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 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, applicant argues against the combination of Davydenko and LaChapelle by alleging that the art is not analogous. Applicant states that one ordinarily skilled in the art would only apply the combination of (1) seed laser diode and (2) semiconductor optical amplifier to a pulsed lidar system, and not an FMCW lidar system. MPEP 2141.02.VI explains that prior art must be considered in its entirety, and the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives. While LaChapelle describes some embodiments including a pulsed LIDAR system, LaChapelle also explains that their LIDAR system can also be configured to operate as an FMCW system with a light source configured to produce a CW signal (Col. 5 lines 20-21 and Col. 14 line 62 – Col. 16 line 11). In fact, LaChapelle explicitly states that “the light source 110 for a FMCW lidar system may include a direct-emitter laser diode or a seed laser diode followed by a SOA” (Col. 15 lines 62-64). This argument is not persuasive and the grounds of rejection are maintained.
On page 6, applicant argues that the combination of Davydenko, LaChapelle, and Lukaschchuk would be “internally inconsistent”. MPEP 2141.03.I describes the level of ordinary skill in the art, stating that a person ordinarily skilled in the art is a person who also possesses ordinary creativity. Such a person would be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. This particular modification would replace the light source disclosed by Davydenko with the light source taught by Lukaschchuk, and this replacement would still result in a FMCW lidar system that generates a frequency comb. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to replace one type of frequency comb generator for another type of frequency comb generator, and be able to take the creative steps necessary to ensure that the lidar system would be internally consistent. This argument is not persuasive and the grounds of rejection are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydenko (DE 102018216636 A1) in view of LaChapelle (US 10802120 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Davydenko discloses a FMCW lidar system (Fig. 1b; [0033] the invention is a combination of a FMCW laser and a mode locked laser) comprising a radiation source configured to emit a laser beam (Fig. 1b, light source 110 emitting measurement signal 121); and a frequency comb generator configured to generate a frequency comb from the emitted laser beam ([0036] frequency comb generated by mode locked laser 111; the different frequencies are illustrated by Fig. 1a).
Davydenko does not expressly disclose: the radiation source comprising a surface emitting semiconductor laser and that the radiation source is realized in a photonic chip.
LaChapelle teaches a light source for a FMCW system (Col. 15, lines 15-20, light source 110 is for a FMCW lidar system) that comprises a surface emitting semiconductor laser (Col. 32, lines 48-60, the light source 110 has a VCSEL as the laser), where the entire transmitting unit, including the radiation source, is realized in a photonic chip (Fig. 34, light source 110 is on a PIC 455).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lidar system disclosed by Davydenko by (1) using a VCSEL in the radiation source, and (2) integrating the entire radiation source into a PIC, as taught by LaChapelle. First, using a VCSEL as the radiation source would be a simple substitution of the arbitrary laser disclosed by Davydenko, for the VCSEL taught by LaChapelle, to obtain the predictable result of generating a laser beam (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B). Second, incorporating the entirety of the radiation source into a PIC is a different design variation that is predictable and known in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 3: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. Davydenko further discloses: further comprising a first grating configured to deflect components of the frequency comb having different wavelengths into different spatial directions, the first grating being arranged between the frequency comb generator and an object to be measured (Fig. 1b, grating 130; [0039] grating 130 deflects different frequency modes of the frequency comb in different directions based on their respective frequencies and towards the object 140).
Regarding Claim 4: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. Davydenko further discloses: further comprising an array of detector elements ([0040] detector 160 is an array) configured to detect a mixed signal generated on the basis of a reflected beam reflected by an object to be measured and a reference beam ([0040] – [0041] reference signal 122. The different returning beams are combined with their associated reference signal component and detected by the detector).
Regarding Claim 5: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 4. Davydenko further discloses: further comprising a second grating configured to deflect electromagnetic radiation incident on the second grating onto different detector elements as a function of the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1b and [0040] – [0041] grating 150 directs the reflected beams, based on their frequency ranges, in different directions towards the array. This is indicated by areas 1, 2, and 3).
Regarding Claim 6: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 5. Davydenko further discloses: wherein the second grating is further configured to deflect a reflected beam associated with a reference beam and the reference beam onto a common detector element (Fig. 1b and [0040] – [0041] signal 122 is directed to the grating 150, shown by the lightly dotted line. Returning beams are also directed towards the grating 150. Both the return beams and their respective component of reference signal 122 are directed towards the detector array 160 together).
Regarding Claim 7: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 5. Davydenko further discloses: wherein the second grating is arranged at a position where the beam reflected by the object to be measured is split and is superimposed with the reference beam after splitting (Fig. 1b and [0040] – [0041] signal 122 is directed directly towards the detector array 160, as shown by the dashed line. Returning beams are directed toward grating 150, which directs them towards respective areas of the detector array 160).
Regarding Claim 8: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. Davydenko further discloses wherein the radiation source further comprises a modulation device for modulating a wavelength emitted by the radiation source ([0036] the FMCW laser 113 forms the triangular modulation illustrated in Fig. 1a. By combining the beam from the FMCW with the different frequencies of the mode locked laser 110, the triangular modulation is formed).
Regarding Claim 9: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 8. This combination does not expressly teach the modulation device comprises a voltage source configured to modify a current intensity impressed into the surface emitting semiconductor laser.
LaChappelle further discloses the modulation device comprises a voltage source configured to modify a current intensity impressed into the surface emitting semiconductor laser (Col. 66 lines 10-33, the frequency changes of the light source 110 are based on the current supplied to the seed laser. This is controlled by an electronic driver; Col. 32, lines 48-60, the light source 110 has seed laser, where the seed laser is a VCSEL).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the radiation source in the system taught by Davydenko and LaChappelle, by further incorporating the teachings of LaChappelle for changing the frequency of the light source. Changing the frequency based on the current applied to the laser diode is simply another way to change the optical frequency of light. As described by LaChappelle in Col. 66, lines 10-33, applying current is another way to change optical frequence, as opposed to incorporating a separate discrete optical modulator. This modification would be another design variation for generating frequency modulated light. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 11: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches [the] FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. Davydenko further discloses wherein the frequency comb generator is configured to set a mode spacing greater than 5 GHz between adjacent modes ([0044] mode spacing of 30 GHz).
Regarding Claim 13: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. In this combination, LaChappelle further teaches wherein the frequency comb generator is integrated with the photonic chip (Fig. 34, light source 110 is on a PIC 455).
In the LIDAR system of claim 1, Davydenko discloses that the FMCW laser 113 and the mode locked laser 111 are both part of the light source 110. The mode locked laser 111 generates the frequency comb. In the modification made (see claim 1), the entirety of the light source is incorporated onto a PIC as taught by LaChappelle. Therefore, the frequency comb generator, which is part of the light source, is also on the photonic chip.
Regarding Claim 14: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. In this combination, LaChappelle further teaches wherein the surface emitting semiconductor laser is a VCSEL (Col. 32, lines 48-60, the light source 110 has a VCSEL as the laser).
Regarding Claim 15: Davydenko discloses a radiation source (Fig. 1b, light source 110 having FMCW laser 113) and a frequency comb generator (Fig. 1b, light source 110 having mode locked laser 110);
wherein the laser is configured to emit a laser beam and the frequency comb generator is configured to generate a frequency comb from the emitted laser beam (Fig. 1b and [0036], light from FMCW laser 113 is mixed with the light from the mode locked laser 111 at the circulator 112. This generates the triangular shaped FMCW signals that have the frequency spacings of the mode locked laser 111).
Davydenko does not expressly disclose: the radiation source comprising a surface emitting semiconductor laser and that the radiation source is implemented in a photonic chip.
LaChapelle teaches a light source for a FMCW system (Col. 15, lines 15-20, light source 110 is for a FMCW lidar system) that comprises a surface emitting semiconductor laser (Col. 32, lines 48-60, the light source 110 has a VCSEL as the laser), where the entire transmitting unit, including the radiation source, is realized in a photonic chip (Fig. 34, light source 110 is on a PIC 455).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lidar system disclosed by Davydenko by (1) using a VCSEL in as the FMCW light source, and (2) integrating the entire radiation source into a PIC, as taught by LaChapelle. First, using a VCSEL as the FMCW light source would be a simple substitution of the arbitrary FMCW laser disclosed by Davydenko, for the VCSEL taught by LaChapelle, to obtain the predictable result of generating a laser beam (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B). Second, incorporating the entirety of the radiation source into a PIC is a different design variation that is predictable and known in the art. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 16: Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the radiation source according to claim 15. In this combination, LaChappelle further teaches wherein the surface emitting semiconductor laser is a VCSEL (Col. 32, lines 48-60, the light source 110 has a VCSEL as the laser).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydenko (DE 102018216636 A1) in view of LaChapelle (US 10802120 B1), further in view of Lukaschchuk (US 20220413354 A1). Davydenko, in view of LaChappelle, teaches the FMCW LIDAR system according to claim 1. However, this combination does not expressly teach wherein the frequency comb generator comprises a microresonator.
Lukaschchuk teaches a FMCW lidar system (Fig. 1, LIDAR device 200) with a radiation source (Fig. 1 laser source 110, which has a continuous wave laser 112 and a frequency modulator controller 114) and a frequency comb generator that generates a frequency comb from the emitted laser, wherein the frequency comb generator comprises a microresonator (Fig. 1, nonlinear optical element 120; [0062] the nonlinear optical element 120 generates the frequency comb; [0071] and Fig. 4, the nonlinear optical element 120 has a microresonator 122 on a PIC 121).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the LIDAR system taught by Davydenko and LaChappelle by incorporating the teachings of Lukaschchuk for generating a frequency comb. The mode locked laser disclosed by Davydenko in the light source would be replaced with a continuous wave light source, and the comb would be generated by the microresonator, as taught by Lukaschchuk. This is simply a different way to obtain a frequency comb, where each of the frequencies are also frequency modulated to form a triangular shape. The only difference is if the comb is generated and then frequency modulated, or if the signal is frequency modulated and then the comb is formed. This is a predictable variation. “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
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 ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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 at (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 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights