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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/1/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al (EP 3026455 A1) in view of Montoya et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139266).
With respect to claim 1, Pureur et al disclose: A LiDAR system [ taught by the abstract and figure 7 ] comprising: an semiconductor optical source configured to receive a light signal from a master-oscillator laser source [ taught by the plurality of semiconductor amplifiers (13) receiving light from single master laser (11) ], the semiconductor optical source comprising: an optical splitter configured to split the light signal into two or more split light signals [ figure 7 shows the light from single master laser (11) being divided into N sub-beams ]; and two or more respective semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOAs), each SOA configured to receive one of the split light signals and amplify the split light signal [ taught by the N number of semiconductor amplifiers (13) ].
Pureur et al does not explicitly disclose a beam splitter.
Figure 1 of Montoya et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a beam splitting element (150) to perform the function of dividing light from a source (140) to have provided plural outputs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a beam splitter in the device of figure 7 of Pureur et al because Montoya et al taught beam splitters performed the function of dividing light from a single source into a plurality of output lights.
Claim 17 is rejected by the combination of Pureur et al and Montoya et al, as applied to claim 1.
Figure 7 of Pureur et al teaches a beam combiner (17) enabling coherent detection; thus, rendering claim 7 met by the combination of Pureur et al and Montoya et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al (EP 3026455 A1) in view of Montoya et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139266) and Liu et al (CN 110649460 A).
With respect to claim 10, Pureur et al disclose: An apparatus [ taught by the abstract and figure 7 ], comprising: a semiconductor optical source configured to receive a light signal from a master-oscillator laser source [ taught by the plurality of semiconductor amplifiers (13) receiving light from single master laser (11) ], the semiconductor optical source comprising: an optical splitter configured to split the light signal into two or more split light signals [ figure 7 shows the light from single master laser (11) being divided into N sub-beams ]; and two or more respective semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOAs), each SOA configured to receive one of the split light signals and amplify the split light signal [ taught by the N number of semiconductor amplifiers (13) ], wherein the master-oscillator laser source is integrated into the semiconductor optical source.
Pureur et al does not explicitly disclose a beam splitter.
Figure 1 of Montoya et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a beam splitting element (150) to perform the function of dividing light from a source (140) to have provided plural outputs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a beam splitter in the device of figure 7 of Pureur et al because Montoya et al taught beam splitters performed the function of dividing light from a single source into a plurality of output lights.
Pereur et al does not explicitly teach the master-oscillator laser source is integrated into the semiconductor optical source.
Figures 1-3 of Liu et al teach that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have integrated the components of a laser radar into a common structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the master-oscillator source and semiconductor source taught by Pereur et al when seeking to produce a compact structure, as shown by Liu et al.
Claims 2 and 18 are met by the combination of Pereur et al, Montoya et al and Liu et al, as applied to claim 10.
Figure 7 of Pereur et al shows the source and beam division of the source as a coupled-laser system; thus, rendering claims 3 and 11 met by the combination of Pereur et al, Montoya et al and Liu et al, as applied to claim 10.
Figure 7 of Pureur et al teaches a beam combiner (17) enabling coherent detection; thus, rendering claim 15 met by the combination of Pureur et al, Montoya et al and Liu et al, as applied to claim 10.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al (EP 3026455 A1) in view of Montoya et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139266), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Palese (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0372623).
Figure 6 of Palese teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used Y splitters (612) to perform the function of beam splitting in a laser radar system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Y splitters in the combination Pureur et al and Montoya et al, as applied to claims 1 and 17, in that the combination required known elements to perform the function of beam splitting.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al (EP 3026455 A1) in view of Montoya et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139266) and Liu et al (CN 110649460 A), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Palese (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0372623).
Figure 6 of Palese teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used Y splitters (612) to perform the function of beam splitting in a laser radar system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Y splitters in the combination Pureur et al, Montoya et al and Liu et al, as applied to claim 10, in that the combination required known elements to perform the function of beam splitting.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al (EP 3026455 A1) in view of Montoya et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139266), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al (United States Patent No. 11,119,219).
With regard to claims 5, 6 and 19, figure 36 of LaChapelle et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used semiconductor optical amplifiers (463) with a tapered waveguide enabling increased power output of light traversing the waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Pureur et al and Montoya et al, as applied to claims 1 and 17, to include the tapered waveguides taught by LaChapelle et al, when seeking to increase amplification.
Column 76, lines 64-68 of LaChapelle et al state, “…The output lens 490a in FIG. 34 may collimate the emitted pulses of light 400 from the SOA 460 to produce a collimated output beam 125. The output beam 125 may be scanned across a field of regard by a scanner 120…” and figure 34 shows using a detector array to (340) to detect reflections of the scanned output; thus, teaching it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a collimating lens at the output of a semiconductor optical amplifier and an array to detect reflections in order to facilitate and scanning and detecting lidar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Pureur et al and Montoya et al, as applied to claims 1 and 17, to include the subject matter of claims 8 and 9, when seeking to enable a scanning and detecting lidar.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur et al (EP 3026455 A1) in view of Montoya et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139266) and Liu et al (CN 110649460 A), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al (United States Patent No. 11,119,219).
With regard to claims 13 and 14, figure 36 of LaChapelle et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used semiconductor optical amplifiers (463) with a tapered waveguide enabling increased power output of light traversing the waveguide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Pureur et al, Montoya et al, and Liu et al, as applied to claim 10, to include the tapered waveguides taught by LaChapelle et al, when seeking to increase amplification.
Column 76, lines 64-68 of LaChapelle et al state, “…The output lens 490a in FIG. 34 may collimate the emitted pulses of light 400 from the SOA 460 to produce a collimated output beam 125. The output beam 125 may be scanned across a field of regard by a scanner 120…”; thus, teaching it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a collimating lens at the output of a semiconductor optical amplifier in order to facilitate a scanning and detecting lidar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the combination of Pureur et al and Montoya et al, and Liu et al, as applied to claim 10, to include the subject matter of claim 16, when seeking to enable a scanning and detecting lidar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights