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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 31 October 2025.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-33 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-33 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “wherein the receiver is configured to act as a pulsed-lidar receiver, and wherein the pulse-detection circuit determines the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light based on the first term when the first term is greater than the second term or the second term when the second term is greater than the first term”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 31 October 2025. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Ando in the present Office Action.
Additionally, regarding claims 6-9 previously indicated as allowable, the amended claims do not contain all the limitations of claims previously indicated as allowable which changes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Therefore, new grounds for rejections are introduced below based on the current scope of the claims. Examiner recommends scheduling an interview to discuss these limitations in light of 112(a) rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 lns. 1-2: “when the first term is greater than the second term, wherein …” appears instead of “when the first term is greater than the second term, …”
Claim 8 lns. 1-2: “when the second term is greater than the first term, wherein …” appears instead of “when the second term is greater than the first term, …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the receiver is configured to act as a pulsed-lidar receiver, and wherein the pulse-detection circuit determines the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light based … or the second term when the second term is greater than the first term”. However, the specification only discusses determining the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light based on the second term when the second term is greater than the first term, when the receiver is configured to act as a coherent receiver (see Applicant’s specification: [0187, 230-233, 237]). Therefore, it is not clear Applicant’s had position of the claimed invention at the time of filing. For this reason, claim 1, and dependent claims 2-33, fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein, when the second term is greater than the first term, wherein the pulse-detection circuit determines the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light primarily based on the second term” and depends on claim 1 which recites “wherein the receiver is configured to act as a pulsed-lidar receiver”. However, the specification only discusses determining the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light based on the second term when the second term is greater than the first term, when the receiver is configured to act as a coherent receiver (see Applicant’s specification: [0187, 230-233, 237]). Therefore, it is not clear Applicant’s had position of the claimed invention at the time of filing. For this reason, claim 8, and dependent claim 9, fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 18-20, 22, 27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando US 20160291135 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches a lidar system comprising:
a light source (optical transmitter 1 with light source 11, [0052]) configured to emit (i) local-oscillator light and (ii) pulses of light, wherein each emitted pulse of light is coherent with a corresponding temporal portion of the local-oscillator light (optical path branching into local oscillating and transmission light which is pulsed while keeping polarization state, [0054-55, 89, 143]; phase modulation can occur before optical path branching, Fig. 10, [0141-145]);
a receiver configured to detect the local-oscillator light and a received pulse of light, the received pulse of light comprising a portion of one of the emitted pulses of light scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system (optical heterodyne receiver 5, [0051, 59, 60]; received light shown in Fig. 4), wherein the receiver comprises:
a detector configured to produce a photocurrent signal corresponding to the local- oscillator light and the received pulse of light (optical heterodyne receiver 5, [0059-61, 77]), the photocurrent signal comprising a sum of a first term, a second term, and a third term, wherein (i) the first term corresponds to an optical property of the received pulse of light, (ii) the second term corresponds to a coherent mixing of the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light, and (iii) the third term corresponds to an optical property of the local-oscillator light (These terms are inherent in optical heterodyne receiving and well-known in the art; for example, see Wikipedia, 2020, “Optical heterodyne detection” and the Gain in the detection section); and
a pulse-detection circuit configured to determine a time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light based on the first term and the second term (photoelectric conversion of mixed signals and with optical heterodyne receiver 5 and A/D conversion of signals divided with time gates which correspond to distances, [0059-61]; Examiner notes that while Ando does not explicitly discuss which terms are used, all three terms are present in the signal if not filtered and Ando does not filter out components here), wherein the receiver is configured to act as a pulsed-lidar receiver, and wherein the pulse-detection circuit determines the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light based on the first term when the first term is greater than the second term or the second term when the second term is greater than the first term (distance determined by measured arrival time and photoelectric conversion of mixed signals and with optical heterodyne receiver 5 and A/D conversion of signals divided with time gates which correspond to distances, [0059-61, 0077-78]; Examiner notes that while Ando does not explicitly discuss which terms are used, all three terms are present in the signal if not filtered and Ando does not filter out components here, and the heterodyne receiver with time gates acts as a puled-lidar receiver); and
a processor configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based on the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light (signal processor 6, distance determined by measured arrival time, [0077-78]).
Regarding claim 2, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the photocurrent signal is proportional to
E
R
X
t
+
E
L
O
t
2
, wherein:
E
R
X
t
represents an electric field of the received pulse of light; and
E
L
O
t
represents an electric field of the local-oscillator light (This is inherent in optical heterodyne detection).
Regarding claim 3, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 2, wherein: the first term corresponds to an optical power of the received pulse of light and is represented by
E
R
X
t
2
;the second term, which corresponds to the coherent mixing of the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light, is represented by
2
E
R
X
t
E
L
O
t
c
o
s
[
Δ
ω
t
t
+
Δ
ϕ
t
]
, wherein:
Δ
ω
(
t
)
represents a frequency difference between the electric field of the received pulse of light and the electric field of the local-oscillator light; and
Δ
ϕ
t
represents a phase difference between the electric field of the received pulse of light and the electric field of the local-oscillator light; and the third term corresponds to an optical power of the local-oscillator light and is represented by
E
L
O
t
2
(This is inherent in optical heterodyne detection).
Regarding claim 4, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the second term is a coherent-mixing term that is proportional to a product of (i) an amplitude of an electric field of the received pulse of light and (ii) an amplitude of an electric field of the local-oscillator light (This is inherent in optical heterodyne detection).
Regarding claim 5, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 4, wherein the coherent-mixing term of the photocurrent signal is proportional to
E
R
X
t
E
L
O
t
c
o
s
[
ω
R
X
-
ω
L
O
t
+
ϕ
R
X
t
-
ϕ
L
O
t
]
, wherein:
E
R
X
t
represents the amplitude of the electric field of the received pulse of light;
E
L
O
t
represents the amplitude of the electric field of the local-oscillator light;
ω
R
X
represents a frequency of the electric field of the received pulse of light;
ω
L
O
represents a frequency of the electric field of the local-oscillator light;
ϕ
R
X
t
represents a phase of the electric field of the received pulse of light; and
ϕ
L
O
t
represents a phase of the electric field of the local-oscillator light (This is inherent in optical heterodyne detection).
Regarding claim 6, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein, when the first term is greater than the second term, wherein the pulse-detection circuit determines the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light primarily based on the first term (distance determined by measured arrival time and photoelectric conversion of mixed signals and with optical heterodyne receiver 5 and A/D conversion of signals divided with time gates which correspond to distances, [0059-61, 0077-78]; Ando does this time determination regardless of which term is greater).
Regarding claim 7, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the first term being greater than the second term is associated with the distance to the target being less than a threshold distance or a reflectivity of the target being greater than a threshold reflectivity (The first term being greater than the second term is inherently based on a combination of factors such as reflectivity, distance, and attenuation such that which terms are comparatively greater are then inherently based on thresholds of reflectivity and distance (e.g. for objects with the same reflectivity in the same environmental conditions, a distance threshold inherently determines which term is greater)).
Regarding claim 8, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein, when the second term is greater than the first term, wherein the pulse-detection circuit determines the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light primarily based on the second term (distance determined by measured arrival time and photoelectric conversion of mixed signals and with optical heterodyne receiver 5 and A/D conversion of signals divided with time gates which correspond to distances, [0059-61, 0077-78]; Ando does this time determination regardless of which term is greater and the greater term will be the first to appear above noise in a given time gate).
Regarding claim 9, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 8, wherein the second term being greater than the first term is associated with the distance to the target being greater than a threshold distance or a reflectivity of the target being less than a threshold reflectivity (The second term being greater than the first term is inherently based on a combination of factors such as reflectivity, distance, and attenuation such that which terms are comparatively greater are then inherently based on thresholds of reflectivity and distance (e.g. for objects with the same reflectivity in the same environmental conditions, a distance threshold inherently determines which term is greater))..
Regarding claim 10, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the optical property of the received pulse of light is an optical power, optical intensity, optical energy, or electric field of the received pulse of light; and the optical property of the local-oscillator light is an optical power, optical intensity, optical energy, or electric field of the local-oscillator light (This is inherent in optical heterodyne detection).
Regarding claim 11, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light are coherently mixed together at the receiver to produce the photocurrent signal (coherent mixing at optical heterodyne receiver 5, Fig. 1, [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the light source is further configured to impart a spectral signature of one or more different spectral signatures to each of the emitted pulses of light (optical frequency and intensity modulator 13 provides an offset frequency for the light, [0055, 65]); and the receiver further comprises a frequency-detection circuit configured to determine, based on the second term of the photocurrent signal, a spectral signature of the received pulse of light (signal processor performs a fast Fourier transform on the beat signal, [0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the light source comprises: a seed laser diode configured to produce a seed optical signal and the local-oscillator light (light source 11, [0043, 70]); and a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) configured to amplify temporal portions of the seed optical signal to produce the emitted pulses of light, wherein each amplified temporal portion of the seed optical signal corresponds to one of the emitted pulses of light (optical intensity modulator 132 can be a SOA, [067, 265], with pulse modulation signal WF01 used in Fig. 10, [067, 231]);
Regarding claim 20, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 19, wherein each emitted pulse of light being coherent with the corresponding temporal portion of the local-oscillator light corresponds to the temporal portion of the seed light that is amplified being coherent with the corresponding temporal portion of the local-oscillator light (optical intensity modulator 132 [067, 265], with pulse modulation signal WF01 used in Fig. 10, [067, 231]).
Regarding claim 22, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 19, wherein the light source further comprises an optical splitter disposed between the seed laser diode and the SOA, wherein the optical splitter is configured to split off a portion of the seed optical signal to produce the local-oscillator light (optical branching coupler 12, [0054]).
Regarding claim 27, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the light source comprises: a seed laser diode configured to produce a seed optical signal and the local-oscillator light (light source 11); a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) configured to amplify temporal portions of the seed optical signal to produce initial pulses of light (SOA 132, [0265]); and a fiber-optic amplifier configured to receive the initial pulses of light from the SOA and further amplify the initial pulses of light to produce the emitted pulses of light (fiber amplifier can be used as second intensity modulator 135 in Fig. 5, [0124] or as optical amplifier 2 after intensity modulator 13 (132), Fig. 1, [0227]), wherein each amplified temporal portion of the seed optical signal corresponds to one of the emitted pulses of light (optical intensity modulator 132 can be a SOA, [067, 265], with pulse modulation signal WF01 used in Fig. 10, [067, 231]).
Regarding claim 30, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light corresponds to a round-trip time (AT) for the portion of the one of the emitted pulses of light to travel to the target and back to the lidar system; and the distance (D) to the target is determined from an expression
D
=
c
Δ
T
/
2
, wherein c is a speed of light (equation 2).
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 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Feng US 20190346568 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
Ando does not explicitly teach further comprising an optical combiner configured to: combine the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light to produce a combined beam comprising at least a portion of the local-oscillator light and at least a portion of the received pulse of light; and direct the combined beam to the detector.
Feng teaches an optical combiner (28 in Fig. 1, [0023-28]) and directing the combined light to detectors (Fig. 1, [0027-28])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to include an optical combiner configured to: combine the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light to produce a combined beam comprising at least a portion of the local-oscillator light and at least a portion of the received pulse of light; and direct the combined beam to the detector similar to Feng with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing more flexibility of components of the lidar system.
Regarding claim 16, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the light source comprises:
a seed laser diode configured to produce a seed optical signal and the local-oscillator light (light source 11, [0043, 70]); and
a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) configured to amplify temporal portions of the seed optical signal to produce the emitted pulses of light, wherein each amplified temporal portion of the seed optical signal corresponds to one of the emitted pulses of light (optical intensity modulator 132 can be a SOA, [067, 265], with pulse modulation signal WF01 used in Fig. 10, [067, 231]); and
Ando does not explicitly teach the lidar system further comprises a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) comprising an optical combiner and one or more optical waveguides, wherein: each of the seed laser diode, the SOA, and the detector is attached to, connected to, or integrated with the PIC;
the optical waveguides are configured to (i) convey the local-oscillator light to the optical combiner, (ii) convey the received pulse of light to the optical combiner, and (iii) convey a combined beam from the combiner to the detector; and the optical combiner is configured to combine the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light to produce the combined beam, the combined beam comprising at least a portion of the local-oscillator light and at least a portion of the received pulse of light.
Feng teaches a PIC (Figs. 1, [0015-18]) comprising an optical combiner (28 in Fig. 1, [0023-28]), one or more optical waveguides (e.g. 16, 27, 30, 36, 38, Fig. 1, [0021-25]) and the seed laser and amplifier ([0018]); with the optical waveguides conveying LO light to the combiner (reference waveguide 27, [0023]), conveying received pulse of light to the optical combiner (comparative waveguide 30, [004-26]), conveying combined beam from the combiner to the detector (detector waveguides 36 and 38, [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to include a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) comprising an optical combiner and one or more optical waveguides, wherein: each of the seed laser diode, the SOA, and the detector is attached to, connected to, or integrated with the PIC; the optical waveguides are configured to (i) convey the local-oscillator light to the optical combiner, (ii) convey the received pulse of light to the optical combiner, and (iii) convey a combined beam from the combiner to the detector; and the optical combiner is configured to combine the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light to produce the combined beam, the combined beam comprising at least a portion of the local-oscillator light and at least a portion of the received pulse of light similar to Feng with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to be simpler to install because these components are on the same chip.
Regarding claim 17, Ando as modified above teaches the lidar system of Claim 16,
Ando does not explicitly teach but Feng teaches further comprising an input lens attached to, connected to, or integrated with the PIC, wherein the input lens is configured to focus the received pulse of light into one of the optical waveguides of the PIC (collimating device 92, Figs. 3-5, [0063-66]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to include an input lens attached to, connected to, or integrated with the PIC, wherein the input lens is configured to focus the received pulse of light into one of the optical waveguides of the PIC similar to Feng with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping more of the reflected light reach the waveguide (Feng: [0063])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Ingelberts US 20200168649 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
Ando does not explicitly teach wherein the detector comprises a first input side and a second input side located opposite the first input side, wherein the received pulse of light is incident on the first input side of the detector, and the local-oscillator light is incident on the second input side of the detector.
Ingelberts teaches a detector that supports both front-side and back-side illumination (Fig. 5A, detector 304, light incident from the top 501 or from the bottom 502, [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the detector comprises a first input side and a second input side located opposite the first input side, wherein the received pulse of light is incident on the first input side of the detector, and the local-oscillator light is incident on the second input side of the detector similar to Ingelberts with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving detector speed (Ingelberts: [0056]).
Claims 14-15 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Villeneuve US 20190221988 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
Ando does not explicitly teach further comprising an optical polarization element configured to alter a polarization of the emitted pulses of light, the local-oscillator light, or the received pulse of light to allow the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light to be coherently mixed.
Villeneuve teaches a lidar system including a quarter wave plate to convert the output beam from linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light (Fig. 1, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to include an optical polarization element configured to alter a polarization of the emitted pulses of light, the local-oscillator light, or the received pulse of light to allow the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light to be coherently mixed similar to Villeneuve with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result allowing polarization-diversity detection (Villeneuve: [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, Ando as modified above teaches the lidar system of Claim 14,
Ando does not explicitly teach wherein the optical polarization element comprises (i) a quarter-wave plate configured to convert the polarization of the local-oscillator light to circularly polarized light or (ii) a depolarizer configured to depolarize the polarization of the local-oscillator light.
Villeneuve teaches a lidar system including a quarter wave plate to convert the output beam from linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light (Fig. 1, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the optical polarization element comprises (i) a quarter-wave plate configured to convert the polarization of the local-oscillator light to circularly polarized light or (ii) a depolarizer configured to depolarize the polarization of the local-oscillator light similar to Villeneuve with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result allowing polarization-diversity detection (Villeneuve: [0037]).
Regarding claim 26, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 19,
Ando does not explicitly teach wherein the light source is configured as a four-terminal device, wherein: the seed laser diode comprises a seed laser anode and a seed laser cathode; the SOA comprises a SOA anode and a SOA cathode; the seed laser anode and the SOA anode are electrically isolated from one another; and the seed laser cathode and the SOA cathode are electrically isolated from one another.
Villeneuve teaches electrically isolated seed laser and SOA anodes and electrically isolated seed laser and SOA cathodes (Fig. 15, [0201-202]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the light source is configured as a four-terminal device, wherein: the seed laser diode comprises a seed laser anode and a seed laser cathode; the SOA comprises a SOA anode and a SOA cathode; the seed laser anode and the SOA anode are electrically isolated from one another; and the seed laser cathode and the SOA cathode are electrically isolated from one another similar to Villeneuve with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing electrical interference between the seed laser and SOA.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Wang US 20220209493 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 19,
Ando does not explicitly teach wherein the seed laser diode comprises a front face from which the seed optical signal is produced and a back face from which the local-oscillator light is produced.
Wang teaches emission from two sides of a laser diode ([0027])
Additionally, it is well-known in the art that laser diodes can emit from both facets of a laser cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the seed laser diode comprises a front face from which the seed optical signal is produced and a back face from which the local-oscillator light is produced similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of simplifying splitting components needed.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Hong US 20200252133 A1.
Regarding claim 23, Ando teaches the light source of Claim 19,
Ando does not explicitly teach but Hong teaches wherein the SOA comprises a tapered optical waveguide extending from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein a width of the tapered optical waveguide increases from the input end to the output end (Fig. 4, [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the SOA comprises a tapered optical waveguide extending from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein a width of the tapered optical waveguide increases from the input end to the output end similar to Hong with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping “increase the power of the modulated optical signal before the optical signal is output” (Hong: [0053]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Hughes US 20190154816 A1.
Regarding claim 24, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 19, wherein the light source further comprises an electronic driver configured to: supply pulses of electrical current to the SOA, wherein each pulse of current causes the SOA to amplify one of the temporal portions of the seed optical signal to produce one of the emitted pulses of light (signal generator with 133 supplying pulses to intensity modulator 132 in Fig. 10, [067, 231, 265]).
Ando does not explicitly teach an electronic driver configured to: supply a substantially constant electrical current to the seed laser diode so that the seed optical signal comprises light having a substantially constant optical power.
Hughes teaches driving a laser diode with substantially constant DC current to produce CW light ([0135])
Additionally, Ando does teach seed optical signal comprises light having a substantially constant optical power (constant amplitude LO light, Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to supply a substantially constant electrical current to the seed laser diode so that the seed optical signal comprises light having a substantially constant optical power similar to Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping allow for the coherent mixing of local oscillator and reflected light.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Ooi US 20200295529 A1.
Regarding claim 25, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 19,
Ando does not explicitly teach wherein the light source is configured as a three-terminal device, wherein (i) the light source comprises a common anode, wherein an anode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to an anode of the SOA or (ii) the light source comprises a common cathode, wherein a cathode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to a cathode of the SOA.
Ooi teaches a SOA-LD device is a three-terminal device ([0023-25, 29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the light source is configured as a three-terminal device, wherein (i) the light source comprises a common anode, wherein an anode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to an anode of the SOA or (ii) the light source comprises a common cathode, wherein a cathode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to a cathode of the SOA similar to Ooi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping simplify electrical connections in an integrated device.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Droz US 20180180739 A1, Daladurantaye US 20100128744 A1, and Vogler US 20150230978 A1.
Regarding claim 28, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
Ando does not explicitly teach wherein the emitted pulses of light have optical characteristics comprising: a wavelength between 900 nanometers and 2000 nanometers; a pulse energy between 0.01 pJ and 100 pJ; a pulse repetition frequency between 80 kHz and 10 MHz; and a pulse duration between 1 ns and 100 ns.
Droz teaches 1550 nm wavelength and a pulse duration of 2-4 ns ([0021]).
Daladurantaye teaches a pulse repetition frequency of 100 kHz ([0074])
Vogler teaches output pulse energy in the range 1-100 pJ ([0039])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the emitted pulses of light have optical characteristics comprising: a wavelength between 900 nanometers and 2000 nanometers similar to Droz; a pulse energy between 0.01 pJ and 100 pJ similar to Vogler; a pulse repetition frequency between 80 kHz and 10 MHz similar to Daladurantaye; and a pulse duration between 1 ns and 100 ns similar to Droz with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of yielding predictable performance of a LIDAR system while allowing the system to pass safety standards.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Villeneuve US 20170155225 A1.
Regarding claim 29, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
Ando does not explicitly teach but Villeneuve teaches wherein: the receiver further comprises an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the photocurrent signal to produce a voltage signal that corresponds to the photocurrent signal; and the pulse-detection circuit comprises one or more comparators coupled to one or more respective time-to-digital converters (TDCs), wherein: each comparator is configured to provide an electrical-edge signal to a corresponding TDC when the voltage signal rises above or falls below a particular threshold voltage; and the corresponding TDC is configured to produce a time value corresponding to a time when the electrical-edge signal was received, wherein the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light is determined based on one or more time values produced by one or more of the TDCs (Figs. 29, 38, [0211, 217, 218]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the receiver further comprises an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the photocurrent signal to produce a voltage signal that corresponds to the photocurrent signal; and the pulse-detection circuit comprises one or more comparators coupled to one or more respective time-to-digital converters (TDCs), wherein: each comparator is configured to provide an electrical-edge signal to a corresponding TDC when the voltage signal rises above or falls below a particular threshold voltage; and the corresponding TDC is configured to produce a time value corresponding to a time when the electrical-edge signal was received, wherein the time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light is determined based on one or more time values produced by one or more of the TDCs similar to Villeneuve with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing Ando to accurately measure the times needed to calculate distance.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando US 20160291135 A1 in view of Russell US 20190107606 A1
Regarding claim 31, Ando teaches the lidar system of Claim 1,
Ando does not explicitly teach but Russell teaches further comprising a scanner configured to scan the emitted pulses of light across a field of regard of the lidar system (Scanner 120, [0055]).
Additionally scanners are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando to include a scanner configured to scan the emitted pulses of light across a field of regard of the lidar system similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing Ando to scan an entire field of view in a controllable manner.
Regarding claim 32, Ando as modified above teaches the lidar system of Claim 31,
Ando does not explicitly teach but Russell teaches wherein the scanner comprises: a polygon mirror configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a first direction within the field of regard; and a scan mirror configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a second direction within the field of regard, the second direction different from the first direction (Scanner including polygon mirror and other mirror (250-1 and 250-2), [0055, 57]).
Additionally polygon and mirror scanners are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that the scanner comprises: a polygon mirror configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a first direction within the field of regard; and a scan mirror configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a second direction within the field of regard, the second direction different from the first direction similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing Ando to scan an entire field of view in a controllable manner.
Regarding claim 33, Ando as modified above teaches the lidar system of Claim 31,
Ando does not explicitly teach but Russell teaches wherein scanning the emitted pulses of light comprises scanning a field of view of the light source and a field of view of the receiver across the field of regard of the lidar system, wherein the light-source field of view and the receiver field of view are scanned synchronously with respect to one another, wherein a scanning speed of the light-source field of view and a scanning speed of the receiver field of view are approximately equal.
Additionally synchronizing field of views are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ando such that scanning the emitted pulses of light comprises scanning a field of view of the light source and a field of view of the receiver across the field of regard of the lidar system, wherein the light-source field of view and the receiver field of view are scanned synchronously with respect to one another, wherein a scanning speed of the light-source field of view and a scanning speed of the receiver field of view are approximately equal similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing Ando to capture the reflected light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salsbury US 20220171059 A1 teaches a hybrid lidar sensor using ToF to determine a distance and coherent sensing to determine velocity ([0026]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645