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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 308e, 390d. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 304, 404. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincato (US 20240045030) in view of Sayyah et al. (US 20190018113).
Regarding claim 1, Fincato teaches
A light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (#10 of Fig. 1, laser emitter package and #10' of Fig. 15, laser detector package), the LiDAR system comprising:
an optical source to transmit an optical beam towards a target (#112 of Fig. 1, laser emitter);
a first layer comprising (#13 of Fig. 1, photonic integrated circuit):
a silicon photonics chip coupled to an electrical power source to transmit electrical power to one or more optical components resident on a second layer (#12 of Fig. 1, wire bonding); and
a plurality of different interfaces to couple the silicon photonics chip to the one or more optical components (#28 of Fig. 1, output coupler array);
folding optics to receive the optical beam from the first layer and transmit the optical beam to the second layer (#29 of Fig. 16, output grating coupler); and
the second layer disposed directly over the first layer (top of #13 of Fig. 1, photonic integrated circuit), the second layer comprising:
the one or more optical components comprising (#30 of Fig. 1, microlens array):
Fincato does not teach:
A frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, the FMCW LiDAR system comprising:
a local oscillator (LO) to general an LO signal;
a receiver to mix a target return signal received from the target based on the optical beam and the LO signal to extract at least one of range or velocity information related to the target
Sayyah teaches:
A frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, the FMCW LiDAR system comprising [23]:
a local oscillator (LO) to general an LO signal (#210 of Fig. 2, coupler/splitter);
a receiver to mix a target return signal received from the target based on the optical beam and the LO signal to extract at least one of range or velocity information related to the target (#212 of Fig. 2, coupler/combiner)
Fincato also teaches:
The devices are designed to be use in an FMCW Lidar system [45].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser emitter and detector packages of Fincato with a local oscillator and mixer combined with photodetectors similar to Sayyah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LIDAR system to use FMCW. Fincato opens the door for use of a LIDAR system with this device, but fails to describe the details of a LIDAR system. Sayyah fills in the gaps with the specifics of the LIDAR system.
Regarding claim 2, Fincato also teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different interfaces includes one or more mechanical interfaces (#21 of Fig. 6, pads).
Regarding claim 3, Fincato also teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 2, wherein the one or more mechanical interfaces comprises etched features to align the one or more optical components (#21 of Fig. 6, pads, [62]).
Fincato teaches pads in (#21 of Fig. 6) and later teaches that the disclosed devices are designed to be manufactured through etching processes in [62]. Thus, the pads disclosed in (#21 of Fig. 6) would be etched features.
Regarding claim 4, Fincato also teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 2, wherein the one or more mechanical interfaces comprises one or more fiducial markers to align the one or more optical components (#21 of Fig. 6, pads).
Regarding claim 5, Fincato also teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different interfaces includes one or more electrical interfaces to transmit the electrical power to the one or more optical components (#112 of Fig. 1, laser emitter).
Regarding claim 8, Fincato also teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the folding optics comprises folding mirrors [59].
Regarding claim 9, Fincato does not explicitly teach, but Sayyah does teach:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the folding optics comprises optical waveguides or fiber optics (#312 of Fig. 3A, optical fiber).
Sayyah also teaches:
The circulator allows the transmitted light beam to follow the same path as the reflected light beam [29].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the LIDAR system of Fincato with optical fiber and an optical circulator similar to Sayyah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the footprint of the PIC by eliminating the need for a separate receiver.
Regarding claim 10, Fincato does not explicitly teach, but Sayyah does teach:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the second layer further comprises a signal processor to process the target return signal and the LO signal [26].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EIC of Fincato with a signal processor similar to Sayyah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LIDAR system to use FMCW. Fincato opens the door for use of a LIDAR system with this device, but fails to describe the details of a LIDAR system. Sayyah fills in the gaps with the specifics of the LIDAR system.
Regarding claim 12, Fincato also teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, further comprising a sub-mount to adjust a height of at least one of the one or more optical components (#21 of Fig. 6, pads).
Claim 13 is identical in scope to claim 1, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 14 is identical in scope to claim 2, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is identical in scope to claim 5, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 17 is identical in scope to claim 8, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 18 is identical in scope to claim 9, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 19, Fincato does not explicitly teach, but Sayyah does teach:
The method of claim 13, wherein the second layer further comprises a signal processor [26], the method further comprising:
processing, by the signal processor, the target return signal and the LO signal to generate a beat signal to extract the at least one of range or velocity information related to the target [26].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EIC of Fincato with a signal processor similar to Sayyah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LIDAR system to use FMCW. Fincato opens the door for use of a LIDAR system with this device, but fails to describe the details of a LIDAR system. Sayyah fills in the gaps with the specifics of the LIDAR system.
Claim(s) 6-7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincato in view of Sayyah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seyedi et al.(US 10551577).
Regarding claim 6, Fincato does not explicitly teach, but Seyedi does teach:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different interfaces includes one or more thermal interfaces to transfer heat from the one or more optical components to the silicon photonics chip (#220a-e of Fig. 2, solder bumps).
Seyedi also teaches:
Using a flip chip process can give high precision at a low cost [Col. 2 Lines 55-58]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser of Fincato by mounting it using a flip-chip process similar to Seyedi to reduce the cost of aligning the components.
Regarding claim 7, Fincato does not explicitly teach, but Seyedi does teach:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the one or more thermal interfaces comprises high thermal conductivity materials (#220a-e of Fig. 2, solder bumps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser of Fincato by mounting it using a flip-chip process similar to Seyedi to reduce the cost of aligning the components.
Claim 16 is identical in scope to claim 6, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fincato in view of Sayyah as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rabadam et al. (US 12481035).
Regarding claim 11, Fincato does not teach, but Rabadam does teach:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, further comprising a temperature control plate disposed at a bottom of the silicon photonics chip to control a temperature of the silicon photonics chip and the one or more optical components, and wherein the silicon photonics chip transfers heat from the first layer to the temperature control plate (#112 of Fig. 2A, heat transfer interface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the PIC of Fincato to be mounted on a thermally conductive insert similar to Rabadam with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing thermal management efficiency.
Claim 20 is identical in scope to claim 11, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645