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 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.
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 17-18 are 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 17 recites “the two output signals are combined…”. However, claim 17 depends on claims 15 and 8 and neither include limitations involving “two output signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret claim 17 as dependent on claim 16.
Claim 18 recites “the two output signals are combined…”. However, claim 18 depends on claims 15 and 8 and neither include limitations involving “two output signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret claim 18 as dependent on claim 16.
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, 3-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piggott US 20240094360 A1 in view of Rezk US 20200400798 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Piggott teaches a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system ([0029]), comprising:
an optical source to emit a plurality of optical beams directed towards a target object (202 in Fig. 2A, [0041-43]; transmitted via couplers 250, [0049]), wherein incidences of the plurality of optical beams on the target object cause a plurality of return signals to be returned to the LiDAR system (received by couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]; couplers can be used for TX, RX, or both);
a plurality of optical detectors, each optical detector of the plurality of optical detectors receiving a portion of the plurality of return signals (coherent detection 280 in Fig. 2A has four photodiodes, [0053-54] different sets of photodiodes can be used for different sets of couplers, [0060]);
an optical circuit implemented on a photonics chip, wherein the optical circuit comprises a plurality of photonics couplers, operatively connected to the plurality of optical detectors (couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]; connected to 280 through directional coupler 230 and optical hybrid 270, [0048, 53-54]), the plurality of photonics couplers producing a plurality of outputs, wherein the optical circuit combines the outputs of the plurality of photonics couplers (combined via 230 and optical hybrid 270, 0048, 53-54]; different sets of photodiodes can be used for different sets of couplers, [0060]); and:
a signal processing system operatively connected to the optical circuit (DSP 290 in Fig. 2A, [0056-57, 60]).
Piggott does not explicitly teach but Rezk teaches a reflective optical component to return a portion of a first optical beam of the plurality of optical beams along a return path as a local oscillator (LO) signal (reflector 402 in Fig. 5, [0049-50]); and a rotating scanning mirror between the optical source and the target object, wherein each optical beam of the plurality of optical beams is deflected by the rotating scanning mirror (scanner 236 in Figs. 2, 5 which can be rotating scanning mirror 102, [0027, 42]);
Additionally, Piggott does teach producing a LO using “a power splitter…any other suitable device” ([0044]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a power splitter can be a polarization beam splitter which uses reflection to create a LO beam) and couplers can include additional shared elements located outside the PIC such as mirrors ([0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott to include a reflective optical component to return a portion of a first optical beam of the plurality of optical beams along a return path as a local oscillator (LO) signal and a rotating scanning mirror between the optical source and the target object, wherein each optical beam of the plurality of optical beams is deflected by the rotating scanning mirror similar to Rezk with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably guiding the LO signal to detectors and aiding in scanning the environment.
Regarding claim 3, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of photonics couplers is a grating coupler (250 can be grating couplers, [0051-52]).
Regarding claim 4, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of photonics couplers is an edge coupler ([0019, 70]).
Regarding claim 5, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of optical beams are deflected by a first degree by the rotating scanning mirror and the plurality of return signals are deflected by a second degree by the rotating scanning mirror (this is inherent in any TX/RX reflections off of a mirror).
Regarding claim 7, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the optical circuit is further to combine the outputs of the plurality of photonics couplers and the LO signal (combined in optical hybrid 270 in Fig. 2A, [0048, 53-54]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piggott US 20240094360 A1 in view of Rezk US 20200400798 A1 and further in view of Klemme US 20240219541 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 1,
Piggott does not explicitly teach but Klemme teaches wherein the plurality of photonics couplers is aligned along a descan axis such that as a beam position of the plurality of return signals changes due to descan, a signal mode of the plurality of return signals overlaps with a coupling mode of at least one of the plurality of photonics couplers (Rx1-N (428) in Fig. 4, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the plurality of photonics couplers is aligned along a descan axis such that as a beam position of the plurality of return signals changes due to descan, a signal mode of the plurality of return signals overlaps with a coupling mode of at least one of the plurality of photonics couplers similar to Klemme with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring light is received when angular lag of the rotating scanning mirror affects the position of return light (Klemme: [0030])
Claims 6, 8-10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piggott US 20240094360 A1 in view of Rezk US 20200400798 A1 and further in view of Talty US 20200110179 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of photonics couplers receives the plurality of return signals (couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]).
Piggott does not explicitly teach but Talty teaches the plurality of photonics couplers receives the LO signal (edge coupler 1420 used to allow local oscillator beam into waveguide, Fig. 14, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the plurality of photonics couplers receives the LO signal similar to Talty with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LO light into a waveguide.
Regarding claim 8, Piggott teaches a method of operating a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system ([0029]), the method comprising:
directing, by an optical source, an optical beam towards a target object (202 in Fig. 2A, [0041-43]; transmitted via couplers 250, [0049]), wherein an incidence of the optical beam on the target object causes a return signal to be returned to the LiDAR system (received by couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]; couplers can be used for TX, RX, or both);
returning a portion of the optical beam along a return path as a local oscillator (LO) signal ([0044]),
receiving, by a second photonics coupler, as a result of the return signal being deflected by the rotating scanning mirror, a deflected return signal (couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]; connected to 280 through directional coupler 230 and optical hybrid 270, [0048, 53-54]);
combining, by an optical circuit, the outputs of the local oscillator and the second photonics coupler (combined via 230 and optical hybrid 270, 0048, 53-54]; different sets of photodiodes can be used for different sets of couplers, [0060]); and
determining at least one of a distance of the target object or a velocity of the target object with a signal processing system operatively connected to the optical circuit ([0056]).
Piggott does not explicitly teach the optical beam deflected by a rotating scanning mirror, the rotating scanning mirror located between the optical source and the target object, the LO signal received by a first photonics coupler;
Rezk teaches use of a rotating scanning mirror (scan 236 in Figs. 2, 5 which can be rotating scanning mirror 102, [0027, 42])
Additionally, Piggott does teach couplers can include additional shared elements located outside the PIC such as mirrors ([0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott to include the optical beam deflected by a rotating scanning mirror, the rotating scanning mirror located between the optical source and the target object similar to Rezk with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of aiding in scanning the environment.
Talty teaches the plurality of photonics couplers receives the LO signal (edge coupler 1420 used to allow local oscillator beam into waveguide, Fig. 14, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the LO signal received by a first photonics coupler similar to Talty with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LO light into a waveguide.
Regarding claim 9, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the second photonic coupler are grating couplers ([0051-52]).
Piggott does not explicitly teach the first photonic coupler is a grating coupler
Talty teaches the plurality of photonics couplers receives the LO signal (edge coupler 1420 used to allow local oscillator beam into waveguide, Fig. 14, [0060]). Examiner notes that use of a grating coupler instead of Talty’s edge coupler would be a simple substitution of parts because edge and grating couplers are both well-known in the art (e.g. see Piggot [0019-20, 70]) and the results would predictably transfer light into a waveguide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the first photonic coupler is a grating coupler similar to Talty and Piggott with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LO light into a waveguide.
Regarding claim 10, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the second photonic coupler are edge couplers ([0019, 70]).
Piggott does not explicitly teach the first photonic coupler is an edge coupler.
Talty teaches the plurality of photonics couplers receives the LO signal (edge coupler 1420 used to allow local oscillator beam into waveguide, Fig. 14, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the first photonic coupler is an edge coupler similar to Talty with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LO light into a waveguide.
Regarding claim 15, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the combining is performed by a 90 degree optical combiner (optical hybrid 270 can be a 90 degree optical hybrid in Fig. 2 [0053-54]), the 90 degree optical combiner providing a plurality of outputs, the plurality outputs provided to a plurality of quadrature photodetectors and a plurality of in-phase photodetectors ([0053-54]).
Regarding claim 20, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 15,
Piggott does not explicitly teach wherein the LO signal is routed to the optical circuit through an edge coupler.
Talty teaches edge couplers receives the LO signal (edge coupler 1420 used to allow local oscillator beam into waveguide, Fig. 14, [0060])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that wherein the LO signal is routed to the optical circuit through an edge coupler similar to Talty with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LO light into a waveguide.
Claims 11, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piggott US 20240094360 A1 in view of Rezk US 20200400798 A1 and Talty US 20200110179 A1, and further in view of Izatt US 20240219167 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 8,
Piggott does not explicitly teach wherein the combining is performed by a 2x2 optical combiner, the 2x2 optical combiner providing two outputs, each of the two outputs comprising 180 degree phase offset versions of a mix of the LO signal and the return signal.
Izatt teaches 2x2 optical combiners (304-B in Fig. 3A and 354-B in Fig. 3B producing 180 out of phase signals, [0054-59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the combining is performed by a 2x2 optical combiner, the 2x2 optical combiner providing two outputs, each of the two outputs comprising 180 degree phase offset versions of a mix of the LO signal and the return signal similar to Izatt with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of combining LO and reflected light for coherent distance measurement.
Regarding claim 14, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 11,
Piggott does not explicitly teach but Izatt teaches an output of the 2x2 optical combiner is a balanced signal (second fiber coupler (304-B or 354-B) is designed for 50/50 power splitting, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that an output of the 2x2 optical combiner is a balanced signal similar to Izatt with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result “that equal powers of combined light returning from the sample and reference arm are incident on the high-speed balanced differential optical receivers” (Izatt: [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Piggott teaches a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system ([0029]), comprising:
an optical source to emit an optical beam towards a target object (202 in Fig. 2A, [0041-43]; transmitted via couplers 250, [0049]), wherein an incidence of the optical beam on the target object causes a return signal to be returned to the LiDAR system (received by couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]; couplers can be used for TX, RX, or both);
a second photonics coupler to obtain the return signal (couplers 250 in Fig. 2A, [0049, 52-53]; connected to 280 through directional coupler 230 and optical hybrid 270, [0048, 53-54]);
an optical circuit, operatively connected to the first photonics coupler and the second photonics coupler (combined via 230 and optical hybrid 270, 0048, 53-54]; different sets of photodiodes can be used for different sets of couplers, [0060]); and
a signal processing system operatively connected to the optical circuit (DSP 290 in Fig. 2A, [0056-57, 60]).
Piggott does not explicitly teach a reflective optical component to return a portion of the optical beam along a return path as a local oscillator (LO) signal; a first photonics coupler to obtain the LO signal; wherein the optical circuit combines the return signal and the LO signal with a 2x2 optical combiner to generate two output signals, the two output signals comprising 180 degree phase offset versions of a combination of the return signal and LO signal.
Rezk teaches a reflective optical component to return a portion of a first optical beam of the plurality of optical beams along a return path as a local oscillator (LO) signal (reflector 402 in Fig. 5, [0049-50])
Additionally, Piggott does teach producing a LO using “a power splitter…any other suitable device” ([0044]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a power splitter can be a polarization beam splitter which uses reflection to create a LO beam)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott to include a reflective optical component to return a portion of the optical beam along a return path as a local oscillator (LO) signal similar to Rezk with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably guiding the LO signal to detectors and aiding in scanning the environment.
Talty teaches the plurality of photonics couplers receives the LO signal (edge coupler 1420 used to allow local oscillator beam into waveguide, Fig. 14, [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott to include a first photonics coupler to obtain the LO signal similar to Talty with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the LO light into a waveguide.
Izatt teaches 2x2 optical combiners (304-B in Fig. 3A and 354-B in Fig. 3B producing 180 out of phase signals, [0054-59])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the optical circuit combines the return signal and the LO signal with a 2x2 optical combiner to generate two output signals, the two output signals comprising 180 degree phase offset versions of a combination of the return signal and LO signal similar to Izatt with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of combining LO and reflected light for coherent distance measurement.
Regarding claim 17, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 15,
Piggott does not explicitly teach but Izatt teaches wherein the two output signals are combined in a balanced configuration to produce a balanced signal (second fiber coupler (304-B or 354-B) is designed for 50/50 power splitting, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the two output signals are combined in a balanced configuration to produce a balanced signal similar to Izatt with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result “that equal powers of combined light returning from the sample and reference arm are incident on the high-speed balanced differential optical receivers” (Izatt: [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 15,
Piggott does not explicitly teach but Izatt teaches wherein the two output signals are combined in a balanced configuration to produce a differential signal (differential detection using the outputs of second fiber coupler, [0054-59]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the two output signals are combined in a balanced configuration to produce a differential signal similar to Izatt with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of aiding in distance measurement.
Claims 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piggott US 20240094360 A1 in view of Rezk US 20200400798 A1 and Talty US 20200110179 A1, and further in view of Izatt US 20240219167 A1 and further in view of Crouch US 20200326427 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 11,
Piggott does not explicitly teach wherein the LO signal is routed to the 2x2 optical combiner with a first single mode waveguide.
Crouch teaches use of single mode optical waveguides for LO ([0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the LO signal is routed to the 2x2 optical combiner with a first single mode waveguide similar to Crouch with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping minimize loss in the waveguide and improving SNR.
Regarding claim 13, Piggott as modified above teaches the method of claim 12,
Piggott does not explicitly teach wherein the return signal is routed to the 2x2 optical combiner with a second single mode waveguide.
Crouch teaches use of single mode optical waveguides for returned light ([0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the return signal is routed to the 2x2 optical combiner with a second single mode waveguide similar to Crouch with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping minimize loss in the waveguide and improving SNR.
Regarding claim 19, Piggott as modified above teaches the system of claim 15,
Piggott does not explicitly teach wherein the LO signal is routed to the optical circuit through a single mode waveguide.
Crouch teaches use of single mode optical waveguides for LO ([0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Piggott such that the LO signal is routed to the optical circuit through a single mode waveguide similar to Crouch with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping minimize loss in the waveguide and improving SNR.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bock US 20180026721 A1 teaches a 2x2 optical combiner generating two 180 degree phase offset signals (232 in Fig. 2D, [0022-23]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights