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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 03/07/2023. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The boundaries of the functional language are: unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function of emitting electromagnetic radiation, said apparatuses being configured to emit a signal simultaneously. The claim recites a multiplicity of apparatuses for performing the function, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the shears in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to claim dependency.
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, said apparatuses being configured to emit a signal simultaneously (Fig. 5, para 33, abstract, laser bank 62; para 34 “the laser bank 62 is configured to simultaneously generate two optical frequency sweeps”. See also, fig. 9, para 39, a laser module 211 with N laser diodes 212);
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 suitable for detecting a superposition signal comprising the emitted electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic radiation reflected at an object (Sandborn describes employing multiple laser sources and multiple receiver channels, as shown for example in Fig. 9 (para 39-40), which depicts a plurality of receivers associated with different laser paths. Each receiver is configured to detect a signal derived from the optical combination of a corresponding local/reference beam and a reflected target beam. Thus, each receiver is “suitable for detecting a superposition signal comprising emitted electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic radiation reflected at an object,”), and
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 is suitable for increasing the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation during a first time period t1, wherein the measuring device is connected to each individual detector of the multiplicity of detectors during the first time period (SANDBORN teaches a modulation device suitable for increasing the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation during a time interval, as SANDBORN discloses generation of a laser beam having a positive frequency sweep, i.e., a frequency that increases as a function of time. In particular, SANDBORN (Para 34, abstract, claim 1) discloses that “the LIDAR system can include laser bank (62) is configured to generate a laser field from a first laser beam having a positive frequency sweep.”
In Sandborn, the positive frequency sweep inherently occurs over a finite temporal duration, and therefore corresponds to a first time period during which the frequency of the emitted electromagnetic radiation is increased, as recited in claim 2. The claim does not require that this first time period be exclusive of other modulation operations or that no other frequency sweep occur simultaneously.).
Regarding claim 3, Sandborn in view of Juntunen , teaches the optical measuring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modulation device is suitable for decreasing the frequency of the respectively emitted electromagnetic radiation during a second time period t2, wherein the measuring device is connected to each individual detector of the multiplicity of detectors during the second time period (Sandborn teaches a modulation device suitable for decreasing the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation during a time interval, as Sandborn discloses generation of a laser beam having a negative frequency sweep, i.e., a frequency that decreases as a function of time. In particular, Sandborn discloses (Para 34, abstract, claim 1) that “the LIDAR system can include laser bank (62) is configured to generate a laser field from a second laser beam having a negative frequency sweep.”
In Sandborn, the negative frequency sweep inherently occurs over a finite temporal duration, and therefore corresponds to a second time period during which the frequency of the emitted electromagnetic radiation is decreased, as recited in claim 3. As with claim 2, the claim does not require that the second time period be temporally exclusive from other modulation operations.).
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rickman et al. (US 10739256 B1), teaches Spectroscopy System with Beat Component
Xiaotian Steve Yao (US 20190257927 A1), teaches Light Detection and Ranging System for Use in Autonomous Vehicles for Obstacle Detection, Comprises an Optical Transmitter Module for Producing Probe Light at Different Optical Wavelengths That Is Used for Wavelength Division Multiplexing
Hiroshi Itoh (US 8816902 B2), teaches Radar Apparatus
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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