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 .
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 04/08/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-3 and 10 have been amended.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-9, filed on 04/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Sandborn and Juntunen fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because Sandborn allegedly does not disclose:
“each of the multiplicity of detectors being associated to a corresponding one of the multiplicity of apparatuses for emitting electromagnetic radiation and being configured to detect a superposition signal comprising the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the associated apparatus and electromagnetic radiation emitted by the associated apparatus and reflected at an object.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument principally addresses the embodiment illustrated in Figure 5 of Sandborn, in which the outputs of multiple lasers are combined into a laser field and supplied to an optical hybrid and photoreceiver 66. However, Sandborn is not limited to the Figure 5 embodiment. The rejection is clarified to rely on the separate-channel, multi-laser architecture shown in Figure 9 and described in para 39- 40.
Sandborn discloses in para 39 a laser module 211 having N laser diodes 212. The output from each laser diode travels along a separate optical path 215 or 216. Each path includes a respective optical power tap 214 that divides the output of the respective laser diode into a local beam along local path 213 and a target beam along target path 221. The target beam is directed toward a target and the returning reflected beam 222 is supplied to a respective coherent receiver 220.
Sandborn further states that each coherent receiver 220 receives a target laser beam reflected from the target and a local laser beam generated from a respective laser diode 212. Thus, each coherent receiver is associated with a corresponding laser diode and receives both the local radiation emitted by that laser diode and the radiation emitted by that same laser diode and reflected from the target.
Para 40 further discloses that each coherent receiver 220 mixes the returning beam 222 and the local beam supplied through local path 213 to generate an electrical detection signal. Accordingly, the coherent receiver detects the claimed superposition or mixed signal formed from radiation emitted by the associated emitting apparatus and radiation emitted by that associated apparatus and reflected at the object.
This relationship is also illustrated in Figure 9, which shows two separate laser outputs, two separate local and target paths, and two respective coherent receivers. Sandborn additionally discloses in para 98 first and second optical systems that receive respective first and second frequency-modulated laser beams simultaneously, with each optical system having its own optical splitter and coherent receiver for mixing the respective local beam and reflected target beam.
Therefore, Sandborn teaches the newly added one-to-one association between each emitting apparatus and a corresponding detector.
Applicant argues that photoreceiver 66 in Figure 5 receives four output signals derived from two optical input signals and therefore cannot track which signal was emitted by which laser of the laser bank.
This argument is not persuasive because it addresses Figure 5 but does not address the separate optical paths and respective coherent receivers disclosed in Figure 9.
In Figure 9, the outputs from the laser diodes do not lose their association before reaching the respective coherent receivers. Rather, the outputs travel along separate paths 215 and 216, and each receiver receives a local beam and a reflected target beam originating from a respective laser diode 212.
Moreover, claim 1 does not require that the detector identify, label, or subsequently “track” which laser emitted the detected radiation. The claim requires that each detector be associated with a corresponding emitting apparatus and detect the local and reflected radiation originating from that associated apparatus. Sandborn’s Figure 9 architecture satisfies that requirement.
Applicant argues that Sandborn teaches away from the claimed arrangement because the Figure 5 embodiment combines the laser signals in an optical hybrid.
This argument is not persuasive.
A reference does not teach away merely because it discloses an additional or alternative embodiment. Sandborn does not criticize, discredit, or discourage maintaining separate optical paths for respective laser beams. To the contrary, Sandborn teaches such an arrangement in Figure 9 and para39- 40.
The optical hybrid disclosed in Figure 5 is therefore an alternative embodiment and does not teach away from the separate-path architecture disclosed in Figure 9. Sandborn’s disclosure of both architectures demonstrates that the arrangements are contemplated alternatives rather than technically incompatible teachings.
Applicant’s assertion that the claimed arrangement would contradict Sandborn is therefore not persuasive.
Sandborn does not disclose a measuring device successively connected to the respective detectors. Juntunen is relied upon for this limitation.
Juntunen (Fig. 1, col 4: lines 49-67) discloses a photodiode array having individual detector output lines 212 supplied to an ASIC 220. The ASIC includes multiplexers 230 and sub-multiplexers 224 that selectively connect detector output lines to common readout signal lines 222.
Juntunen further discloses that only one detector output of a selected group is connected to the corresponding common readout line at a time. A column preamplifier is thereby used to successively read the signals from the photodiodes of the column in a cyclical manner.
Thus, Juntunen teaches a measuring and readout device that is successively connected to individual detectors through controlled multiplexing switches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sandborn, as taught by Juntunen, to include a time-multiplexed measuring device successively connected to the detector outputs, because doing so would reduce the number of separate readout channels, electrical interconnections, preamplifiers, and associated processing circuitry while permitting the signals from the individual detectors to be measured.
Applicant has not separately disputed Juntunen’s disclosure of the successive detector-readout limitation or the stated reason for incorporating the multiplexed readout architecture into Sandborn.
Applicant argues that independent method claim 10 is patentable for reasons analogous to those presented for claim 1.
The argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Sandborn’s Figure 9 embodiment discloses generating frequency-swept laser beams from multiple laser diodes, supplying each beam to a corresponding optical system, dividing each beam into a local beam and a target beam, receiving the reflected target beam, and mixing the local beam and corresponding reflected target beam at a respective coherent receiver to produce a detection signal.
Sandborn further discloses simultaneous operation of corresponding first and second optical systems. Juntunen teaches successively connecting the detector outputs to a common measuring and readout device through controlled multiplexing.
Accordingly, the combination teaches or suggests the method recited in amended claim 10, including detecting respective mixed signals associated with corresponding emitting apparatuses and successively capturing the resulting detector signals with a measuring device.
The rejection of claim 10 is therefore maintained.
Applicant generally argues that claims 2–5 and 11–14 are allowable because they depend from allegedly allowable claims 1 and 10.
This argument is not persuasive because independent claims 1 and 10 remain rejected. Applicant has not presented a separate substantive argument identifying an error in the specific findings made for the additional limitations of claims 2–5 and 11–14.
Accordingly, the dependency argument alone does not overcome the rejections of claims 2–5 and 11–14.
Applicant argues that claims 6–8 are allowable because Sandborn and Juntunen allegedly fail to teach all the limitations of claim 1 and because Burroughs does not remedy those alleged deficiencies.
The argument is not persuasive. As explained above, Sandborn’s Figure 9 embodiment teaches the amended emitter-to-detector association of claim 1, and Juntunen teaches the successive detector-readout limitation. Applicant has not separately addressed the findings that Burroughs teaches the semiconductor-layer-stack limitations additionally recited in claims 6–8.
Accordingly, Applicant’s dependency-based argument does not overcome the rejection of claims 6–8.
Applicant argues that claim 9 is allowable because Sandborn and Juntunen allegedly fail to teach all the limitations of claim 1 and because Gilad does not remedy those alleged deficiencies.
The argument is not persuasive. The asserted deficiency in claim 1 is not present for the reasons discussed above. Applicant has not separately addressed the finding that Gilad teaches determining an emitter field of view based on a dimension of an aperture stop.
Accordingly, Applicant’s dependency-based argument does not overcome the rejection of claim 9.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (US 2021/0096253 A1, “Sandborn”) in view of Juntunen et al. (US 8405029 B2, “Juntunen”).
Regarding claim 1, Sandborn teaches an optical measuring system comprising
a multiplicity of apparatuses for emitting electromagnetic radiation (Sandborn discloses a laser module 211 comprising N laser diodes 212, wherein laser drivers 227 controlled by control circuit 218 generate a respective frequency-swept waveform from each laser diode 212. The outputs of the laser diodes travel along separate paths 215 and 216 to respective optical systems, each optical system comprising an optical power tap 214, a circulator 217, and a respective coherent receiver 220 (Fig. 9; para 39), said apparatuses being configured to emit a signal simultaneously (Sandborn further discloses that the optical system may comprise a first optical system receiving a first frequency-modulated laser beam and a second optical system configured to receive a second frequency-modulated laser beam “simultaneously as the first frequency modulated laser beam is received by the first optical system” (para 98, Example 52. See, para 111, Example 65). Because the first and second optical systems are supplied through the separate paths originating from respective laser diodes 212, Sandborn teaches that the respective laser channels concurrently supply, and therefore are configured to emit, their corresponding frequency-modulated signals.);
a modulation device for altering a frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 9, para 39 “The lasers diodes 212 are modulated by signals from the laser drivers 227, which are in turn controlled by the control circuit 218 to generate a frequency-swept waveform from each of the laser diodes 212.”);
a multiplicity of detectors (Sandborn teaches a plurality of coherent-receiver detector channels 220. Each coherent receiver includes an optical hybrid or coupler and one or more pairs of balanced photodiodes that convert the mixed optical signals into electrical detection signals. Figure 9 illustrates two coherent receivers, and Sandborn states that the assembly may contain N optical systems. See Sandborn, Fig. 9 and para 39- 40.),
each of the multiplicity of detectors being associated to a corresponding one of the multiplicity of apparatuses for emitting electromagnetic radiation (Sandborn shows in Fig. 9 that the output of each laser diode 212 travels along a separate respective optical path 215 or 216. Each path includes: a respective optical power tap 214; a respective local path 213; a respective target path 221 and circulator 217; and a respective coherent receiver 220. Sandborn also teaches that each coherent receiver receives a reflected target beam and a local beam generated by a respective laser diode 212. Thus, each receiver/detector channel is associated with a corresponding emitting laser diode. See Sandborn, para 39) and
being configured to detect a superposition signal comprising the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the associated apparatus and electromagnetic radiation emitted by the associated apparatus and reflected at an object (Sandborn teaches that power tap 214 divides the output of each respective laser diode into: a local beam traveling directly along local path 213 to the local-oscillator port of the corresponding coherent receiver 220; and a target beam traveling along target path 221, being emitted toward the target as outgoing beam 223, and returning as reflected beam 222 to the signal port of that same coherent receiver. The coherent receiver mixes the returning beam 222 and the corresponding local beam delivered through local path 213 using an optical hybrid or optical coupler. The mixed optical signal is detected by balanced photodiodes and converted into one or more electrical detection signals. See Sandborn, Fig. 9; para 39- 40; see also para 92- 94 and para 0105- 0107.).
Sandborn fails to explicitly teach a measuring device, wherein the measuring device is suitable for being successively connected to each individual detector of the multiplicity of detectors. However, Juntunen teaches this limitation by disclosing a time-multiplexed detector readout architecture in which a single measuring device is successively connected to individual detectors, as Juntunen discloses that in Fig. 1, col 4:lines 49-51 “the ASIC chip 220 provides signal multiplexing of the output signal lines 212 from a selected group of photodiode outputs to a single common readout signal line” , col 5: lines 10-13“the readout control signals control the sub-multiplexers 224 to select only one of the output signal lines 212 to be connected to a readout signal line 222 at any one time” and col 5: lines 19-21 “The multiplexers are preferably implemented as a set of switches, which switches are controlled such that only one is closed at any one time to connect an output signal line 212 to a common readout signal line 222.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the FMCW LiDAR system of Sandborn to employ the time-multiplexed detector readout taught by Juntunen in order to reduce hardware complexity, power consumption, and circuit area, as such multiplexed readout techniques were well known and yield predictable results
Regarding claim 2, Sandborn in view of Juntunen , teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modulation device configured to increase the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation during a first time period t1 (Sandborn further teaches that the modulation device is configured to increase the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation during a first time period t1. In particular, Sandborn discloses a laser module 211 comprising N laser diodes 212 and laser drivers 227 controlled by control circuit 218 to generate a frequency-swept waveform from each laser diode 212 (Fig. 9; para 39). Sandborn explains that an FMCW laser may be modulated in a triangular manner from a lower frequency to a higher frequency and thereafter from the higher frequency to a lower frequency (para 4). The lower-to-higher portion of the frequency-swept waveform constitutes a first time period during which the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation is increased.
Sandborn further discloses separate first and second optical systems configured to simultaneously receive respective first and second frequency-modulated laser beams (para 98). Accordingly, Sandborn teaches simultaneous multi-channel frequency-modulated operation in which the respective laser channels may undergo the disclosed increasing-frequency portion during a common measurement interval.
Sandborn additionally teaches measuring the interference frequency during the positive laser sweep (para. [0005]). In the Figure 9 system, each coherent receiver 220 mixes its corresponding local beam and returning target beam to generate an electrical detector signal, which may thereafter be amplified, digitized, and processed (para 39- 40),
wherein the measuring device is connected to each individual detector of the multiplicity of detectors during the first time period (Juntunen teaches readout-control signals and multiplexing switches that connect only one detector output at a time to a common readout signal line and associated preamplifier, such that the detector outputs are successively read in a cyclical manner (Fig. 1; col. 5: lines 5–65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Sandborn, as taught by Juntunen, to perform a successive detector-readout cycle during the positive-frequency-sweep interval t1, because Sandborn teaches measuring the interference signals during the positive sweep, and reading each detector during that interval would acquire the beat signal from each optical channel while the corresponding emitted-frequency slope is known, while also reducing the number of dedicated readout circuits and preamplifiers
Regarding claim 3, Sandborn in view of Juntunen , teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modulation device configured to decrease the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation during a second time period t2 (Sandborn further teaches that the modulation device is configured to decrease the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation during a second time period t2. Sandborn discloses laser drivers 227 controlled by control circuit 218 to generate a frequency-swept waveform from each of the N laser diodes 212 of laser module 211 (Fig. 9; para 39). Sandborn further explains that an FMCW laser may be modulated in a triangular manner from a lower frequency to a higher frequency and thereafter from the higher frequency to the lower frequency (para 4). The higher-to-lower portion of the frequency-swept waveform constitutes a second time period during which the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation is decreased.
Sandborn further teaches first and second optical systems configured to simultaneously receive respective first and second frequency-modulated laser beams (para 98). Accordingly, Sandborn teaches simultaneous multi-channel frequency-modulated operation in which the respective laser channels may undergo the disclosed decreasing-frequency portion during a common measurement interval.
Sandborn additionally teaches measuring the interference frequency during the negative laser sweep (para 5). Each coherent receiver 220 of Figure 9 produces a corresponding electrical detection signal by mixing the local beam from its respective laser diode 212 with the returning target beam originating from that same laser diode (para 39- 40),
wherein the measuring device is connected to each individual detector of the multiplicity of detectors during the second time period (Juntunen teaches selectively connecting individual detector output lines, one at a time, to a common readout signal line and associated preamplifier, and successively reading the detector signals in a cyclical manner (Fig. 1; col. 5: lines 5- 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Sandborn, as taught by Juntunen, to perform a successive detector-readout cycle during the negative-frequency-sweep interval t2, because Sandborn expressly teaches measuring the interference signals during the negative sweep, and reading each detector during that interval would acquire the beat signal from each optical channel while the corresponding negative frequency slope is known, thereby permitting the negative-sweep measurements to be used together with the positive-sweep measurements to distinguish target-distance and target-velocity components while reducing dedicated readout hardware.
Regarding claim 4, Sandborn in view of Juntunen , teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a measuring time during which the measuring device is connected to one of the multiplicity of detectors is identical for at least two of the detectors (Juntunen (See rejection of claim 1) teaches that, in a time-multiplexed detector readout architecture, a measuring device is connected to individual detectors for controlled readout intervals using switching circuitry. In particular, Juntunen discloses that multiplexers are controlled such that only one detector output is connected to a common readout line at any one time, thereby defining a measuring time for each detector.
In such a multiplexed readout system, detectors that are controlled by the same control signals and switching logic are read using the same timing parameters. Accordingly, the measuring time during which the measuring device is connected to one detector is inherently identical to the measuring time for at least one other detector selected using the same control scheme.
Using identical measuring times for at least two detectors represents a routine and predictable implementation choice that simplifies timing control and synchronization.).
Regarding claim 5, Sandborn in view of Juntunen , teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a measuring time during which the measuring device is connected to one of the multiplicity of detectors is selectable depending on a distance between the respective detector and the object (Sandborn (See rejection of claim 1 and para 3-4, 7) teaches an FMCW LiDAR system in which distance to an object is determined based on characteristics of detected signals, including beat frequency corresponding to target distance. Thus, Sandborn establishes that distance is a known and relevant parameter in the operation of the optical measuring system.
Juntunen (See rejection of claim 1) teaches a multiplexed detector readout architecture in which the measuring device is successively connected to individual detectors using controlled switching, and in which readout timing and architecture may be selected to meet system requirements, including readout speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the measuring time during which the measuring device is connected to a detector based on the distance to the object, as determined using the FMCW ranging taught by Sandborn, in order to optimize signal quality and measurement accuracy. Selecting integration or measuring time based on expected signal strength or distance represents a predictable and routine optimization in optical ranging systems.).
Claims 10- 14 are method claims corresponding to system claims 1-5. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn in view of Juntunen and Burroughs et al. (US 11187789 B2, “Burroughs”).
Regarding claim 6, Sandborn in view of Juntunen, fails to explicitly teach but Burroughs teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein respectively one apparatus for emitting electromagnetic radiation and one detector are integrated into a semiconductor layer stack (Figs. 12, col 22: lines 45-48. See also, fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to implement the emitter(s) and detector(s) of the optical measuring system of Sandborn using the semiconductor integration architecture of Burroughs to reduce size (Col 23: lines 4-8) and interconnect complexity and to improve system integration for 3D sensing applications.
Regarding claim 7, Sandborn in view of Juntunen and Burroughs, teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the apparatus for emitting electromagnetic radiation and the detector are arranged in a manner stacked vertically one above the other in the semiconductor layer stack (Burroughs, fig. 13B, col 23: line 66 to col 24: line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vertically stack emitters and detectors within a semiconductor layer stack as taught by Burroughs to reduce footprint and the size of emitters and detectors and improve optical coupling in the optical measuring system of Sandborn (Burroughs, col 24: lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 8, Sandborn in view of Juntunen, fails to explicitly teach but Burroughs teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the multiplicity of detectors are arranged over a substrate and the measuring device is integrated into the substrate (Fig. 11C, col 22: lines 17-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the measuring device of the combined Sandborn system into the substrate supporting the detectors, as taught by Burroughs, to reduce interconnect complexity and improve system integration.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn in view of Juntunen and Gilad et al. (US 10222517 B2, “Gilad”).
Regarding claim 9, Sandborn in view of Juntunen, fails to explicitly teach but Gilad teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein a field of view of the apparatuses for emitting electromagnetic radiation is determined by a dimension of an aperture stop of the apparatus for emitting electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, col 7: lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to implement the emitter-side field of view of the Sandborn system using an aperture stop dimension as taught by Gilad, as aperture stops are a well-known optical design element for controlling the angular extent/coverage of emitted illumination.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 on (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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights