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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, it is unclear if the claim limitations are stating that the signals are out of phase or the graphs are out of phase. Signals on a graph can be out of phase not the graphs themselves. This renders claims 8 and 9 indefinite.
Claims 11-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 states “the LIDAR system including a selector controller configured to operate the signal selector such that the signal selector outputs the portion of the outgoing LIDAR signal that includes light from the transmission segment of the outgoing LIDAR signal but such that the signal selector does not output the portion of the outgoing LIDAR signal that includes light from the reference segment of the outgoing LIDAR signal” but then goes on to state “the LIDAR system including a light combiner that receives the light from a reference signal and light from the system return signal” and “the reference signal received by the light combiner including light from the transmission segment of the outgoing LIDAR signal and also including light from the reference segment of the outgoing LIDAR signal”. The claim language is very contradictory. Claim 12 is rejected as it is dependent upon it.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 states “the system output signal is a first one of multiple system output signals and the LIDAR system is configured to concurrently output.” Claim 14 is rejected as it is dependent upon claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 is and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rickman (US 10739256 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rickman discloses a LIDAR system having a signal selector configured to receive multiple outgoing LIDAR signals that each carries a different wavelength channel, “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary transmitter according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. A number of lasers with tunable wavelengths (110), numbered from 1 to K, are driven by an electronic circuit, e.g. a CMOS chip (105). The wavelength range for each laser is indicated as λ.sub.1-λ.sub.2 up to λ.sub.m-λ.sub.n. The laser is followed by a K×1 optical switch that can be based, for example, on cascaded MZI interferometers with active phase tuners (115)” (Page 27 Lines 1-8). Rickman discloses the LIDAR system including a selector controller configured to operate the signal selector such that the signal selector serially outputs multiple different selections of the outgoing LIDAR signals “The laser is followed by a K×1 optical switch that can be based, for example, on cascaded MZI interferometers with active phase tuners (115), also controlled by an electronic circuit (e.g. a CMOS chip) (125).” (Page 27 Lines 1-8 ) and “The laser beams then enter a 1×m splitter (120), where m is the number of scanners.” (Page 27 Lines 9-11). See Figure 1 as well. Rickman discloses that each selection of the system output signals includes multiple different outgoing LIDAR signals that are concurrently output by the signal selector, “After a specified amount of time, the switch may cut off the beam and activate another beam. In some embodiments, more than one laser may be ON, the beams simultaneously pointing in different directions, thus allowing simultaneous emission of different wavelengths or wavelength bands.”(Page 25 Lines 36-40). Rickman discloses the LIDAR system being configured to concurrently transmit multiple system output signals that each includes light from a different one of the outgoing LIDAR signals that has been output from the signal selector, “Switches can be used to switch between lasers having a different wavelength, in order to select one or more wavelengths to be transmitted at any one time.” (Page 25 Lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 2, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Rickman discloses that the LIDAR system is configured to transmit the system output signals such that the system output signals in each selection of the system output signals each has a spot size that overlaps the spot size of one or more of the system output signals in the selection of the system output signals, “In some embodiments, the emitters of the optical phased array are configured to emit a beam in the same spatial direction (i.e. the same emission angle) for different wavelengths. “(Page 33 Lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 3, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Rickman discloses that the selector controller is configured to operate the signal selector such that the signal selector concurrently outputs a portion of the outgoing LIDAR signals received by the signal selector but does not output a second portion of the outgoing LIDAR signals received by the signal selector, “For example, an active switch can quickly switch between the beams of different lasers, at different wavelengths, thus illuminating the same point with multiple wavelengths.” (Page 28 Lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 5, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Rickman discloses that the LIDAR system includes a light source that includes multiple laser sources and each of the outgoing LIDAR signals includes light from a different one of the laser sources, see Figure 1, 105 which are the multiple lasers or light sources and “For example, an active switch can quickly switch between the beams of different lasers, at different wavelengths, thus illuminating the same point with multiple wavelengths.” (Page 28 Lines 39-42), and “Switches can be used to switch between lasers having a different wavelength, in order to select one or more wavelengths to be transmitted at any one time.” (Page 25 Lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 6, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 5, see claim 5 rejection. Rickman discloses that the LIDAR system includes a light source controller that operates the light sources such that each of the outgoing LIDAR signals has a frequency versus time pattern that repeats in cycles, each of the cycles including chirp periods where the frequency of the outgoing LIDAR signal is chirped at a constant rate, see Figure 19 and “FIG. 19 illustrates the frequency of the signal in the y axis, as a function of time in the x axis” (Page 32 Lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 7, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 6, see claim 6 rejection. Rickman discloses that the light source controller that operates the light sources such that the frequency versus time patterns of the outgoing LIDAR signals are out of phase with one another, “The system of FIG. 1 can also vary other parameters as discussed above, such as the wavelength, the wavelength bands for each laser, what lasers are switched ON or OFF at any given time, as well as encoding different signal patterns for each 2D scanner.” (Page 27 Lines 64-Page 28). If parameter such as the frequency modulation of the lidar signals can be varied, then the outgoing lidar signal frequency vs time pattern can be out of phase with one another.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickman (US 10739256 B1) in further view of "Design of all‑optical parallel multipliers using semiconductor optical amplifier‑based Mach–Zehnder interferometers" (See attached PDF and references)
.
Regarding claim 4, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 3, see claim 3 rejection. Rickman does not disclose multiple Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers (SOAs). However, Rickman discloses that the optical switches can be cascaded MZI interferometers.
The second reference discloses a cascaded MZI interferometer with a SOA, “Mach–Zehnder Interferometer (MZI): The basic design of MZI consists of BSs and mirrors that performs the interference by the amplitude division due to phase change [25]. A variation in the basic design with the presence of SOA between the two paths is called SOA-based MZI (SOA-MZI).” (2.1 Silicon-Photonic Optical components Paragraph 3) and Figure 1.
Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 3, the second reference discloses the SOAs. The second reference also provide a motivation for the use of SOAs in the interferometer, “In this paper, we consider to use different designs of SOA-MZI-based multipliers to have a scalable all-optical n-bit multiplier with further reduction in optical cost and delay.” (3.1 Motivation). This motivation would have led one of skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the interferometer used in Rickman with what is disclosed by the second reference.
Claim 10 is and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickman (US 10739256 B1) in further view of Yao (US 20190257927 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection. Rickman does not disclose that the LIDAR system includes a multiplexer configured to receive the outgoing LIDAR signals from the signal selector and to multiplex the receive the received outgoing LIDAR signals onto a common waveguide.
Yao discloses that the LIDAR system includes a multiplexer configured to receive the outgoing LIDAR signals from the signal selector and to multiplex the receive the received outgoing LIDAR signals onto a common waveguide, “In some implementations of the above method, the operation for generating a combined beam with more than one defined wavelength can use a wavelength division multiplexing device to multiplex lasers with different wavelengths into a single optical fiber or waveguide (e.g., FIGS. 2,6);” (Paragraph 0102).
Rickman discloses the lidar system of claim 1. Yao discloses a multiplexer that receives outgoing lidar signals and multiplexes them onto a common waveguide. Yao discloses a motivation to modify Rickman, “the operation for generating a combined beam with more than one defined wavelength can be based on various technologies, including, for example, a multi-wavelength laser source, a mode-locked laser, a frequency comb, or a coupled opto-electronic oscillator” (Paragraph 0102). This would have led someone of skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify what is disclosed by Rickman with the multiplexer disclosed by Yao as Rickman has a multiwavelength laser source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSH CHARLES GARDINER whose telephone number is (571)270-0634. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/JOSH CHARLES GARDINER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights