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 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the multiple phase differential generators is not simply a duplication of parts, because Behroozpour's pi/2 difference would then cause redundant sets of zero crossings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant claims Liu does not teach phase differential generators. However, examiner notes Liu does teach more than three phase differential generators (See previous rejection of Claim 2).
Further, applicant only states this would cause redundant crossings, without evidence as to why this would keep one skilled in the art from duplicating Behroozpour. However, Liu teaches more than two phase differential generators, each with a shift of pi (See previous rejection of Claim 3). Thus, this appears to contradict applicant's statement that this arrangement would not be done.
Excessive Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the phase.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear what “the phase” refers to. Based on the specification, it appears to refer to “the phase differentials” (See [00111]).
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 1-7, 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Behroozpour (US 20210356592 A1) in view of Liu (WO 2022233503 A1).
Claim 1: Behroozpour teaches a LIDAR system, comprising:
a light source that outputs an outgoing LIDAR signal (Fig. 1A, light source 4 and [0024], [0030] - output is tapped signal);
multiple phase differential generators that each combines a first light signal with a second light signal so as to generate a beating control signal (Fig. 6A, light combining components 282 and 286, [0097]),
each of the first light signals including light from the outgoing LIDAR signal ([0030]-[0031] - LiDAR signal carried to control components 30 and [0095] - control components include light combining components 282 and 286),
each of the second light signals including light from the outgoing LIDAR signal ([0030]-[0031] - LiDAR signal carried to control components 30 and [0095] - control components include light combining components 282 and 286),
each of the beating control signals being generated with a phase difference between the contribution of the first light signal to the beating control signal and the contribution of the second light signal to the beating control signal ([0105]),
the phase difference being different for the beating control signals from different phase differential generators ([0105]),
each of the beating signals having multiple baseline crossing ([0121] - baseline crossings),
and the baseline crossings of the beating signals occurring at a frequency ([0121]);
and electronics that apply a light source control signal to the light source so as to chirp the frequency of the outgoing LIDAR signal ([0094]),
the electronics being configured to modify the light source control signal in response to changes in the frequency of the baseline crossings of the beating control signals ([0121]).
Behroozpour does not teach, but Liu does teach, at least three phase differential generators (pg 18, lines 20-31 and Fig. 1b, multiple scanning structures 5a and 5b and pg. 10, lines 17-21 – describing phase shift), and wherein a difference between numerically adjacent phase differentials is a constant (pg 18, lines 20-31 – phase difference between first and second scattering structures is pi).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the constant phase difference, as taught by Liu, in the system as taught by Behroozpour, as modified in view of Liu, because this is simply a duplication of parts (by adding more phase differential generators – see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B), and thus would lead to expected results, and because having a constant phase difference would make future calculations based on the system easier, as this variable will be known.
Claim 2: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein there are more than three phase differential generators (Liu pg 18, lines 20-31 and Fig. 1b, multiple scanning structures 5a and 5b and pg. 10, lines 17-21 – describing phase shift).
Claim 3: Behroozpour, as modified in view of Liu, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, but not teaches wherein the phase are each between 0 and pi.
However, Behroozpour does teach that each light combining component further splits the light into two components (Fig. 5A, light combiners 211 and 212 splitting into first and second reference signals [0074]). These reference signals can be phase shifted by 180 degrees ([0074]) or 90 degrees [[0075]). Thus, for two signals, the phase difference is pi/2, and this would cause both signals to be between 0 and pi.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the pi/2 phase difference between two adjacent signals, as taught by Behroozpour, in the system as taught by Behroozpour, as modified (specifically in place of the phase difference of pi taught by Liu) because changing the phase shift would result in a predictable changes to mathematical calculations and does not fundamentally affect how the system works.
Claim 4: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, but not wherein the constant is pi/N where N represents the number of phase differential generators.
However, Behroozpour does teach that each light combining component further splits the light into two components (Fig. 5A, light combiners 211 and 212 splitting into first and second reference signals [0074]). These reference signals can be phase shifted by 180 degrees ([0074]) or 90 degrees [[0075]). Thus, for two signals, the phase difference is pi/2.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the pi/2 phase difference between two adjacent signals, as taught by Behroozpour, in the system as taught by Behroozpour, as modified (specifically in place of the phase difference of pi taught by Liu) because changing the phase shift would result in a predictable changes to mathematical calculations and does not fundamentally affect how the system works.
Claim 5: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein each of the phase differential generators can be associated with a phase differential generator index n, where n is an integer with a values from 1 to N and the phase differences can be represented by phi= pi(n-1)/N where phi represents the phase difference for the phase differential generator associated with the phase differential generator index n (Behroozpour [0075] - phase difference is 90 degrees - equal to pi/2. For N = 2, phi=pi*(n-1)/2).
Claim 6: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the light in the first light signals and in the second light signals has not exited from the LIDAR system ([0095]-[0097] - first and second light signals go to waveguides, still in system).
Claim 7: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 6, wherein a LIDAR chip includes a photonic integrated circuit with a utility waveguide that carries the outgoing LIDAR signal and the light in the first light signals and in the second light signals has not exited from the LIDAR chip ([0025] - waveguide inside system).
Claim 9: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is configured to output a system output signal that includes light from the outgoing LIDAR signal ([0025] - signal exiting from facet 14).
Claim 10: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 9, further comprising:
a light signal combiner configured to combine a comparative light signal with a reference light signal so as to generate a beating signal ([0085] - combining beat frequencies),
the comparative light signal including light from the system output signal that has been reflected by an object located outside of the LIDAR system and returned to the LIDAR system, and the reference light signal including light from the outgoing LIDAR signal that has not exited from the LIDAR system ([0095]-[0097] - first and second light signals go to waveguides, still in system).
Claim 11: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 10, wherein the electronics are configured to calculate LIDAR data from a beat frequency of the beating signal, the LIDAR data indicating a radial velocity and/or distance between the object and the LIDAR system ([0085] - generating LiDAR data).
Claim 12: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein each of the phase differential generators includes a light signal combiner that receives the first light signal from a first waveguide and the second light signal from a second waveguide, each of the first waveguides receiving the first light signal from a control waveguide ([0095]).
Claim 14: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 12, wherein each of the first waveguides receiving the first light signal from a utility waveguide that carries the outgoing LIDAR signal ([0027]).
Claim 15: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 14, wherein the control waveguide receives a portion of the outgoing LIDAR signal from the utility waveguide ([0030]).
Claim 16: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the electronics are configured to modify the light source control signal such that the chirp of the frequency of the outgoing LIDAR signal is a linear chirp ([0111] - chirp is linear function of time).
Claim 17: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 1wherein the electronics are configured to modify the light source control signal such that a time gap between the baseline crossings of the beating signals is a constant ([0121]).
Claim 18: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the electronics being configured to modify the light source control signal in response to changes in the frequency of the baseline crossings of the beating control signals includes the electronics being electronics being configured to modify the light source control signal in response to changes in a time gap between the baseline crossings of the beating signals ([0121]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Behroozpour, in view of Liu, in view of Davydenko (US 20220334225 A1).
Claim 13: Behroozpour, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 12. Behroozpour, as modified, does not teach, but Davydenko does teach, wherein the control waveguide includes a spiral waveguide ([0038]).
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 spiral waveguide, as taught by Davydenko, in the system as taught by Behroozpour, as modified, because, as Davydenko teaches in [0038], this reduces outside dimensions of the circuit, and minimizes the space needed, making the system more compact.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights