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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9-13, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pureur et al. (US20240319342A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Pureur teaches a laser diode to produce a seed light [Fig 6, 5; 0246]; a capacitor configured to charge from a voltage source [Fig 8a, 110 and 20; 0248]; a transistor configured to control current flowing through a semiconductor optical amplifier via a controlled discharge of the capacitor [Fig 8a, 22; 0250]; the semiconductor optical amplifier configured to amplify at least a temporal portion of the seed light in response to the current flowing through the semiconductor optical amplifier to emit an output pulse of light [Fig 6, 3; 0246]; and a receiver configured to detect at least a portion of the output pulse of light scattered by a target object located at a distance from the system [Fig 6, 18; 0246].
Regarding claim 4, Pureur teaches wherein the laser diode comprises a first p-type / n-type semiconductor diode that is electrically isolated from a second p-type / n-type semiconductor diode comprising the semiconductor optical amplifier. Pureur uses a specific semiconductor optical amplifier, “B0A1004P” made by Thorlabs. “B0A1004P” is an InP/InGaAsP semiconductor optical amplifier which is a n-type/p-type semiconductor diode [Fig 1, 3; 0213: Thorlabs, B0A1004P Description].
Regarding claim 7, Pureur teaches a semiconductor optical amplifier (B0A1004P) that includes an optical waveguide to receive the seed light [Fig 1, 3; 0213: Thorlabs, B0A1004P Description].
Regarding claim 9, Pureur teaches a shunt path coupled to the semiconductor optical amplifier and the transistor [Fig 8b, Switch 222 path; 0251].
Regarding claim 10, Pureur teaches a shunt path configured to prevent the semiconductor optical amplifier and the transistor from being exposed to a voltage exceeding a specified safe operating voltage [0251].
Regarding claim 11, Pureur teaches a pulse signature that distinguishes the output pulse of light from one or more other pulses of light that can be detected by the receiver during a common detection period [Fig 7a and 7b; 0247].
Regarding claim 12, Pureur teaches a pulse signature based at least in part on a pulse amplitude that depends at least in part on a peak voltage of the voltage source [Fig 7a, 14, and 7b; 0248].
Regarding claim 13, Pureur teaches a pulse signature based at least in part on a pulse amplitude, rise time, or fall time that depends at least in part on a trigger signal shape received by the transistor [0123].
Regarding claim 16, Pureur teaches a scanner configured to scan an output beam across a field of regard of a lidar system [Fig 6, 17; 0246].
Regarding claim 17, Pureur teaches wherein the scanner of claim 16 is included in the lidar system [0246].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al. (US20240319342A1) in view of Mead et al. (US8953647B1).
Regarding claim 2, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 1.
Pureur does not explicitly teach wherein the seed light is generated from a pulsed current source.
Mead does teach a seed light generated from a pulsed current source [Fig 2A, 242; Column 14, Lines 23-28]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a seed light generated from a pulsed current source, similar to Mead with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a pulse of light from a pulse of current.
Regarding claim 3, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 1.
Pureur does not explicitly teach wherein the seed light is generated from a constant current source.
Mead does teach a seed light generated from a constant current source [Fig 2A, 242; Column 14, lines 34-44]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a seed light generated from a constant current source, similar to Mead with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a continuous-wave of light from a continuous current.
Regarding claim 14, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 11.
Pureur does not explicitly teach wherein the pulse signature is based at least in part on a pulse amplitude, rise time, or fall time that depends at least in part on a pulsed current shape associated with the seed light.
Mead does teach a pulse signature that depends at least in part on a pulsed current shape associated with the seed light [Fig 2A, 242; Column 5, Lines 5-13; Column 14, Lines 23-28].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a pulse signature that depends at least in part on a pulsed current shape associated with the seed light, similar to Mead with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of generating a pulse signature that depends at least in part on a pulsed current associated with the seed light.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al. (US20240319342A1) in view of Shah et al. (US20210088657A1).
Regarding claim 5, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 1.
Pureur does not explicitly teach wherein the semiconductor optical amplifier is reverse-biased when it is not amplifying at least a temporal portion of the seed light
Shah does teach a semiconductor optical amplifier that is reverse-biased when not amplifying a portion of the seed light [Fig 15, 410, 0140].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a semiconductor optical amplifier that is reverse-biased, similar to Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of having a semiconductor optical amplifier that is reverse-biased when not amplifying a portion of the seed light.
Regarding claim 6, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 1.
Pureur does not teach wherein the semiconductor optical amplifier is short-circuited when it is not amplifying at least a temporal portion of the seed light.
Shah does teach a semiconductor optical amplifier that is short-circuited when not amplifying a portion of the seed light [Fig 15, 410, 0140].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a short-circuited semiconductor optical amplifier, similar to Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase optical absorption and reduce leakage [0141].
Regarding claim 18, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 1.
Pureur does not explicitly teach wherein the system is integrated into a vehicle as part of an autonomous-vehicle driving system.
Shah does teach a LiDAR system integrated into a vehicle as an autonomous-vehicle system [0057].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing it into a vehicle as an autonomous-vehicle system, similar to Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of implementing the LiDAR system as an autonomous-vehicle driving system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al. (US2024/0319342A1) in view of Koda (2015: “Gallium Nitride-based Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers”).
Regarding claim 8, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 1.
Pureur does not teach wherein the transistor, the semiconductor optical amplifier, or both the transistor and the semiconductor optical amplifier are fabricated on a gallium nitride semiconductor base.
Koda does teach a semiconductor optical amplifier based of a gallium nitride base [Page 29 and Page 41 Conclusion Paragraph].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a Gallium Nitride-based semiconductor optical amplifier, similar to Koda with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve pulse the energy and peak power [Page 29; Table 1].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al. (US20240319342A1) in view of Irish et al. (US20180059220A1).
Regarding claim 15, Pureur teaches the invention of claim 11.
Pureur does not explicitly teach wherein the pulse signature is based at least in part on a pulse amplitude, rise time, or fall time that depends at least in part on whether the capacitor is in a connected or disconnected configuration.
Irish does teach a pulse signature that depends at least in part on whether the capacitor is connected or disconnected [Fig 4A, C3; 0032 and 0047 (detection of pulse)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Pureur by implementing a pulse signature that depends at least in part on whether the capacitor is connected or disconnected, similar to Irish with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to distinguish different pulses of light from each other [0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cornell University 2017: Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers. This PDF talks about the basic structure and operation of a InP/InGaAsP semiconductor optical amplifier.
Connolly et al. (US20140072002A1) teaches a semiconductor optical transmitter that is reverse-biased [Fig 1, 130, 0033].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N ZERON CERRATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3245. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/J.N.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights