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 objections
Claims 2-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 2-18, ln. 1, “An apparatus of” appears instead of “The apparatus of”
In Claim 15, ln. 1¸ “the modulation…” appears instead of “modulation”. Examiner notes that specifics of each of the elements controlled in claim 15 are introduced in varying other dependent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins US 20190369213 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins teaches a light detection and ranging apparatus ([0002]) comprising:
a 3-dimensional lens (ball lens 65 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]),
one or more substrates having one or more waveguides coupled to the lens (31 with waveguides 37 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]),
one or more light detectors coupled to the waveguides (PDs 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]; shown with both PDs and VCSELs in Figs. 3-4), and
one or more light sources coupled to the waveguides (VCSELs 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]; shown with both PDs and VCSELs in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lens is essentially spherical (ball lens 65 in Figs. 3-8, [0024-33])
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light source is coherent laser (VCSEL 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0027-34])
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lens is used to transmit or receive light in more than one angular range simultaneously ([0034])
Regarding claim 15, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the modulation, wavelength assignment, frequency ramping, and demodulation of the light generated by the light source and received by the light detector is controlled by one of an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, a microcontroller, or a microprocessor (controller 66 may be “a microprocessor, ASIC, FPGA, etc.” and controls VCSELs, [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Jenkins teaches a light detection and ranging apparatus comprising:
a 3-dimensional lens (ball lens 65 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]),
three or more light sources coupled to the lens (PDs 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]; shown with both PDs and VCSELs in Figs. 3-4), and
three or more light photo detectors coupled to the lens (VCSELs 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]; shown with both PDs and VCSELs in Figs. 3-4).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 20190369213 A1 in view of Yu US 20240118497 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate also has one or more light coupling devices coupled to the waveguide.
Yu teaches grating couplers used to couple light from a waveguide to a lens (GC in Fig. 27, [0025-27])
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 Jenkins such that the substrate also has one or more light coupling devices coupled to the waveguide similar to Yu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably transitioning light from the waveguide to the lens with known characteristics.
Regarding claim 4, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 3,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach wherein each light coupling device has light coupling characteristics, which depends on the position of light coupling device on the lens surface
Yu teaches grating couplers used to couple light from a waveguide to a lens (GC in Fig. 27, [0025-27]; examiner notes that light coupling devices inherently have light coupling characteristics and the direction the light is coupled through the lens, which is a “light coupling characteristic”, will inherently depend on which part of the lens the light is coupled to.)
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 Jenkins such that each light coupling device has light coupling characteristics, which depends on the position of light coupling device on the lens surface similar to Yu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably transitioning light from the waveguide to the lens with known characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 3,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach wherein the light coupling device is grating.
Yu teaches grating couplers used to couple light from a waveguide to a lens (GC in Fig. 27, [0025-27])
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 Jenkins such that the light coupling device is grating similar to Yu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reliably transitioning light from the waveguide to the lens with known characteristics.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 20190369213 A1 in view of Bohannon US 20240255642 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach but Bohannon teaches wherein at least one of the light sources outputs a continuous wave signal whose frequency is modulated (Figs. 2-3, [0002, 40-46])
Additionally, FMCW LiDAR is well-known in the art. 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 Jenkins such that at least one of the light sources outputs a continuous wave signal whose frequency is modulated similar to Bohannon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing measurement of both speed and range.
Regarding claim 9, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach but Bohannon teaches wherein at least one of the detectors recovers distance information by demodulating the received signal with a local oscillator reference (Figs. 2-3, [0002, 40-46])
Additionally, FMCW LiDAR is well-known in the art. 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 Jenkins such that at least one of the detectors recovers distance information by demodulating the received signal with a local oscillator reference similar to Bohannon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing measurement of both speed and range.
Regarding claim 10, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach but Bohannon teaches wherein the laser frequency is ramped up and down, and at least one of the detectors recovers objects relative speed information by measuring Doppler effect of the received signal (up and down chirps, and doppler effect use for equation 4, Figs. 2-3, [0002, 40-46])
Additionally, FMCW LiDAR is well-known in the art. 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 Jenkins such that the laser frequency is ramped up and down, and at least one of the detectors recovers objects relative speed information by measuring Doppler effect of the received signal similar to Bohannon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing measurement of both speed and range.
Regarding claim 11, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach but Bohannon teaches wherein the distance to the object is determined by measuring the frequency shift between when the signal is launched by the light source and when it is received by light detector (doppler effect use for equation 3, Figs. 2-3, [0002, 40-46]).
Additionally, FMCW LiDAR is well-known in the art. 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 Jenkins such that the distance to the object is determined by measuring the frequency shift between when the signal is launched by the light source and when it is received by light detector similar to Bohannon with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing measurement of both speed and range.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 20190369213 A1 in view of Abediasl US 20190004151 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach but Tien teaches wherein the angular direction of the object is determined by assigning the light that is emitted by the light source in each direction a unique wavelength and performing spectral decoding of the signal received by the light detector.
Abediasl teaches encoding using wavelength modulation, ([0024, 28]), and decoding based on wavelength ([0024, 28]).
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 Jenkins such that the angular direction of the object is determined by assigning the light that is emitted by the light source in each direction a unique wavelength and performing spectral decoding of the signal received by the light detector similar to Tien with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing scanning of multiple directions simultaneously and aiding in identification of reflected light.
Regarding claim 13, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach wherein the light source intensity is modulated, and the angular direction of the object is determined by modulating the light that is emitted by the light source in each direction with a unique time domain code and performing time domain decoding of the signal received by the light detector.
Abediasl teaches encoding using wavelength modulation, direction, time domain, amplitude modulation, (Fig. 2, [0024, 28, 45-46, 49]), and decoding ([0024, 28, 70-72]).
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 Jenkins such that the light source intensity is modulated, and the angular direction of the object is determined by modulating the light that is emitted by the light source in each direction with a unique time domain code and performing time domain decoding of the signal received by the light detector similar to Abediasl with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing scanning of multiple directions simultaneously and aiding in identification of reflected light.
Regarding claim 14, Jenkins teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Jenkins does not explicitly teach wherein the angular direction of the object is determined by modulating the light that is emitted by the light source in each direction with a unique wavelength and time domain code and performing a combination of wavelength and time domain decoding of the signal received by the light detector.
Abediasl teaches encoding using wavelength modulation, direction, time domain, amplitude modulation, (Fig. 2, [0024, 28, 45-46, 49]), and decoding ([0024, 28, 70-72]).
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 Jenkins such that the angular direction of the object is determined by modulating the light that is emitted by the light source in each direction with a unique wavelength and time domain code and performing a combination of wavelength and time domain decoding of the signal received by the light detector similar to Abediasl with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing scanning of multiple directions simultaneously and aiding in identification of reflected light.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins US 20190369213 A1 in view of Hu US 20230194674 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Jenkins teaches a light detection and ranging apparatus comprising:
a 3-dimensional lens (ball lens 65 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]),
one or more light sources (PDs 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]; shown with both PDs and VCSELs in Figs. 3-4),
one or more light detectors (VCSELs 63 in Figs. 3-7, [0024-33]; shown with both PDs and VCSELs in Figs. 3-4).
Jenkins does not teach one or more spatial light modulators (SLM).
Hu teaches using a spatial light modulator to steer laser beams ([0008, 30])
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 Jenkins to include one or more spatial light modulators similar to Hu with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing scanning of laser beams to fill gaps in the field of view (Hu: [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 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: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious:
The apparatus of claim 16, specifically including: wherein waveguides are fabricated on a thin flexible substrate, which is wrapped around the lens
The apparatus of claim 17, specifically including:, wherein waveguides are fabricated on a separate substrate, and then transfer printed on the lens
The apparatus of claim 18, specifically including: wherein waveguides are fabricated on a separate substrate, and then transfer-printed on the flexible substrate, which is then wrapped around the lens
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tien US 20230221440 A1 teaches the angular direction of the object is determined by wavelength of emitted light ([0047]).
Tows US 20220350028 A1 teaches amplitude modulation and decoding ([0099-105])
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