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)(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.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaels (20220075044).
Referring to claims 1, 13 Michaels shows a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system for a vehicle (see figure 1 and 8A), comprising:
a transmitter configured to output a transmit beam (see paragraph 56 and figure 3A Ref 305);
a first receive grating coupler spaced from the transmitter (see figure 3A Ref 309);
a second receive grating coupler spaced from the transmitter and from the first receive grating coupler (see figure 3A Ref 307); and
a scanner (see figure 3A Ref 360) configured to:
scan the transmit beam toward an environment around the vehicle (see paragraph 56); and
direct a return beam, based on rotation of the scanner about an axis, to the first receive grating coupler or to the second receive grating coupler (see paragraph 56 and 60-61), wherein the return beam is from reflection of the transmit beam by an object in the environment (see paragraph 56 and 60-61).
Referring to claims 13 and 18, Michaels shows one or more processors configured to:
determine at least one of a range to the object or a velocity of the object based on the return beam (see paragraph 42); and
control operation of the autonomous vehicle responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity (see paragraph 50 and 90).
Referring to claims 2, 15, and 19, Michaels shows the scanner is a bi-directional scanner that is configured to:
rotate in a first direction about the axis to direct the return beam to the first receive grating coupler; and
rotate in a second direction about the axis to direct the return beam to the second receive grating coupler (see paragraph 60-61).
Referring to claim 3, Michaels shows the transmitter comprises a transmit grating coupler (see figure 3A Ref 304).
Referring to claim 4, Michaels shows the first receive grating coupler is on a first side of the transmitter and the second receive grating coupler is on a second side of the transmitter (see figure 3A Ref 304).
Referring to claim 5, Michaels shows a first mixer coupled with the first receive grating coupler (see figure 3A Ref 311);
a second mixer coupled with the second receive grating coupler (see figure 3A Ref 313); and
a local oscillator (LO) configured to provide a reference signal to the first mixer based on the rotation of the scanner about the axis (see the LO signal that comes from the switch that switches based on what receive grating is active figure 3A Ref 315 also see paragraph 58-60).
Referring to claim 6, Michaels shows the scanner is a steering mirror (see paragraph 60-61).
Referring to claim 14, Michaels shows the scanner is arranged on the autonomous vehicle so that the axis extends in an elevation plane and the scanner is configured to rotate to scan the transmit beam in an azimuthal plane perpendicular to the elevation plane (see figure 8A).
Referring to claim 17, Michaels shows the one or more processors are configured to control operation of the autonomous vehicle, responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity, to avoid collision with the object (see paragraph 90).
Referring to claim 18, Michaels shows the one or more processors are configured to control operation of the at least one of the steering system or the braking system, responsive to the at least one of the range or the velocity, to avoid collision with the object (see paragraph 90-91).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels (20220075044) in view of Schaffner (20180356528).
Referring to claim 7, Michales shows the transmitter, the first receive grating coupler, and the second receive grating coupler are arranged in a focal plane.
However Michales fails to specifically show the transmitter, the first receive grating coupler, and the second receive grating coupler are arranged in a focal plane of the scanner.
Schaffner shows a similar device that includes the transmitter, the first receive grating coupler, and the second receive grating coupler are arranged in a focal plane of the scanner (see paragraph 64). It would have been obvious to include the gratings on the focal plane of the output optics because this allows for correct imaging of the target object and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels (20220075044).
Referring to claim 8, Michaels fails to specifically show the first receive grating coupler is between about 8 micrometers (μm) and about 24 μm from a transmit grating coupler of the transmitter however, this is extremely well known because this is the functional range of coupling a receive grating and a transmit grating, this adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels (20220075044) in view of Rogers (20200333533).
Referring to claim 9, Michaels fails to show but Rogers shows the first receive grating coupler is configured to receive light of a first polarization, and the second receive grating coupler is configured to receive light of a second polarization different than the first polarization (see figure 2J note Ref 254 and 252 also see RX1 and RX2). It would have been obvious to include the first and second polarizations being different as shown by Rogers because this allows for targeting an object at a longer range as shown in paragraph 105-106.
Referring to claim 11, Rogers shows the transmitter, the first receive grating coupler, and the second receive grating coupler are on a chip made from a silicon material or a III-V semiconductor material (see paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to include the single chip made of silicon because this is a common material selection for a LIDAR chip as shown by Rogers.
Referring to claim 12, Rogers shows the transmitter is configured to couple the transmit beam off of the chip to direct the transmit beam to the scanner (see paragraph 6 and 30). It would have been obvious to include the transmitter configured to transmit off the chip as shown by Rogers because this allows for a more compact design of the LIDAR system.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels (20220075044) in view of Asghari (20200241119).
Referring to claims 10 and 16, Michales fails to show but Asghari shows a circulator between the transmitter and the scanner, wherein the circulator is configured to direct the transmit beam from the transmitter to the scanner and to direct the return beam from the scanner to the first receive grating coupler or to the second receive grating coupler (see figure 1B Ref 18). It would have been obvious to include the circulator as shown by Asghari because this allows for signal direction without the need for as many waveguides as shown by Asghari.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights