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 .
Drawings
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the following:
Reference character “340” designates both a contact pad and electrical conductor(s). It is clear that reference character “340” should designate a contact pad. As there are unique reference characters for different electrical conductors, please review mislabeled electrical conductors and use the correct reference character.
Reference character “374” designates both trenches and slab regions. Slab regions previously used reference character “308.” When discussing Figure 8E in Paragraph 00147, neither the figure nor the description make it clear whether using “slab regions” or “374” was correct.
Reference character “71” designates both a free space region and a reflecting surface. Since reference characters “71” and “72” were used to designate a reflecting surface, while only reference character “71” was used to designate a free space region, Examiner assumes reflecting surface should use reference character “72.”
There are several more instances of using incorrect reference characters or using multiple reference characters for similar parts with separate functionality. Applicant is advised to carefully review their application and submit proper corrections.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“282” Figs. 1A-B, 2
“129” in Fig. 4C
“447” in Fig. 5B
Additionally, they do not include the following reference character(s) mentioned in the description: “358” in Paragraph 00148.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b), are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 00148 references Figure 3E, which was not submitted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 (limitation 1) begins with “lidar system” before any lidar system was introduced. As there is only one lidar system introduced, which is referenced as “the lidar system” elsewhere in Claim 1, it is obvious that Applicant intended for this to recite “A lidar system.” Dependent Claims 7 and 15 do not reference a lidar system, which is acceptable. Dependent Claims 2-6 and 10-14 correctly reference “the lidar system.” Dependent Claims 8-9 incorrectly reference “lidar system.” This objection applies to Claim 16 as well.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with a non-numeric character (`), which resulted in only 16 claims being counted.
There are various other informalities throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 15 recites “wherein the splitter is a wavelength independent splitter,” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis. The only other recitation of a splitter was in Claim 14. For purposes of examination, Claim 15 is interpreted as depending on Claim 14.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2019/0369251) in view of Skirlo (US 2017/0371227).
Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches A system, comprising [0063]:
LIDAR system [0063] that includes a utility waveguide configured to guide an outgoing LIDAR signal precursor [0082, #16 of Fig. 6];
the LIDAR system [0063] including
multiple preliminary alternate waveguides that are each configured to guide a preliminary outgoing LIDAR signal [0084, #102 of Fig. 6],
each of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signals including light from the outgoing LIDAR signal precursor [0083, #16 to #100 to #102 of Fig. 6];
the LIDAR system [0063] including amplifiers [0103, SOAs], each of the amplifiers being configured to receive one of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signals from a different one of the preliminary alternate waveguides [0085, bottom of #104 of Fig. 6], each of the amplifiers configured to output an outgoing LIDAR signal that includes light from one of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signal received by the amplifier [0085, top of #104 of Fig. 6];
and the LIDAR system [0063] including multiple alternate waveguides that are each configured to receive one of the outgoing LIDAR signals from a different one of the amplifiers [0085, #102 passes through #104 in Fig. 6];
electronics configured to operate the amplifiers [0028, 0050, #62 of Fig. 1]; and
the LIDAR data indicating a distance and/or radial velocity between the LIDAR system and an object [0004, #24 of Fig. 1].
Feng does not explicitly teach – but Skirlo does teach
electronics configured to operate the amplifiers [0083, #812 of Fig. 8] such that
one of the amplifiers serve as an active amplifier and one or more of the amplifiers each serves as inactive amplifier [0083, “on” or “off” amplifiers],
the outgoing LIDAR signal output from the active amplifier being an active outgoing LIDAR signal [0083, emission from “on” amplifiers]
and any outgoing LIDAR signal output from one of the inactive amplifiers being an inactive outgoing LIDAR signal [0083, emission from “off” amplifiers];
the LIDAR system being configured to use light output from the active outgoing LIDAR signal to calculate LIDAR data but not using light output from the inactive amplifiers to calculate any LIDAR data [0084, individually operable subunits of #990 in Fig. 9].
It would have been obvious to modify the lidar chip with the electronics and heterodyne detection unit because it would enable several independent beams with scanning ranges limited to unique non-overlapping subsectors of the far field for heterodyne detection.
Regarding Claim 17, the rejection of the system of Claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 16, Feng teaches A system, comprising [0063]:
LIDAR system [0063] that includes a utility waveguide configured to guide an outgoing LIDAR signal precursor [0082, #16 of Fig. 6];
the LIDAR system [0063] including
multiple preliminary alternate waveguides that are each configured to guide a preliminary outgoing LIDAR signal [0084, #102 of Fig. 6],
each of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signals including light from the outgoing LIDAR signal precursor [0083, #16 to #100 to #102 of Fig. 6];
the LIDAR system [0063] including amplifiers [0103, SOAs], each of the amplifiers being configured to receive one of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signals from a different one of the preliminary alternate waveguides [0085, bottom of #104 of Fig. 6], each of the amplifiers configured to output an outgoing LIDAR signal that includes light from one of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signal received by the amplifier [0085, top of #104 of Fig. 6];
and the LIDAR system [0063] including multiple alternate waveguides that are each configured to receive one of the outgoing LIDAR signals from a different one of the amplifiers [0085, #102 passes through #104 in Fig. 6];
electronics configured to operate the amplifiers [0050, #62 of Fig. 1]; and
being configured to transmit a system output signal that includes light from the active outgoing LIDAR signal [0078, arrows of Fig. 3; furthermore inherent]
a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changing in response to a change in the amplifier that serves as the active amplifier [0087, #104 of Fig. 6 with #62 of Fig. 1].
Feng does not explicitly teach – but Skirlo does teach
electronics configured to operate the amplifiers [0083, #812 of Fig. 8] such that
one of the amplifiers serve as an active amplifier and one or more of the amplifiers each serves as inactive amplifier [0083, “on” or “off” amplifiers],
the outgoing LIDAR signal output from the active amplifier being an active outgoing LIDAR signal [0083, emission from “on” amplifiers]
and any outgoing LIDAR signal output from one of the inactive amplifiers being an inactive outgoing LIDAR signal [0083, emission from “off” amplifiers];
Furthermore, Skirlo also teaches a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changing in response to a change in the amplifier that serves as the active amplifier [0083, #812 of Fig. 8]. It would have been obvious to modify the lidar chip with the electronics and heterodyne detection unit because it would enable several independent beams with scanning ranges limited to unique non-overlapping subsectors of the far field for heterodyne detection.
Regarding Claim 2, Feng also teaches wherein the LIDAR system is configured to transmit a system output signal that includes light from the active outgoing LIDAR signal [0078, arrows of Fig. 3; furthermore inherent].
Regarding Claim 3, Feng also teaches wherein a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changes in response to a change in the amplifier that serves as the active amplifier [0087, #104 of Fig. 6 with #62 of Fig. 1]. Skirlo also teaches this [0083, #812 of Fig. 8], and it would have been obvious to combine the lidar chip with the electronics to steer the output beam.
Regarding Claim 4, Feng does not explicitly teach – but Skirlo does teach wherein the LIDAR system uses light from the active outgoing LIDAR signal to calculate the LIDAR data [0084, #990 of Fig. 9]. It would have been obvious to modify the lidar chip with the electronics and heterodyne detection unit because it would enable several independent beams with scanning ranges limited to unique non-overlapping subsectors of the far field for heterodyne detection.
Regarding Claim 5, Feng teaches wherein the system output signal carries multiple different wavelength channels and a direction that the system output signal travels away from the LIDAR system changes in response to a change in the wavelength channel carried by the system output signal [0087, 0096].
Regarding Claim 6, Feng teaches wherein the LIDAR system is configured to change the amplifier that serves as the active amplifier [0086, changing property of #104 of Fig. 6]. Skirlo also teaches this [0043, 0074, final element of #110 of Fig. 6B], and it would have been obvious to combine the lidar chip with the switchboard to dissipate less power for in-plane steering compared to the conventional phase-shifter based approach.
Regarding Claim 7, Feng teaches wherein each of the amplifiers that does not serve as the active amplifier serves as one of the inactive amplifiers [0050, electronics 62 can operate one or more components on the chip]. Skirlo also teaches this [0043, 0074, final element of #110 of Fig. 6B], and it would have been obvious to combine the lidar chip with the switchboard to dissipate less power for in-plane steering compared to the conventional phase-shifter based approach.
Regarding Claim 8, Feng does not explicitly teach – but Skirlo does teach wherein LIDAR system operates the active amplifier such that a power level of the active outgoing LIDAR signal is more than 1000 times a power level of any inactive outgoing LIDAR signal output from one of the inactive amplifiers [0084, #912 of Fig. 9]. It is a simple substitution to use these amplifiers in the lidar chip.
Regarding Claim 12, Feng teaches wherein each of the amplifiers is a Semiconductor Optical Amplifier (SOA) [0103].
Regarding Claim 13, Feng teaches wherein the LIDAR system includes a semiconductor chip that includes the utility waveguide, preliminary alternate waveguides, amplifiers, and alternate waveguides [0073, 0075, 0103].
Regarding Claim 14, Feng teaches wherein the LIDAR system includes a splitter configured to receive the outgoing LIDAR signal precursor from the utility waveguide and to split the outgoing LIDAR signal precursor into the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signals received at the preliminary alternate waveguides [0083, #100 of Fig. 6]. Furthermore, having a splitter is inherent.
Regarding Claim 15, Feng teaches wherein the splitter is a wavelength independent splitter [0084, cascaded Y-junctions].
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2019/0369251), in view of Skirlo (US 2017/0371227), as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Shah (US 2022/0334231).
Regarding Claim 9, Feng does not explicitly teach – but Shah does teach wherein LIDAR system operates each of the inactive amplifiers such that a power level of the preliminary outgoing LIDAR signal received by the inactive amplifier is more than 10 times a power level of the outgoing LIDAR signal output from the inactive amplifier [0138]. It would have been obvious to use SOAs as the phase tuners in the lidar chip for variable optical absorption.
Regarding Claim 10, Feng does not explicitly teach – but Shah does teach wherein the LIDAR system applies a reverse bias to least one of the inactive amplifiers [0138]. It would have been obvious to use SOAs as the phase tuners in the lidar chip for variable optical absorption.
Regarding Claim 11, Feng does not explicitly teach – but Shah does teach wherein the LIDAR system operates the amplifiers such that at least one of the inactive amplifiers does not output an inactive outgoing LIDAR signal [0138, essentially no emission for 30+ dB absorption]. It would have been obvious to use the SOAs in the lidar chip so essentially no output is emitted.
Relevant Prior Art
In addition to the prior art used above, the examiner identified the following relevant prior art:
Dutta and Wang (Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers, 2006, not included in office action due to size and copyrights) comprehensively discusses SOAs, including
Absorbing photons (several sections),
Manufacturing SOAs integrated with other components on a single chip, including using epitaxial methods, and
Amplification and calculating theoretical values.
Doylend (US 2017/0184450) discloses optical phased array lidars using SOAs, waveguides, and amplifiers.
Kondratko (US 9,316,534 B1) discloses multipixel transceiver array with possible pixel-level local oscillators.
Hajati (US 2024/0069285) discloses optical phased array lidar with possible pixel-level local oscillators.
Barber (US 11,740,337 B1) discloses lidar with multiple transceiver arrays, each with input from master local oscillator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights