor. MPEP section 2141.02.VI states that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these other alternatives because such a disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”. Just because the illustrated example of Fig. 8C is a different alternative, that does not discredit other solutions taught by Steinberg. This illustrated grouping of four sensors is not the only configuration of contiguous sensors. Therefore, this amendment does not place the application in condition for allowance and the arguments are not convincing.
Finally, on page 6, applicant mistakenly alleges that the examiner applied impermissible hindsight. MPEP 2141.03.01 states: “"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” The combination that was made involved modifying the deflection sensors disclosed by Rosenzweig, which determine whether the deflector has reached the end of its scanning pattern (Rosenzweig, [0198]), such that theses deflection sensors are on the same array as the sensors that measure light from the environment. This would be incorporating the teachings of Steinberg, where sensors configured to detect internally reflected light and sensors configured to detect light from the environment, are both located on the same array. Both the deflection sensors disclosed by Rosenzweig and the calibration sensors taught by Steinberg detect light that has been internally reflected (See Rosenzweig Fig. 10 and Steinberg [0232]). When making this modification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that in order for the deflection sensors to still indicate that the end of the scanning pattern has been reached, it must be located at the ends of the scanning pattern; in other words, the deflection sensors need to ‘frame’ the scanned area. A person ordinarily skilled in the art would possess the creativity and skill needed to modify the deflection position sensors disclosed by Rosenzweig, such that they can be on the same array as sensors measuring light from the environment and also still be able to perform their desired function of indicating that the deflector has reached the ends of its scan pattern. Therefore, the grounds for rejection are maintained and this argument is not convincing.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1) in view of Steinberg (US 20200249324 A1).
Regarding Claim 13: Rosenzweig discloses a LiDAR device (Fig. 1A lidar system 100; Fig. 10 lidar system 1000; [0195] “LIDAR system 1000 of FIG. 10A may be LIDAR system 100 of FIG. 1A”) comprising:
a housing comprising a window (Fig. 10A, the housing is illustrated with the solid black line surrounding lidar 1000, which has a window 1004);
a light transmitter provided in the housing and configured to output light toward an object outside of the housing (Fig. 10A, projecting unit 1002; Fig. 1A with projecting unit 102 whose light is directed towards field of view 120);
a light receiver provided in the housing (Fig. 1A sensing unit 106);
a first region configured to detect first light reflected or scattered from the housing among the light transmitted by the light transmitter (Fig. 10A, sensors 1008a and 1008b for detecting internal reflections); and
a second region configured to detect a second light reflected from the object among the light transmitted by the light transmitter (Fig. 1A, received light RX is directed toward sensing unit 106 having sensor 116); and
a processor configured to change a steering direction of the light such that a ratio of the first light to the light transmitted by the light transmitter is reduced ([0198] “A processor (not shown in FIG. 10A) may receive signals caused by the internal reflections of the scanned light and generated by the one or more sensors 1008a and 1008b and may determine … the scanning of light deflector 1006 … reaches both ends of its scanning pattern in the expected frequency”; it is understood that by when the scanning has reached the end of the scanning pattern and the processor controls the scanner to start scanning in the opposite direction, this means less light will be detected by the sensors 1008a and 1008b, which means the ratio of first light detected by sensors 1008a and 1008b to the transmitted light, will decrease).
Rosenzweig does not explicitly disclose: a light receiver provided in the housing and comprising a light detection array, and wherein the first region is on an entire periphery of the second region.
However, Steinberg teaches a light detection array (Fig. 8C, sensor array 806) wherein the first region is on an entire periphery of the second region ([0233] and Fig. 8C, the calibration sensor 888 may include a contiguous group of sensor elements which fall outside the outer boundary line 878. As seen in Fig. 8C, there can be a configuration where a contiguous group of pixels outside the boundary line 878 that enclose the incident light spot).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit disclosed by Rosenzweig such that both the first region and second region are part of the same sensor array, and that the first region surrounds the second region, as expressly taught by Steinberg. This would merely be a variation in sensor design 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” (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 14: Rosenzweig, as modified in view of Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 13. Steinberg further teaches wherein the light detection array comprises a plurality of detection elements (Fig. 8C, sensor 806 having many pixels) and wherein the first region and the second region do not overlap each other ([0233-0234] and Fig. 8C, the calibration sensor 888 does not overlap with the region that detects light from the LIDAR FOV, denoted by the boundary line 878. Because the calibration sensor 888 must be outside the boundary lines of incident light, the detectors used for calibration cannot be used for detecting light returning from the environment).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Setono (US 20160003945 A1), further in view of Steinberg (US 20200249324 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Rosenzweig discloses a LiDAR device (Fig. 1A ) comprising:
a housing comprising a window (Fig. 10A and window 1004);
a light transmitter provided in the housing and configured to output light toward an object outside of the housing (Fig. 10A, projecting unit 1002; Fig. 1A);
an optical element provided adjacent to the window and on which first light from among the light transmitted by the light transmitter is incident (Fig. 10A, deflector position sensors 1008a and 1008b are adjacent to the window and receives light from the projecting unit that has not been reflected from an object in the lidar field of view);
a light receiver provided in the housing and […] configured to detect the first light reflected or scattered from the optical element among the light transmitted by the light transmitter (Fig. 10A, deflector position sensors 1008a and 1008b), and […]
configured to detect a second light reflected from the object, from among the light transmitted by the light transmitter (Fig. 1A sensing unit 106 which receives light RX from FOV 120);
a processor configured to change a steering direction of the light such that a ratio of the first light to the light transmitted by the light transmitter is reduced ([0198] “A processor (not shown in FIG. 10A) may receive signals caused by the internal reflections of the scanned light and generated by the one or more sensors 1008a and 1008b and may determine … the scanning of light deflector 1006 … reaches both ends of its scanning pattern in the expected frequency”; when the scanning has reached the end of the scanning pattern and the processor controls the scanner to start scanning in the opposite direction, this means less light will be detected by the sensors 1008a and 1008b, which means the ratio of first light detected by sensors 1008a and 1008b to the transmitted light, will decrease).
While Rosenzweig discloses two optical elements disposed on either side of the window (Fig. 10A, where deflector position sensor 1008a is above the window and deflector position sensor 1008b is below the window), Rosenzweig does not disclose: wherein the optical element comprises two diffuse reflectors contacting the housing on a first side of the window and a second side of the window opposite to the first side. Rosenzweig also does not expressly teach that there is only a single detection array having a first region for measuring internally scattered light and a second region for receiving light from the object, where the first region is on an entire periphery of the second region on the same detector array.
Setono teaches a lidar device (Fig. 16, laser range finder 10A) comprising:
a housing comprising a window (Fig. 16, laser range finder 10A has housing 11, with a window)
a light transmitter provided in the housing and configured to output light toward an object outside the housing (Fig. 5, laser range finder 10 has laser diode 21 emit light that is directed by mirror 23 to the object 40 in the environment. Note, laser range finder 10A of Fig. 16 is only different from the laser range finder 10 in Fig. 5 with regards to the light receiving units adjacent to the window as stated in [0131])
an optical element provided adjacent to the window and on which first light from among the light transmitted by the light transmitter is incident (Fig. 16, photodetector 28A, which has reflective diffuser plate 28c on the light receiving surface 28b of the photodetector 28a, [0133]);
a light receiver provided in the housing and configured to receive, second light reflected from the object, from among the light transmitted by the transmitter (Fig. 5, second light receiving unit 25); and
wherein the optical element comprises diffuse reflectors contacting the housing adjacent to the window (Fig. 16, photodetector 28A, which has reflective diffuser plate 28c and is contacting the housing 11 adjacent to the window; [0133]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two deflection sensors on opposite sides of the window, disclosed by Rosenzweig, by replacing each of the two deflection sensors with the photodetector taught by Setono, which has a reflective diffuser plate and is in contact with the housing. This configuration would be beneficial because the orientation of the photodetector and reflective diffuser plate taught by Setono is positioned such that the influence of external light on these photodetectors is reduced (Setono, [0134]).
However, this combination still does not teach the limitation of a single detection array, where the first region is on an entire periphery of the second region.
However, Steinberg teaches a light detection array (Fig. 8C, sensor array 806) wherein the first region is on an entire periphery of the second region ([0233] and Fig. 8C, the calibration sensor 888 may include a contiguous group of sensor elements which fall outside the outer boundary line 878. As seen in Fig. 8C, there can be a configuration where a contiguous group of pixels outside the boundary line 878 that enclose the incident light spot).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor unit disclosed by Rosenzweig, in the system taught by Rosenzweig and Setono, such that both the first region and second region are part of the same sensor array, and that the first region surrounds the second region, as expressly taught by Steinberg. This would merely be a variation in sensor design, where detectors for detecting internally reflected light and detectors for detecting light from the environment are located on the same array. “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” (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 2: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1. Rosenzweig further discloses the limitation wherein the light transmitter comprises: a light source (Fig. 10A, projecting unit 1002; Fig. 1A with projecting unit 102 having light source 112); and
a beam steering element configured to steer the light output from the light source toward the object (Fig. 10A, deflector 1006; Fig. 1A with scanning unit 104 directing light to FOV 120).
Regarding Claim 7: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1. In this combination, Setono further teaches wherein the optical element is configured to reflect the first light ([0133] the optical element has a reflective diffuser plate 28c, which transmits part of the light. This means the rest of the light, that is not transmitted, is reflected).
In this combination of Rosenzweig, Setono, and Steinberg, Steinberg further teaches that the light receiver is configured to receive the first light (Fig. 8B shows that the calibration sensor, illustrated here as 808, is configured to receive internally reflected light. [0233-0234] and Fig. 8C, the calibration sensor 887 is part of the sensor array 806).
Regarding Claim 9: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 7. Setono further discloses wherein partial surfaces of the two diffuse reflectors are inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to a surface of the housing so that the first light that is incident is reflected toward the light receiver (Fig. 16, the diffuser plate 28c is at an angle with respect to the surface of the housing 11. [0133] the diffuser plate is reflective and transmits part of the light, which means it must reflect the remaining light, part of which will be reflected back to the receiver).
Regarding Claim 10: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1. Setono further teaches wherein the optical element further comprises at least one photodetector configured to detect the first light that is incident ([0133] and Fig. 16, the first photodetector 28A includes photodetector 28a and has a light receiving surface 28b for receiving light. The reflective diffuser plate 28c transmits part of the light).
Regarding Claim 11: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 1. In this combination, Setono further teaches wherein an area of the window is greater than or equal to an area of the housing which is irradiated by the light steered by the light transmitter (Fig. 16, the area of the housing 11 between the photodetector 28A and the window is smaller than half the size of the window). The combination of Rosenzweig and Setono would include two detectors, one on the top and bottom of the window, as disclosed by Rosenzweig, and contacting the housing as taught by Setono. This would mean that the area of the housing that is irradiated by the light, on either side of the window, would add up to be smaller than the area of the window itself.
Regarding Claim 20: Rosenzweig, in view of Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 13. However, Rosenzweig, as modified by Steinberg, does not teach an optical element provided adjacent to the window, wherein the first light from among the light is incident on the optical element.
However, Setono teaches an optical element provided adjacent to the window, wherein the first light from among the light is incident on the optical element (Fig. 16, first photodetector 28A with photodetector 28a and reflective diffuser plate 28c).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device taught by Rosenzweig and Steinberg, by including the photodetector taught by Setono. This photodetector has a reflective diffuser plate, which allows part of the light to be transmitted to the detector (Setono, [0133]). This means that the remaining light must be reflected from the diffuser plate, and can now be detected by the detector array. The photodetector taught by Setono is used in calculating the length of an internal light path (Setono, [0124]). Having this additional photodetector is beneficial determining the length of the internal light path can be used to determine a more accurate distance from the rangefinder to the target object (Setono, [0124]).
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Steinberg (US 20200249324 A1), further in view of Shin (US 20190391459 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Rosenzweig, in view of Steinberg, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 13. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the light transmitter comprises:
a light source (Fig. 10A, projecting unit 1002; Fig. 1A with projecting unit 102 having light source 112); and
a beam steering element configured to steer the light output from the light source (Fig. 10A, deflector 1006; Fig. 1A with scanning unit 104 directing light to FOV 120).
Neither Rosenzweig nor Steinberg teaches: a resonator provided at both ends of the light source and configured to change a wavelength of the light.
However, Shin teaches this limitation in Fig. 1, with tunable laser source 100, which has ring resonators 121 and 122 on either end of it, and grating structures 290.
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 lidar device taught by Rosenzweig and Steinberg, to incorporate the wavelength tunable light source and the grating structure taught by Shin. By doing this, a phase modulation with the optical phase array disclosed by Rosenzweig could steer the beam in one direction, while a wavelength modulation could steer the beam in another direction. In paragraph [0040], Shin describes how a phase difference which is modulated by the optical phase array, steers the light in one direction, while the wavelength tuning steers the light in the other direction, enabling 2D scanning. This modification would be motivated by the fact that this method of beam steering is non-mechanical, so no moving parts are required, as opposed to a scanning mirror which would need to be rotated to steer the beam (Shin, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 16: Rosenzweig, as modified by Steinberg and Shin, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 15. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the beam steering element comprises an optical phase configured to steer the light ([0196] “The at least one deflector 1006 may be … any other type of scanner (e.g. an optical phase array (OPA))”).
Furthermore, in the LiDAR device of claim 15, which is taught by Rosenzweig, Steinberg, and Shin, Shin teaches a tunable light source and a grating structure such that the steering direction of the light is changed based on the wavelength of the light ([0040] “a light steering apparatus may include a tunable laser source 100 and a steering device 200 for steering light output from the tunable laser source 100 in a desired direction”; Fig. 1 and [0066], light output portion 290 has grating structure; [0003] “a light emission angle according to the characteristics of a diffraction grating is controlled by using a tunable laser source”).
Regarding Claim 18: Rosenzweig, as modified by Steinberg and Shin, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 15. Rosenzweig further discloses the processor being configured to steer the beam based on the first light being detected in the first region (Fig. 1A, processing unit 108; Fig. 10B; [0204] “At step 1015, the processor may receive signals from at least one sensor (e.g., sensor 1008a and/or sensor 1008b of FIG. 10A) configured to measure positions of the at least one light deflector. The received signals may be indicative of an actual scanning pattern”; [0213] “the at least one processor may initiate, in response to the determined deviation, any combination of any one or more of: modifying scanning instructions to the at least one deflector (e.g., increasing—or otherwise modifying—the driving force to the at least one deflector”). Rosenzweig, in combination with Steinberg, does not teach a processor configured to apply a driving signal to the resonator.
However, Shin teaches a processor configured to apply a driving signal to the resonator ([0095] “The driving driver 1400 may include a driving circuit for driving the tunable laser source 1100, the steering device 1200, and the detection unit 1300”).
Because Rosenzweig, as modified by Steinberg and Shin, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 15, which steers the light through the use of wavelength switching and phase modulation with an optical phased array, 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 this LiDAR device taught by Rosenzweig, Steinberg, and Shin, by incorporating the driver taught by Shin into the processing unit disclosed by Rosenzweig, such that the processing unit is capable of tuning wavelength and steering light with the optical phased array. This would be applying the known technique of wavelength tuning by driving a ring resonator, to a lidar device that steers beams via wavelength tuning, and yields predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Setono (US 20160003945 A1), further in view of Steinberg (US 20200249324 A1), further in view of Shin (US 20190391459 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 2. Rosenzweig further discloses wherein the beam steering element comprises an optical phase configured to steer the light ([0196] “The at least one deflector 1006 may be … any other type of scanner (e.g. an optical phase array (OPA))”). Rosenzweig does not expressly disclose: the steering direction of the light is changed based on a wavelength of the light.
However, Shin teaches a lidar apparatus where a steering direction of the light is changed based on a wavelength of the light ([0040] “a light steering apparatus may include a tunable laser source 100 and a steering device 200 for steering light output from the tunable laser source 100 in a desired direction”; Fig. 1 and [0066], light output portion 290 has grating structure; [0003] “a light emission angle according to the characteristics of a diffraction grating is controlled by using a tunable laser source”), and where an optical phase array steers the light ([0003] describes use of optical phased array as a non-mechanical drive method for steering a laser beam; Fig. 1, phase modulation units 271 and 272; [0066] which describes how changing the phase profiles of laser beams L1 and L2 steers the transmitted beam due to interference, and how phase modulation steers the beam in a ±y direction and how a wavelength modulation steers the beam in a ±x direction).
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 lidar device taught by Rosenzweig, Setono, and Steinberg, to incorporate the wavelength tunable light source and the grating structure taught by Shin. By doing this, a phase modulation with the optical phase array disclosed by Rosenzweig could steer the beam in one direction, while a wavelength modulation could steer the beam in another direction. This modification would be motivated by the fact that this method of beam steering is non-mechanical, so no moving parts are required, as opposed to a scanning mirror which would need to be rotated to steer the beam (Shin, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 4: Rosenzweig, in view of Setono and Steinberg, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 2. However, they do not teach: wherein the light transmitter further comprises a resonator provided at both ends of the light source and configured to change a wavelength of the light.
Shin teaches this limitation in Fig. 1, with tunable laser source 100, which has ring resonators 121 and 122 on either end of it and grating structures 290.
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 lidar device taught by Rosenzweig, Setono, and Steinberg, to incorporate the wavelength tunable light source and the grating structure taught by Shin. By doing this, a phase modulation with the optical phase array disclosed by Rosenzweig could steer the beam in one direction, while a wavelength modulation could steer the beam in another direction. In paragraph [0040], Shin describes how a phase difference which is modulated by the optical phase array, steers the light in one direction, while the wavelength tuning steers the light in the other direction, enabling 2D scanning. This modification would be motivated by the fact that this method of beam steering is non-mechanical, so no moving parts are required, as opposed to a scanning mirror which would need to be rotated to steer the beam (Shin, [0003]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Steinberg (US 20200249324 A1), further in view of Shin (US 20190391459 A1), and further in view of Oda (US 20200144782 A1).
Rosenzweig, in view of Steinberg and Shin, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 15. They do not teach wherein the resonator comprises a first ring resonator having a first circumference and a second ring resonator having a second circumference that is less than the first circumference, wherein the first ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the first ring resonator, increase the wavelength of the light, and wherein the second ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the second ring resonator, decrease the wavelength of the light.
However, Oda teaches wherein the resonator comprises a first ring resonator having a first circumference and a second ring resonator having a second circumference that is less than the first circumference (Fig. 1, ring resonators 15 and 13, where 15 has a longer circumference; [0053] “The first ring resonator 13 and the second ring resonator 15 have different perimeters … The longer perimeter is set within the range of substantially 1.1 to 1.5 times the shorter perimeter”),
wherein the first ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the first ring resonator, increase the wavelength of the light ([0053] “The first ring resonator 13 and the second ring resonator 15 have different perimeters and generate transmission spectrums having different FSRs”; a person of ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies would know that the length/circumference of the ring resonator determines the wavelength because of resonance, and therefore longer ring resonators resonate at larger wavelengths than shorter ring resonators; Fig. 3 shows the spectrum of the larger and smaller ring resonators, and ring resonator 15, has peaks shifted slightly to the right compared to ring resonator 13 below 1550 nm and also above 1570 nm), and
wherein the second ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the second ring resonator decrease the wavelength of the light ([0053] “The first ring resonator 13 and the second ring resonator 15 have different perimeters and generate transmission spectrums having different FSRs”; Fig. 3 shows the spectrum of the larger and smaller ring resonators and ring resonator 13 has peaks shifted slightly to the left of the ring resonator 15 below 1550 nm and also above 1570 nm).
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 LiDAR device taught by Rosenzweig, Steinberg, and Shin, by modifying the ring resonators taught by Shin such that one ring resonator is larger than the other for increasing and decreasing the wavelength of light, as taught by Oda. Having different sized ring resonators is beneficial because they will have free spectral ranges that are slightly different from each other, which improves wavelength variability (Oda, [0037; 0039]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenzweig (US 20210025997 A1), in view of Setono (US 20160003945 A1), further in view of Steinberg (US 20200249324 A1), further in view of Shin (US 20190391459 A1), and further in view of Oda (US 20200144782 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Rosenzweig, as modified by Setono, Steinberg, and Shin, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 4. However, they do not teach wherein the resonator comprises a first ring resonator having a first circumference and a second ring resonator having a second circumference that is less than the first circumference, wherein the first ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the first ring resonator, increase the wavelength of the light, and wherein the second ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the second ring resonator, decrease the wavelength of the light.
Oda teaches wherein the resonator comprises a first ring resonator having a first circumference and a second ring resonator having a second circumference that is less than the first circumference (Fig. 1, ring resonators 15 and 13, where 15 has a longer circumference; [0053] “The first ring resonator 13 and the second ring resonator 15 have different perimeters … The longer perimeter is set within the range of substantially 1.1 to 1.5 times the shorter perimeter”),
wherein the first ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the first ring resonator, increase the wavelength of the light ([0053] “The first ring resonator 13 and the second ring resonator 15 have different perimeters and generate transmission spectrums having different FSRs”; a person of ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies would know that the length/circumference of the ring resonator determines the wavelength because of resonance, and therefore longer ring resonators resonate at larger wavelengths than shorter ring resonators; Fig. 3 shows the spectrum of the larger and smaller ring resonators, and ring resonator 15, has peaks shifted slightly to the right compared to ring resonator 13 below 1550 nm and also above 1570 nm), and
wherein the second ring resonator is configured to, based on a driving signal applied to the second ring resonator, decrease the wavelength of the light ([0053] “The first ring resonator 13 and the second ring resonator 15 have different perimeters and generate transmission spectrums having different FSRs”; Fig. 3 shows the spectrum of the larger and smaller ring resonators and ring resonator 13 has peaks shifted slightly to the left of the ring resonator 15 below 1550 nm and also above 1570 nm).
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 LiDAR device taught by Rosenzweig, Setono, Steinberg, and Shin, by modifying the ring resonators taught by Shin such that one ring resonator is larger than the other for increasing and decreasing the wavelength of light, as taught by Oda. Having different sized ring resonators is beneficial because they will have free spectral ranges that are slightly different from each other, which improves wavelength variability (Oda, [0037; 0039]).
Regarding Claim 6: Rosenzweig, as modified by Setono, Steinberg, Shin, and Oda, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 5. Rosenzweig further discloses the processor being configured to steer the beam based on the first light being detected in the first region (Fig. 1A, processing unit 108; Fig. 10B; [0204] “At step 1015, the processor may receive signals from at least one sensor (e.g., sensor 1008a and/or sensor 1008b of FIG. 10A) configured to measure positions of the at least one light deflector. The received signals may be indicative of an actual scanning pattern”; [0213] “the at least one processor may initiate, in response to the determined deviation, any combination of any one or more of: modifying scanning instructions to the at least one deflector (e.g., increasing—or otherwise modifying—the driving force to the at least one deflector”).
Rosenzweig, on its own, does not teach a processor configured to apply a driving signal to apply a driving signal to one of the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator to change the steering direction of the light.
However, Shin teaches a processor configured to apply a driving signal to one of the first ring resonator and the second ring resonator to change the steering direction of light ([0095] “The driving driver 1400 may include a driving circuit for driving the tunable laser source 1100, the steering device 1200, and the detection unit 1300”).
Because Rosenzweig, as modified by Steinberg, Setono, Shin, and Oda, teaches the LiDAR device of claim 5, which steers the light through the use of wavelength switching and phase modulation with an optical phased array (see claim mapping for claim 3 and the explanation there), 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 this LiDAR device taught by Rosenzweig, Steinberg, Setono, Shin, and Oda by incorporating the driving driver taught by Shin into the processing unit disclosed by Rosenzweig, such that the processing unit is capable of tuning wavelength and steering light with the optical phased array. This would be applying the known technique of wavelength tuning by driving a ring resonator, to a lidar device that steers beams via wavelength tuning, and yields predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
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