DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Droz (US 2019/0041498).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Droz discloses a light detection and ranging (lidar) system and method, [Fig 2A-3B] comprising: a transmitter comprising: at least one light-emitter device configured to transmit emission light into an environment [Fig 2A-3B; 0055]; a receiver configured to detect return light from the environment [Fig 2A-4B; 0092], the receiver comprising: a plurality of apertures [Fig 2A-3B; 0055; 0092]; a plurality of photodetectors [#420-#428 of Fig 2A-4B; 0092] . Droz teaches a plurality of optical redirectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0092], wherein each optical redirector element is configured to receive return light from a respective aperture, through a respective re-direction path to illuminate at least one photodetector [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0092] wherein each optical redirector in the plurality of optical redirectors has a rotational orientation relative to other optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors such that the redirection paths of optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are not coplanar with one another [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0034-36; 0075-77; 0090-94] as one having ordinary skill in the art would use a form of a partial beam splitter and multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 18, Droz discloses an optical redirector device comprising: a plurality of apertures [Fig 2A-3B; 0055; 0075-77; 0092]; a plurality of photodetectors [#420-#428 Fig 2A-4B; 0055; 0092]. Droz teaches a plurality of optical redirectors, wherein each optical redirector is configured to receive return light from a respective aperture, through a respective redirection path to illuminate at least one photodetector, and wherein each optical redirector in the plurality of optical redirectors has a rotational orientation relative to other optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors such that the redirection paths of optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are not coplanar with one another [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0034-36; 0075-77; 0090-94] – as one having ordinary skill in the art would use a form of a partial beam splitter and multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 2, Droz also teaches wherein the rotational orientations of at least two optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are offset by 180o [0077; 0090-94; 0013].
Regarding Claim 3, Droz also teaches wherein the at least two optical redirectors having rotational orientations that are offset by 180o comprise two optical redirectors corresponding to two apertures arranged at a center of the plurality of apertures [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]
Regarding Claim 4, Droz also teaches wherein the rotational orientations of at least two optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are offset by 90o [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113].
Regarding Claim 5, Droz also teaches wherein the rotational orientations of at least two optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are offset by a multiple of 360o divided by a total number of optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113].
Regarding Claim 6, Droz also teaches wherein the plurality of apertures comprises four apertures, and wherein the plurality of optical redirectors comprises four optical redirectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113].
Regarding Claim 7, Droz also teaches wherein a first separation between at least two photodetectors within the plurality of photodetectors that are illuminated by light from non- adjacent apertures is less than a second separation between at least two photodetectors within the plurality of photodetectors that are illuminated by light from adjacent apertures [0084-85; 0091-94; 0106].
Regarding Claim 8, Droz also teaches wherein the plurality of apertures is arranged in a coplanar fashion [0084-85; 0092-94].
Regarding Claim 9, Droz also teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to direct the return light using at least two reflectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113].
Regarding Claim 10, Droz also teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to direct the return light by total internal reflection [#360 of Fig 3A, 3B; 0076].
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Droz also teaches an optically absorbing structure positioned between the plurality of optical redirectors [0031-34; 0041; 0084-85; 0091-94]
Regarding Claim 12, Droz also teaches wherein a portion of the optically absorbing structure that is closer to the apertures has a smaller cross sectional area than a portion of the optically absorbing structure that is farther from the apertures [0031-34; 0041; 0084-85; 0091-94]
Regarding Claim 13, Droz also teaches wherein the optically absorbing structure comprises silicone [0002; 0031-34; 0041; 0084-85; 0091-94]
Regarding Claim 14, Droz also teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to optically couple the return light from the respective aperture to at least two photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors by total internal reflection [[#360 of Fig 3A, 3B; 0076], wherein the optical redirectors are formed from an injection-moldable optical material [Claim 16; #460-#466 of Fig 3A, 3B; 0075-77 ], wherein the optical redirectors are coupled together in pairs such that a first pair and a second pair are shaped to slidably couple with one another [#420-#426, #460-#466 of Fig 4A-4B; 0092], wherein at least one aperture of the plurality of apertures has a diameter between 150 microns and 300 microns [#420-#426 of Fig 4A-4B; 0071], wherein the plurality of apertures comprises a set of openings formed in an aperture plate, wherein the aperture plate has a thickness between 50 microns and 200 microns [#420-#426 of Fig 4A-4B; 0071], wherein respective apertures of the plurality of apertures are spaced apart by between 200 microns and 800 microns [#420-#426 of Fig 4A-4B; 0071], wherein respective photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors are spaced apart by at least 1000 microns [#110 of Fig 1A-1B; 0030], wherein the plurality of photodetectors is at least two times greater than the at least one light-emitter device [#110 of Fig 1A-1B; 0030], wherein the at least two photodetectors comprise a first photodetector and a second photodetector and the optical redirectors are configured to illuminate the first photodetector with a first photon flux of a first portion of the return light and illuminate the second photodetector with a second photon flux of a second portion of the return light, wherein the first portion is greater than the second portion [#110, #140 of Fig 1A-1B; 0045], and wherein at least one photodetector of the plurality of photodetectors comprises a solid- state single-photon-sensitive device [#412 - #416 of Fig 4A-4C; 0109].
Regarding Claim 15, Droz also teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to direct the return light from the respective aperture to at least two photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113].
Regarding Claim 16, Droz also teaches wherein at least one of the optical redirectors comprises an optically isolating coating [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0084-85; 0090-94; 0113].
Regarding Claim 17, Droz also teaches wherein at least one of the photodetectors comprises a solid- state single-photon-sensitive device [#412 - #416 of Fig 4A-4C; 0109].
Claim(s) 1, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fried (US 2018/0275252).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Fried discloses a light detection and ranging (lidar) system and method, [Abstract; 0005-06] comprising: a transmitter comprising: at least one light-emitter device configured to transmit emission light into an environment [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089]; a receiver configured to detect return light from the environment [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089], the receiver comprising: a plurality of apertures [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089]; a plurality of photodetectors [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089], a plurality of optical redirectors [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078;], wherein each optical redirector element is configured to receive return light from a respective aperture, through a respective re-direction path to illuminate at least one photodetector [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089] wherein each optical redirector in the plurality of optical redirectors has a rotational orientation relative to other optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors such that the redirection paths of optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are not coplanar with one another [ 0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078].
Regarding Claim 18, Fried discloses an optical redirector device [Abstract; 0005-06] comprising: a plurality of apertures [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089]; a plurality of photodetectors [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089] a plurality of optical redirectors, wherein each optical redirector is configured to receive return light from a respective aperture, through a respective redirection path to illuminate at least one photodetector [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078; 0089], and wherein each optical redirector in the plurality of optical redirectors has a rotational orientation relative to other optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors such that the redirection paths of optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are not coplanar with one another [0005-06; 0024; 0027; 0035-36; 0055; 0061-63; 0067; 0071-73; 0078].
Regarding Claim 17, Fried also discloses wherein at least one of the photodetectors comprises a solid- state single-photon-sensitive device [#412 - #416 of Fig 4A-4C; 0109].
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) 2-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Fried (US 2018/0275252), as applied to Claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Droz (US 2019/0041498).
Regarding Claim 2, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the rotational orientations of at least two optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are offset by 180o [0077; 0090-94; 0013]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing and angles for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 3, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the at least two optical redirectors having rotational orientations that are offset by 180o comprise two optical redirectors corresponding to two apertures arranged at a center of the plurality of apertures [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing and angles for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 4, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the rotational orientations of at least two optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are offset by 90o [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing and angles for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 5, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the rotational orientations of at least two optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors that correspond to adjacent apertures are offset by a multiple of 360o divided by a total number of optical redirectors within the plurality of optical redirectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing and angles for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 6, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the plurality of apertures comprises four apertures, and wherein the plurality of optical redirectors comprises four optical redirectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 7, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein a first separation between at least two photodetectors within the plurality of photodetectors that are illuminated by light from non- adjacent apertures is less than a second separation between at least two photodetectors within the plurality of photodetectors that are illuminated by light from adjacent apertures [0084-85; 0091-94; 0106]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 8, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the plurality of apertures is arranged in a coplanar fashion [0084-85; 0092-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing and angles for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 9, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to direct the return light using at least two reflectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing and angles for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 10, Droz Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to direct the return light by total internal reflection [#360 of Fig 3A, 3B; 0076]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to use TIR as multiple waveguides allow the device to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Droz Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches an optically absorbing structure positioned between the plurality of optical redirectors [0031-34; 0041; 0084-85; 0091-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the device and method of Fried to include an absorbing (opaque) structure between the reflecting elements or apertures in order to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 12, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein a portion of the optically absorbing structure that is closer to the apertures has a smaller cross sectional area than a portion of the optically absorbing structure that is farther from the apertures [0031-34; 0041; 0084-85; 0091-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the device and method of Fried to include an absorbing (opaque) structure between the reflecting elements or apertures in order to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 13, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein the optically absorbing structure comprises silicone [0002; 0031-34; 0041; 0084-85; 0091-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the device and method of Fried to include a silicone absorbing (opaque) structure between the reflecting elements or apertures in order to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 14, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to optically couple the return light from the respective aperture to at least two photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors by total internal reflection [[#360 of Fig 3A, 3B; 0076], wherein the optical redirectors are formed from an injection-moldable optical material [Claim 16; #460-#466 of Fig 3A, 3B; 0075-77 ], wherein the optical redirectors are coupled together in pairs such that a first pair and a second pair are shaped to slidably couple with one another [#420-#426, #460-#466 of Fig 4A-4B; 0092], wherein at least one aperture of the plurality of apertures has a diameter between 150 microns and 300 microns [#420-#426 of Fig 4A-4B; 0071], wherein the plurality of apertures comprises a set of openings formed in an aperture plate, wherein the aperture plate has a thickness between 50 microns and 200 microns [#420-#426 of Fig 4A-4B; 0071], wherein respective apertures of the plurality of apertures are spaced apart by between 200 microns and 800 microns [#420-#426 of Fig 4A-4B; 0071], wherein respective photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors are spaced apart by at least 1000 microns [#110 of Fig 1A-1B; 0030], wherein the plurality of photodetectors is at least two times greater than the at least one light-emitter device [#110 of Fig 1A-1B; 0030], wherein the at least two photodetectors comprise a first photodetector and a second photodetector and the optical redirectors are configured to illuminate the first photodetector with a first photon flux of a first portion of the return light and illuminate the second photodetector with a second photon flux of a second portion of the return light, wherein the first portion is greater than the second portion [#110, #140 of Fig 1A-1B; 0045], and wherein at least one photodetector of the plurality of photodetectors comprises a solid- state single-photon-sensitive device [#412 - #416 of Fig 4A-4C; 0109]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include an aperture plate to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include multiple waveguides slidably coupled to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 15, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein each optical redirector is configured to direct the return light from the respective aperture to at least two photodetectors of the plurality of photodetectors [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Fried to include specific spacing for apertures and array elements to connect multiple waveguides to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array.
Regarding Claim 16, Fried does not explicitly teach – but Droz teaches wherein at least one of the optical redirectors comprises an optically isolating coating [#460-#466 of Fig 2A-4B; 0075-77; 0084-85; 0090-94; 0113]. It would have been obvious to modify the device and method of Fried to include an absorbing coasting between the reflecting elements or apertures in order to direct portions of the reflected light on to specific photodetectors of the array, and reduce unwanted reflections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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 5712705227. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights