Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/13/2026 with respect to amendments of claims 21 and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1).
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.
Claim 21, 22, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20200209361 A1), in view of Ruff (US 20090002680 A1), further in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1).
Claim 21: Maier teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system for a vehicle, the LiDAR system comprising:
a switchable coherent pixel array (SCPA) on a LiDAR chip (Fig. 2A, transceiver array 2 and [0042]),
an input/output port configured to receive optical power ([0006] – receiving and detecting)
the SCPA includes a plurality of coherent pixels (CPs) (Fig. 2A, optical transceivers 3a-e and [0006] - FMCW),
[…]
wherein a first CP of the one or more particular CPs is configured to emit coherent light (Fig. 2A, first transceiver 3a and [0006] - FMCW);
and a lens system that is positioned to direct coherent light emitted from the SCPA into an environment as light beams (Fig. 2A, microlens array 4 and lens 7)
wherein the light beams are emitted at a specific angle […] and the specific angle is based in part on […]
And wherein coarse optical steering of the light beams is implemented by selective activation of the CPs on the LiDAR chip ([0058]).
Maier does not teach, but Ruff does teach a wavelength of the light beams is tuned over a range of wavelengths ([0024] – stepped-frequency modulation – note that since frequency and wavelength are related, this would also cause the wavelength to be ‘stepped’).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wavelength/frequency stepping, as taught by Ruff, in the system as taught by Maier, because stepping frequency/wavelength is well known in the art to yield predictable results, and allows for more adaptability, as there is not a single wavelength chosen and instead a range.
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Halmos does teach, a switch configured to distribute the optical power to one or more particular CPs of the plurality of CPs ([0018])
and wherein the light beams are reflected from an object in the environment and received through the first CP without passing through the switch (Fig. 2, switch 203 not in path from window 234 to receiver module 236 and camera 238).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the switch, as taught by Halmos, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because using switches to activate pixels would be well known in the art, and the position of Halmos’s switch would allow the switch to only interact with the light source, reducing the chance of incorrect signals.
Claim 22: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 21, wherein the LiDAR system is configured to scan at a first scanning resolution the light beams in two dimensions through the environment based in part on selective activation of different CPs of the SCPA (Fig. 3A, transceiver array 2 in xy plane, creating 2D scan).
Claim 31: Maier, as modified, teaches a solid state frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, the solid state FMCW LiDAR system comprising:
a laser source configured to emit coherent light ([0042]);
a switchable coherent pixel array (SCPA) on a LiDAR chip (Fig. 2A, transceiver array 2 and [0042]),
the SCPA that includes: an input/output port configured to receive optical power ([0006] – receiving and detecting),
A plurality of coherent pixels (CPs) ((Fig. 2A, optical transceivers 3a-e and [0006] - FMCW),
[…]
and a lens system that is positioned to direct light emitted from the SCPA into an environment as light beams (Fig. 2A, microlens array 4 and lens 7),
wherein the light beams are emitted at a specific angle and the specific angle is based in part on positions of the CPs on the LiDAR chip that generated the coherent light that form the light beams ([0058]).
Maier does not teach, but Ruff does teach a wavelength of the light beams is tuned over a range of wavelengths ([0024] – stepped-frequency modulation – note that since frequency and wavelength are related, this would also cause the wavelength to be ‘stepped’).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wavelength/frequency stepping, as taught by Ruff, in the system as taught by Maier, because stepping frequency/wavelength is well known in the art to yield predictable results, and allows for more adaptability, as there is not a single wavelength chosen and instead a range.
Claim 32: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 31, further comprising a controller configured to instruct the LiDAR chip to scan at a first scanning resolution the light beams in two dimensions through the environment based in part on selective activation of different CPs of the SCPA (Fig. 3A, transceiver array 2 in xy plane, creating 2D scan).
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Halmos does teach, a switch configured to distribute the optical power to one or more particular CPs of the plurality of CPs ([0018])
and wherein the light beams are reflected from an object in the environment and received through the first CP without passing through the switch (Fig. 2, switch 203 not in path from window 234 to receiver module 236 and camera 238).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the switch, as taught by Halmos, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because using switches to activate pixels would be well known in the art, and the position of Halmos’s switch would allow the switch to only interact with the light source, reducing the chance of incorrect signals.
Claim 23-26 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20200209361 A1), in view of Ruff (US 20090002680 A1), further in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1), further in view of Gallagher (US 20120224263 A1)
Claim 23: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 22 further comprising: a diffraction grating that is positioned to diffract the light beams emitted from lens system into the environment, and an amount of diffraction is based in part on a wavelength of the light beams and on the wavelength tuned over the range of wavelengths, wherein the wavelength of the light beams is tuned over a range of wavelengths (Gallagher [0011], and Eq. 1 and 2)
such that the amount of diffraction of the diffraction grating changes to provide a second scanning resolution that is finer than the first scanning resolution.
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Gallagher does teach
such that the amount of diffraction of the diffraction grating changes to provide a second scanning resolution that is finer than the first scanning resolution ([0002] – resolution is affected by groove spacing density – means resolution can easily be adjusted).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified (specifically in place of the diffraction grating as taught by Nicolaescu) because diffraction gratings, and specifically how the operation of them is affected by wavelength, is well known in the art.
Claim 24: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 23. Only Gallagher teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a blazed grating that primarily emits light in a first diffraction order ([0011] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because different types of diffraction gratings are well known in the art. Additionally, as Gallagher teaches, blazed gratings have high efficiency ([0053]).
Claim 25: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 23. Only Gallagher teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a reflective diffraction grating (Fig. 9A and [0061]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because different types of diffraction gratings are well known in the art.
Claim 26: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 23. Only Gallagher teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a transmissive diffraction grating (Fig. 1C, [0010]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because different types of diffraction gratings are well known in the art, as taught by Gallagher ([0010]).
Claim 33: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of Claim 22 further comprising: a diffraction grating that is positioned to diffract the light beams emitted from lens system into the environment, and an amount of diffraction is based in part on a wavelength of the light beams and on the wavelength tuned over the range of wavelengths, wherein the wavelength of the light beams is tuned over a range of wavelengths (Gallagher [0011], and Eq. 1 and 2)
such that the amount of diffraction of the diffraction grating changes to provide a second scanning resolution that is finer than the first scanning resolution.
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Gallagher does teach
such that the amount of diffraction of the diffraction grating changes to provide a second scanning resolution that is finer than the first scanning resolution ([0002] – resolution is affected by groove spacing density – means resolution can easily be adjusted).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because diffraction gratings, and specifically how the operation of them is affected by wavelength, is well known in the art.
Claim 34: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 33. Only Gallagher teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a blazed grating that primarily emits light in a first diffraction order ([0011] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because different types of diffraction gratings are well known in the art. Additionally, as Gallagher teaches, blazed gratings have high efficiency ([0053]).
Claim 35: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 33. Only Gallagher teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a reflective diffraction grating (Fig. 9A and [0061]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because different types of diffraction gratings are well known in the art.
Claim 36: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 33. Only Gallagher teaches wherein the diffraction grating is a transmissive diffraction grating (Fig. 1C, [0010]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the diffraction grating, as taught by Gallagher, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because different types of diffraction gratings are well known in the art, as taught by Gallagher ([0010]).
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20200209361 A1), in view of Ruff (US 20090002680 A1), further in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1), further in view of Gallagher (US 20120224263 A1), and further in view of Pacala (US 11726204 B2).
Claim 27: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 23. Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Pacala does teach wherein a first set of CPs of the SCPA are such that light emitted from the CPs in the first set maps to a respective section of a first continuous line in the environment, and a second set of CPs of the SCPA are such that light emitted from the CPs in the second set maps to a respective section of a second continuous line in the environment that is different from the first continuous line (Fig. 2B-2D, lines of emitters 214(1-m), Col 18, lines 27-54 – where emitters are substituted with CPs and Fig. 3, showing different lines of emitters emitting to different regions).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the line scanning, as taught by Pacala, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified in view of Nicolaescu and Gallagher, because scanning in a line is well known in the art, and would allow for a scanning LiDAR system without moving parts, while saving power and reducing stray light (Pacala Col 2, lines 1-19).
Claim 37: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 31. Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Pacala does teach wherein a first set of CPs of the SCPA are such that light emitted from the CPs of the first set maps to a respective section of a first continuous line in the environment, and a second set of CPs of the SCPA are such that light emitted from the CPs of the second set maps to a respective section of a second continuous line in the environment that is different from the first continuous line (Fig. 2B-2D, lines of emitters 214(1-m), Col 18, lines 27-54 – where emitters are substituted with CPs and Fig. 3, showing different lines of emitters emitting to different regions).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the line scanning, as taught by Pacala, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because scanning in a line is well known in the art, and would allow for a scanning LiDAR system without moving parts, while saving power and reducing stray light (Pacala Col 2, lines 1-19).
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20200209361 A1), in view of Ruff (US 20090002680 A1), further in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1), in view of Hong (US 10359512 B1).
Claim 28: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 21, wherein portions of the light beams reflect off an object in the environment and are detected by at least two groups of CPs of the SCPA ([0041])
and the groups of CPs corresponds to a different region in the environment ([0041]).
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Hong does teach a sliding discrete Fourier transform (SDFT) (Col 8, lines 19-33) is used to interpolate angular position of the object from the detected portions of the light beams (Claims 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the SDFT, as taught by Hong, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because a SDFT is a known mathematical method which yields predictable results, and, as Hong teaches, this improves performance (Hong Col 8, lines 19-33).]
Claim 38: Maier, as modified, teaches solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 31, wherein portions of the light beams reflect off an object in the environment and are detected by at least two groups of CPs of the SCPA ([0041])
and the groups of CPs corresponds to a different region in the environment ([0041]).
Maier does not teach, but Hong does teach a sliding discrete Fourier transform (SDFT) (Col 8, lines 19-33) is used to interpolate angular position of the object from the detected portions of the light beams (Claims 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the SDFT, as taught by Hong, in the system as taught by Maier, because a SDFT is a known mathematical method which yields predictable results, and, as Hong teaches, this improves performance (Hong Col 8, lines 19-33).
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 20200209361 A1), in view of Ruff (US 20090002680 A1), further in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1), in view of Hong (US 10359512 B1), further in view of Takaki (US 20120319629 A1).
Claim 29: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 28. Maier, as modified in view of Hong, does not teach, but Takaki does teach, wherein a frequency response of the light emitted by a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) source that provides the coherent light to the LiDAR system is a triangular waveform and has a same period as a pixel time for SDFT. ([0049] – note that although Takaki uses a FFT, it would be obvious that a SDFT could be substituted as they are both Fourier transforms).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the triangular waveform and Fourier transform, as taught by Takaki, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because a Fourier transform is a well known method in the art to extract components of waves.
Claim 39: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 38. Maier, as modified in view of Hong, does not teach, but Takaki does teach, wherein a frequency response of the coherent light is a triangular waveform and has a same period as a pixel time for SDFT. ([0049] – note that although Takaki uses a FFT, it would be obvious that a SDFT could be substituted as they are both Fourier transforms).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the triangular waveform and Fourier transform, as taught by Takaki, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because a Fourier transform is a well known method in the art to extract components of waves.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Maier (US 20200209361 A1), in view of Ruff (US 20090002680 A1), further in view of Halmos (US 20190129016 A1), in view of Hong (US 10359512 B1), further in view of Aotake (US 20190331776 A1), further in view of Takaki (US 20120319629 A1).
Claim 30: Maier, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 28, wherein a first frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) source and a second FMCW source are configured to provide the coherent light to the LiDAR system (Maier [0028] – may be multiple light sources).
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but does Aotake does teach the first FMCW source is configured to emit light that has a first frequency response that is a […] waveform at a first phase, and the second FMCW source is configured to emit light that has a second frequency response that is the […] waveform at a second phase, wherein the second phase is 180 degrees different from the first phase ([0060]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the light at different phases, as taught by Aotake, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because this would allow for easier differentiation between the signals as they return to a detector as the phase difference of outgoing signals is known.
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Takai does teach, a triangular waveform ([0049] – triangular waveform).
It would have been obvious before the effecting filing date to use the triangular waveform, as taught by Takai, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because a triangular waveform is well known in the art and yields predictable results (i.e.: causing a predictable return wave, which would allow for easier processing).
Claim 40: Maier, as modified, teaches the solid state FMCW LiDAR system of claim 38,
[…]
wherein the light emitted from the SCPA includes light emitted from both the laser source and the second laser source (Maier [0028] – may be multiple light sources).
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but does Aotake does teach wherein the coherent light emitted from the laser source has a first frequency response that is […] at a first phase, and the solid state FMCW LiDAR system further comprises: a second laser source that is configured to emit light that has a second frequency response that is […] at a second phase, wherein the second phase is 180 degrees different from the first phase,
the first FMCW source is configured to emit light that has a first frequency response that is a […] waveform at a first phase, and the second FMCW source is configured to emit light that has a second frequency response that is the […] waveform at a second phase, wherein the second phase is 180 degrees different from the first phase ([0060]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the light at different phases, as taught by Aotake, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because this would allow for easier differentiation between the signals as they return to a detector as the phase difference of outgoing signals is known.
Maier, as modified, does not teach, but Takai does teach, a triangular waveform ([0049] – triangular waveform).
It would have been obvious before the effecting filing date to use the triangular waveform, as taught by Takai, in the system as taught by Maier, as modified, because a triangular waveform is well known in the art and yields predictable results (i.e.: causing a predictable return wave, which would allow for easier processing).
Conclusion
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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
