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 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 6/27/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings do not show the embodiment where the heating element has a serpentine shape, as claimed in claim 4. Furthermore, the drawings do not show the embodiment where a singular heating element is disposed between multiple different waveguides having different widths that correspond with different light energy frequency propagation, as recited by claim 9. Therefore, the serpentine shaped heating element and the heating element disposed between waveguides of different widths must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: Page 3 of the specifications describes optical phased array system 140 in reference to Fig. 3B. Instead, the number 130 is used to refer to the entire system of light detection assemblies as well as the individual light detection assemblies of Fig. 3B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate both an individual assembly and the entire system of assemblies in Fig. 3B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 recites “the heating element is positioned proximal the waveguide” and is not quite grammatically correct and can be corrected to recite --the heating element is positioned proximal to the waveguide--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 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 claims contain 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 recites the limitation where a movement vector of the target can be identified by sensing light with a detector. Page 3 lines 4-18 explain that the controller can track an object and identify its distance and velocity by emitting photons. Then, the plot illustrated in Fig. 2, can be used to determine “information about an object” by collecting “photon information” from the line 122 and identified peaks 124. However, the specifications are silent on how this “photon information” is processed to yield a movement vector or a velocity of the target. There are many ways to determine velocity of an object, and depending on the principle of operation of the lidar system (whether it emits continuous waves, discrete pulses, pulse trains, etc.), the method for determining velocity may vary. Velocity can also be determined in post-processing where sequential images are analyzed to determine a movement and direction. The specifications fail to point to any of these methods for velocity determination in their invention. The specifications also fail to produce any sort of equation that would represent how a velocity is determined in their own system. Page 5 lines 13-19 describe that a moving direction of the target 184 in Fig. 5, can be identified by the controller, but fails to provide any further detail on how the controller is able to identify velocity from the detected light. Many methods for determining velocity are known in the art, yet the disclosure of this application fails to point to any method for determining velocity. Because the disclosure fails to provide any details on how the velocity is determined using their apparatus, there is insufficient written description to demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17 recites the limitation where a shape of the target can be identified from the light energy sensed by the detector. Page 5 line 13 through page 6 line 21 of the specifications describe that by emitting light into the environment and detecting the light that is reflected off targets in the environment, “information about a downrange target” can be determined. Fig. 5 is referred to, when describing how a shape of targets 182, 184, and 188, is determined. However, there is no explanation of how the received data is analyzed to yield information about a shape of the target. Page 2 line 25 through page 3 line 10 explains that “an intelligent controller” can be used to translate returned photons into “at least object size and shape.” The shape of the target could be identified by grouping distance measurements, grouping intensity measurements, forming a map of the scene, or by fusing the data with an image acquired by a camera, just to name a few examples. Neither the specifications nor drawings point to any method for determining shape. Because there is a multitude of ways the shape of a target can be determined from detections, merely stating that the controller is “intelligent” is not sufficient. Because the disclosure fails to adequately describe how the collected detections are processed by the “intelligent controller” to determine the shape of the target, there is insufficient written description for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of the effective filing date.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites: “the apparatus of claim 5,” referring to itself. It is unclear what claim was meant to be recited. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 1. Claim 5 is being interpreted to recite: “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the waveguide has a serpentine shape.”
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 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hashemi (US 10656496 B2).
Regarding Claim 1: Hashemi discloses an apparatus comprising a solid state optical energy emitter coupled to a controller and a phase shifter (Col. 3, lines 61-62 and Col. 4, lines 10-15: the optical device in the invention disclosed by Hashemi has a controller that is communicatively coupled to the phase shifters via DACs and a light source that is communicatively coupled to the phase shifters, and thus the controller also) the phase shifter comprising a heating element positioned between portions of a waveguide (Fig. 9A, the phase shifter is the silicone waveguide + the resistor. The resistor applies heat, ΔT, to the waveguide to shift the phase. Fig. 9B shows the heating elements between portions of a waveguide: “the silicon waveguide can be folded into multiple segments surrounding multiple heaters”, Col. 14, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 2: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hashemi further discloses wherein the solid state optical energy emitter is part of an array of multiple solid state optical energy emitters physically packaged together (Fig. 21, each of the 1D optical phased arrays can be bonded together, forming a single package. Col. 4 lines 10-15, there is at least one light source for one of the optical phased arrays, so each of the bonded optical phase arrays can also have a laser as the light source).
Regarding Claim 3: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hashemi further discloses wherein the solid state optical energy emitter and controller are each coupled to at least one antennae (Fig. 21, the 1-D optical phased arrays each emit light from their antenna at the die edge. In order for light to be emitted from the antennae, there must be a light source coupled to it. Col 17, lines 50-53: the combined arrays in Fig. 21 are interconnected for control signals to be sent, and the controller is connected to the antenna via the 1-D OPA and the interconnects).
Regarding Claim 5: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hashemi further discloses wherein the waveguide has a serpentine shape (Col. 14, lines 1-7: “the silicon waveguide can be folded into multiple segments surrounding multiple heaters,” and this is illustrated in Figs. 9B and 9C where the waveguide snakes around the heaters).
Regarding Claim 6: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hashemi further discloses wherein the waveguide and heating element do not intersect (Figs. 9B and 9C, the waveguide snakes around the heating elements, and does not intersect with them).
Regarding Claim 11: Hashemi discloses a method comprising: positioning a solid state optical energy emitter downrange from a target (Col. 4 lines 23-28, the optical device can be part of an optical transceiver, like in a lidar/3D imaging system. An environment in which a lidar or 3D imaging system is used inherently has targets because we do not exist in a vacuum), the solid state optical energy emitter coupled to a controller and a phase shifter (Col. 3, lines 61-62 and Col. 4, lines 10-15: the optical device in the invention disclosed by Hashemi has a controller that is communicatively coupled to the phase shifters via DACs and a light source that is communicatively coupled to the phase shifters, and thus the controller also), the phase shifter comprising a heating element positioned between portions of a waveguide (Fig. 9A, the phase shifter is the silicone waveguide + the resistor. The resistor applies heat, ΔT, to the waveguide to shift the phase. Fig. 9B shows the heating elements between portions of a waveguide: “the silicon waveguide can be folded into multiple segments surrounding multiple heaters”, Col. 14, lines 1-7); passing light energy through the waveguide with a first phase by activating an optical source (Fig. 9A, light going into the waveguide has an initial phase of 0, where the wave is described as
e
-
i
ω
t
; this light must come from an optical source in the optical device disclosed by Hashemi), and activating the phase shifter to provide a
2
π
phase shift for the light energy passing through the waveguide (Fig. 9A, the light exiting the waveguide has a phase shift of Δφ, and the wave can be described with
e
-
i
(
ω
t
+
∆
φ
)
. The graph in the upper right-hand corner of Fig. 9A shows phase shift vs. temperature, and the phase can be shifted to
2
π
).
Regarding Claim 12: Hashemi discloses the method of claim 11. Hashemi further discloses wherein the phase shifter is activated by passing electrical current through a heating element (Col. 13, lines 54-57: “Flowing a current into a conductor strap—a polysilicon strap in one embodiment—near the waveguide realizes an electrically controlled heater to introduce the temperature rise”).
Regarding Claim 14: Hashemi discloses the method of claim 11. Hashemi further discloses wherein the activation of the phase shifter alters a light beam direction from the solid state optical energy emitter (Col. 10 lines 60-65: by controlling the phase shifting of the optical phased array, the optical phased array can accomplish linear beam steering).
Regarding Claim 15: Hashemi discloses the method of claim 11. Hashemi further discloses wherein the light energy is sensed by a detector to identify a position of the target (Col. 17 lines 8-14, the optical phased array can be used for non-mechanical beam scanning for object detection and the receiver for object detection, tracking, and ranging, can be a non-scanning receiver).
Regarding Claim 18: Hashemi discloses the method of claim 11. Hashemi further discloses wherein the phase shifter is configured to provide a non-uniform thermal gradient from a first side of the waveguide to a second side (Fig. 9C shows the heat delivery from heater to waveguide in 9B. The shading shows that from the first to second end of the waveguide, the applied heat varies. At the bends, the temperature is higher than in the center. From beginning to end, the temperature oscillates making it a non-uniform gradient).
Regarding Claim 19: Hashemi discloses a light detection and ranging system (Col. 4 lines 23-28, the optical device can be part of an optical transceiver, like in a lidar system) comprising a plurality of solid state optical energy emitters each coupled to a controller and a phase shifter (Fig. 21 and Col. 4 lines 10-15, there is at least one light source for one of the optical phased arrays. Each of the bonded optical phase arrays in Fig. 21 can also have a laser as the light source; Col. 3, lines 61-62 and Col. 4, lines 10-15: the optical device in the invention disclosed by Hashemi has a controller that is communicatively coupled to the phase shifters via DACs and a light source that is communicatively coupled to the phase shifters, and thus the controller also), each phase shifter comprising a heating element positioned between portions of a waveguide (Fig. 9A, the phase shifter is the silicone waveguide + the resistor. The resistor applies heat, ΔT, to the waveguide to shift the phase. Fig. 9B shows the heating elements between portions of a waveguide: “the silicon waveguide can be folded into multiple segments surrounding multiple heaters”, Col. 14, lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 20: Hashemi discloses the light detection and ranging system of claim 19. Hashemi further discloses wherein 1024 phase shifters provide thermal energy to at least 512 waveguides (Fig. 7, 1024 element array divided into sub arrays 702, the resistor in Fig. 9A applies heat to only its waveguide, so with a 1024 element array, there is 1024 waveguides. Col. 12 lines 1-2: “the 1024 optical variable phase shifters connected to 1024 optical antennae”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemi in view of Bauters (US 9880353 B2).
Regarding Claim 4: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. However, Hashemi does not disclose wherein the heating element has a serpentine shape.
However, Bauters teaches a serpentine shaped heating element in Fig. 5 where the heaters 502, 503, 504, and 505 have a serpentine shape.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heaters disclosed by Hashemi such that they adopt the serpentine shape as taught by Bauters. This would be using a different type of heater to heat the waveguide in order to control phase shift of light, and this would merely be a different design of a thermal phase shifter. “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 7: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. However, Hashemi does not disclose wherein the heating element comprises a doped rib waveguide.
However, Bauters teaches a heating element with a doped rib waveguide in Fig. 6, with waveguide 610 that is part of silicone layer 606. Col. 9 lines 35-39: “heating segments 512 may also be created within the silicon device layer 606 (not shown), e.g., by doping the silicon to render it resistive”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the waveguides disclosed by Hashemi such that they are ribbed waveguides that are doped, such that they are able to be heated as well, in order to control phase, as taught by Bauters. This would be using a different type of waveguide in order to further control phase shift of light, and this would merely be a different design of a thermal phase shifter. “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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemi in view of Norberg (US 20160099546 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. However, Hashemi does not disclose wherein the heating element is a singular unit disposed between multiple different waveguides.
However, Norberg teaches this limitation in Fig. 2, with the single heating element 220 that heats waveguides 210. Fig. 3 further illustrates different waveguide segments 312 and 314, of different sizes that can be heated by the same heating element.
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 architecture of the phase shifter disclosed by Hashemi, such that many waveguides of different sizes are heated by the same heater, as taught by Norberg. This would be beneficial because the waveguides of different widths prevent light from coupling between the waveguides, allowing the separation between these waveguides to be even smaller. This is because the waveguides will have different optical indices, so the light cannot be phase matched. This then allows for a smaller footprint and allows efficient phase tuning with a smaller heating element (Norberg, [0025]).
Regarding Claim 9: Hashemi, as modified by Norberg, teaches the apparatus of claim 8. In this combination, Norberg further teaches wherein the different waveguides respectively have different widths corresponding with different light energy frequency propagation (Fig. 3, waveguide 312 has width 318 and waveguide 314 has width 320; [0025] the light in the different waveguides are non-phase matched, so their light energy frequency propagation is different because of their different phase).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemi in view of Taylor (US 20220317393 A1). Hashemi discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Hashemi does not expressly disclose that a center portion of the heating element has a different cross-sectional area than a lateral portion.
However, Taylor teaches this limitation in Fig. 3B, with the heating element 325 being wider in section 301-2, and narrower in sections 301-1 and 301-3. Paragraph [0019] explains that the three different sections have different cross-sectional areas.
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 architecture of the phase shifter disclosed by Hashemi, by adopting the design of the heating element disclosed by Taylor. This is merely a different design option for heaters in thermal phase shifters to control phase of light. “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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemi in view of Poulton (US 10527906 B2). Hashemi discloses the method of claim 12. However, Hashemi does not expressly disclose wherein the heating element is positioned proximal to the waveguide so that 5 mW of electricity produces the 2pi phase shift for the light energy.
Poulton teaches a heating element positioned proximal to the waveguide such that low energy produces the 2pi phase shift (Col. 6 lines 50-60, “the power required for each phase shifter to achieve 2π is reduced to ˜1 mW due to the reduced heat transfer to the silicon handle wafer”).
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 phase shifter architecture disclosed by Hashemi such that a trench is employed as taught by Poulton, in order to reduce the power required to achieve a 2pi phase shift to 5mW. It is commonly understood that the amount of power needed to produce a 2pi phase shift in a waveguide increases as the length of the waveguide decreases. This can be seen in Equation 7 in Col. 13 of the Hashemi reference. In order to obtain the same phase shift, if more temperature is used, the shorter the waveguide length must be. An obvious modification would be to employ this trench architecture, but to have shorter waveguides, such that 5mW of power is required to produce a 2pi phase shift. One of ordinary skill could have pursued this known potential solution for phase shifting with reasonable expectation for success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemi in view of Watts (US 20220146903 A1). Hashemi discloses the method of claim 11. Hashemi does not expressly disclose wherein the light energy is sensed by a detector to identify a movement vector of the target.
Watts teaches measuring velocity of a target, which is a movement vector since a vector has direction and magnitude and velocity has a direction and magnitude ([0117] “the distance to an object 2804 and its velocity can be measured (with Doppler shift detection)”).
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 method disclosed by Hashemi to include the measurement of a doppler shift to determine velocity of the target, as taught by Watts. This would be using a known technique to improve the method disclosed by Hashemi in the same way by also determining velocity of the target (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale C).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemi in view of Keilaf (US 20190271767 A1). Hashemi discloses the method of claim 11. Hashemi does not expressly disclose wherein the light energy is sensed by a detector to identify a shape of the target.
Keilaf teaches this limitation in Fig. 5C and paragraphs [0143] “scanning of field of view 120 reveals four objects 208: two free-form objects in the near field (e.g., between 5 and 50 meters), a rounded-square object in the mid field (e.g., between 50 and 150 meters), and a triangle object in the far field (e.g., between 150 and 500 meters).”
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 method disclosed by Hashemi to include the determination of shape by scanning an entire environment and clustering detections to identify objects, as taught by Keilaf. This would be applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of identifying the shapes of targets in the environment (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