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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/19/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/24/2026
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, Applicant argues that Sayyah and Fincato do not teach folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip and to receive the optical beam from the silicon photonics chip. However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 06/19/2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Sayyah and Fincato address these limitations is not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Wang and Sayyah (referred to as Keyvan) in the present Office Action.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Sayyah and Fincato fail to teach a silicon photonics chip coupled to an electrical power source, and challenging the obviousness of the combination of Sayyah. The arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states: “folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip and to receive“. This is improper English. Examiner interprets claim 1 as stating “folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip to receive”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220003845) in view of Sayyah et al. (US 20200088884), hereafter referred to as Keyvan.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches:
A frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (#500 of Fig. 5, device), the FMCW LiDAR system comprising:
an optical source (#123 of Fig. 5 laser) to transmit an optical beam towards a target (#199 of Fig. 5, output exit light, Claim 15);
a first layer (#160 of Fig. 5, PIC Wafer) comprising:
a silicon photonics chip (Fig. 5 shows PIC Wafer #160 and laser carrier/SOA cap #531, [48 and 55] the PIC wafer #160 and the wafer layer #530 is contiguous silicon) coupled to an electrical power source (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the PIC wafer receives power so that SOA #151 of Fig. 5 can be powered) to transmit electrical power to one or more optical components resident on a second layer ([57, 64, and 68], the laser carrier can be electrically coupled to the PIC using vias to power laser #123 and photodiode #121, the laser carrier is then connected to components in the laser assembly tier #110 using solder, metal traces / pads, and under-bump metal shown in Fig. 6, [56]), and
a plurality of different interfaces to couple the silicon photonics chip to the one or more optical components (solder, metal traces / pads, and under-bump metal shown in Fig. 6, [56]);
folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip (#115 of Fig. 5, mirror)
the second layer disposed directly over the first layer (Laser carrier/SOA Cap #531 of Fig. 5 is shown on top of PIC Wafer #160), the second layer comprising:
the one or more optical components comprising:
a local oscillator (LO) to general generate an LO signal (Laser #123 is a local oscillator), and
Wang does not teach:
folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip and to receive the optical beam from the first layer silicon photonics chip and transmit the optical beam to the second layer ; and
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.
However, Keyvan teaches:
A monostatic design where the returning light follows the same path as the output light (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show light exiting from circulator #232, hitting mirror #236 to be scanned into the scene, and then returning along the same path)
a local oscillator (LO) to general generate an LO signal (Fig. 2 shows the laser #210 generating a local oscillator on the back facet #210b [27-28]), and
a receiver (#202 of Fig. 2, photonic chip) to mix a target return signal received from the target [31] based on the optical beam and the LO signal [27-31] to extract at least one of range or velocity information related to the target [24].
Additionally, Wang teaches:
folding optics separate from the silicon photonics chip and to emit the optical beam from the second layer silicon photonics chip and transmit the optical beam to the first layer (laser light #193 of Fig. 5, [48])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang to use a monostatic design with a local oscillator and receiver similar to Keyvan with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a monostatic design would have the predictable result of creating an integrated LIDAR system without the need for a separate receiver. Using a local oscillator and receiver would have the predictable result of allowing for FMCW and the detection of both velocity and distance. In this combination, the laser #123 and photodiode #121 of Wang would be replaced by the integrated PIC #202 of Keyvan. This specific replacement would be obvious as it would simplify the design by reducing the number of components required to be mounted on the laser carrier while also allowing for local oscillator signal extraction and mixing.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different interfaces includes one or more mechanical interfaces (solder #642 of Fig. 6 is a mechanical interface as it mechanically adheres components to the laser carrier #131).
Regarding claim 3, Wang 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 (#1066 of Fig. 10, pedestals [62], the PIC wafer can be considered to the first layer while all other components are resident on the second layer i.e. on top of the PIC)
While Wang does not teach specifically that the pedestals #1066 are etched, the limitation “etched features” is considered to be a product by process limitation. Thus, it’s scope is limited to the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2133.1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang 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. (#1066 of Fig. 10, pedestals [62], the PIC wafer can be considered to the first layer while all other components are resident on the second layer i.e. on top of the PIC, pedestals can be considered fiducial markers as they assist in alignment)
Regarding claim 5, Wang 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 (solder #642 of Fig. 6, the interfaces could also be through silicon vias described in [57 and 68]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches:
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 (solder #642 of Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the one or more thermal interfaces comprises high thermal conductivity materials (solder #642 of Fig. 6, solder is a metal with high thermal conductivity).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1,
Wang does not teach:
wherein the second layer further comprises a signal processor to process the target return signal and the LO signal.
However, Keyvan teaches:
wherein the second layer further comprises a signal processor to process the target return signal and the LO signal (processor #106 of Fig. 1, [24])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang to use a processor on the second layer similar to Keyvan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the device to perform FMCW ranging and depth calculations.
Regarding claim 12, Wang 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 (1066 of Fig. 10, pedestals [62]).
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 16 is identical in scope to claim 6 and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches:
The method of claim 13,
Wang does not teach:
wherein the second layer further comprises a signal processor (processor #106 of Fig. 1, [24]), 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 [24].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang to use a processor on the second layer to calculate range or velocity similar to Keyvan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of making the device more suitable for autonomous driving as it would allow for the velocity measurement as well as range.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view Keyvan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sayyah (US 20190018113)
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1,
Wang does not teach:
wherein the folding optics comprises optical waveguides or fiber optics.
However, Sayyah teaches:
wherein the folding optics comprises optical waveguides or fiber optics. (fiber #312 of Fig. 3A)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang to use a fiber optic similar to Sayyah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of removing the need for a complex etched focusing lens from the laser carrier layer.
Claim 18 is identical in scope to claim 9 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 Wang in view Keyvan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rabadam (US 12481035).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches:
The FMCW LiDAR system of claim 1,
Wang does not teach:
further comprising a temperature control plate (#112 of Fig. 2A, insert) disposed at a bottom of the silicon photonics chip (insert #112 is shown underneath silicon photonic integrated circuit die #204) 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 ("Consistent with embodiments disclosed herein, insert 112, which may have a high thermal conductivity, may transport heat generated by PIC 204 to heat transfer interface 208 … heat transfer interface 208 may connect gold box 100 to other components of a system within which gold box 100 is placed, that can aid in dissipating the heat generated by PIC 204, such as a heat sink or heat pipe").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 8 and 17 requires a silicon photonics chip on a first layer, a local oscillator and receiver on a second layer, and mirrors (plural) separate from the silicon photonics chip to pass the light from the first layer to the second layer. The closest prior art (Wang) only teaches a single mirror on the second layer and instead uses a grating coupler on the first layer. Previously, Fincato passed a beam from the first layer to a second layer, but Fincato used a mirror placed within the silicon photonics chip and is thus not separate. The prior art of record does not teach or render obvious the use of multiple mirrors separate from a silicon photonics chip to pass light between layers.
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 AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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
Prosecution Insights