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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-15, 16-20, and 22 is and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2020205450 A1) in further view of Webley (US20160238695 A1). .
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a switched pixel array having a plurality of pixels, “This disclosure relates generally to frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) , more particularly, to a switchable coherent pixel array for FMCW LiDAR” (Paragraph 0002).
Lin discloses a receive optical switching network coupled to the receive antenna in each antenna pixel and a transmit optical switching network coupled to the transmit antenna in each pixel, “An optical switch network (104) further selects one out of the M antennas (105), where M is an integer, to send and receive Frequency Modulated (FM) light for ranging and detection.” (Paragraph 0027). Lin discloses a cylindrical lens, “The lens system (507) includes one or more optical elements (e.g., positive lens, freeform lens, Fresnel lens, etc.)” (Paragraph 0033). Lin discloses a laser system that provides a transmit beam, “Each splitter configured to split a received portion of the laser signal into a local oscillator signal and a transmitted signal.” (Paragraph 005). Lin discloses an optical receiver, “The bi-directional optical 2x2 splitter (202) functions as a“pseudo-circulator” in this monostatic configuration where the transmitter and receiver are collocated.” (Paragraph 0026). Lin discloses that the transmit optical switching network is configured to steer the transmit beam to the transmit antenna in a selected pixel from the plurality of pixels see Paragraph 0032 and Figures 5a-c. Lin discloses that the transmit antenna from the selected pixel emits the transmit beam through the cylindrical lens towards the target, “ In some embodiments, the lens system (507) is positioned to collimate the transmitted signals emitted via the plurality of antennas. The lens system (507) is configured to project a transmitted signal emitted from an antenna of the plurality of antennas into a corresponding portion of the field of view of the scanner module” (Paragraph 0033). Lin discloses that the transmit beam being reflected off the target as a receive beam passing through the cylindrical lens towards the receive antenna in the selected pixel “The lens system (507) is configured to project a transmitted signal emitted from an antenna of the plurality of antennas into a corresponding portion of the field of view of the scanner module, and to provide a reflection of the transmitted signal to the antenna.” (Paragraph 0033. Lin discloses that the optical receiver system is configured, responsive to the receive beam, to generate a receive signal that is configured for extraction of the sensor data associated with the target, “a reflection of the transmitted signal is received via the optical antenna as a reflected signal; and output a return signal that is a portion of the reflected signal.” (Paragraph 0047). The reflection of the transmitted signal corresponds to the receive signal. Lin does not disclose that each pixel in the plurality of pixels including a transmit antenna and at least two receive antennas.
Webley discloses that each pixel in the plurality of pixels including a transmit antenna and at least two receive antennas, “In an aspect, the one or more antennas 108 can be configured to transmit and/or receive signals, such as electromagnetic signals (e.g., radio waves, light). For example, at least a portion of the one or more antennas can transmit a first signal 110 and/or receive a first return signal 112.” (Paragraph 0044). So, one antenna could be a transmitter while two others can be receivers.
Lin discloses a lidar sensor that includes all of the limitations of claim 1 except that the pixels include a transmit antenna and two receive antenna. Webley discloses a system that can include one transmitter antenna and two receiver antennas. One of skill in the art before the filing date could have combined the elements of each reference as each individual element would perform the same function as they do separately and that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination of Lin and Webley disclose the claimed invention except for the transmit antenna and the at least two receive antennas have an antenna width and an antenna length, the antenna length being at least 100 times greater than the antenna width. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the antenna length be 100 times greater than the antenna width, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1. See claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin discloses that the antenna has a transmit aperture and a receive aperture, the transmit aperture being interleaved in the receive aperture to provide an interleaved transmit/receive aperture for each pixel the transmit beam is emitted from the transmit aperture of the interleaved transmit/receive aperture for the selected pixel, and the receive beam is detected by the receive aperture of the interleaved transmit/receive aperture for the selected pixel, see Paragraph 0026 and Figures 2a-d in Lin.
Lin does not disclose the use of multiple antennas and the configuration of two receive antenna and one transmit antenna. Webley discloses the use of multiple antennas and the configuration of two receive antenna and one transmit antenna, see claim 1 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2, see claim 2 rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the claimed invention except for the cylindrical lens being positioned one focal length above the switched pixel array. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date to position the lens one focal length above the switched pixel, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3. See claim 3 rejection.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin does not disclose that the transmit antenna is interleaved between the at least two receive antennas for each pixel in the plurality of pixels. Webley discloses that the transmit antenna is interleaved between the at least two receive antennas for each pixel in the plurality of pixels, see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0043. Since the antennas can be arranged in a array and the antennas can be either transmitters or receivers individually, Webley discloses the arrangement of claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4. See claim 4 rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin does not disclose that the transmit antenna is spatially separated from the at least two receive antennas in a direction of the antenna length. Webley discloses that the transmit antenna is spatially separated from the at least two receive antennas in a direction of the antenna length. See Figure 1 and Paragraph 0043.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin discloses that the transmit optical switching network, the receive optical switching network and the laser system are configured to generate a plurality of simultaneous azimuthal and elevational beams, see Paragraph 0048.
Claim 22 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7. See claim 7 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5. See claim 5 rejection.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin discloses a photonic integrated circuit that includes the switched pixel array, the transmit optical switching network, the receive optical switching network, the laser system, and the optical receiver, see paragraphs 0024 and 0025.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin discloses a laser driver configured to control output power and wavelength of the laser system, “The FMCW laser source (1207) is controlled by a laser driver circuit (1208) which is typically a controllable low-noise current source.” (Paragraph 0048). Lin discloses a switch matrix controller configured to control selection of the transmit optical switching network and the receive optical switching network, see Paragraph 0031 and Figures 4a-c. Lin discloses receive optical switching network; and a 3D image processor configured to detect and process the sensor data in the receive signal provided by the optical receiver, “The data output (1220) of the FMCW processing engine is depth information. Depth information may include, e.g., three dimensional position data of a typical LiDAR point cloud and other information that an FMCW LiDAR can measure such as velocity, reflectivity, etc.” (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 13. Lin discloses a photonic integrated circuit that is connected to the laser driver, the switch matrix controller, and the 3D image processor. See Figure 12 and paragraphs 0046 – 0050.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 14. See claim 14 rejection.
Claims 6, 8, 21, and 23 is and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lin (WO 2020205450 A1) and Webley (US 20160238695 A1) in further view of Luo (US 20070047600 A1)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Lin discloses a lens as discussed in the claim 1 rejection, as such Lin discloses the cylindrical lens having an optical axis, as an optical axis is inherent to an optical lens. Lin discloses that the transmit optical switching network and the receiving switching network in conjunction with a position of the plurality of pixels relative to the optical axis of the cylindrical lens are configured for azimuthal beam steering and the wavelength of the tunable laser is scanned in conjunction with the plurality of pixels for elevational beam steering, “In some embodiments, the lens system (1203) produces collimated transmitted signals that scan the scanner module (1201) field of view along one or more angular dimension (e.g., azimuth or elevation).” (Paragraph 0048). The combination of Lin and Webley do not disclose that the laser system includes a tunable wavelength laser.
Luo discloses that the laser includes a tunable wavelength laser, “A monolithic microchip laser that produces high-efficiency low-noise laser output at wavelengths ranging from IR through visible to UV and tunable, with single or multiple longitudinal modes, continuous wave (CW) or pulsed operation, based on a compact and low-cost structure” (Claim 12).
The combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1 and that the sensor has all of what is claimed except the tunable wavelength laser. Luo discloses the tunable wavelength laser. One of skill in the art could have combined the elements before the effective filing date as the results would be predictable and each element performs merely the same function as they do separately.
Claim 21 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6. See claim 6 rejection.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Luo discloses a tunable laser, see claim 6 rejection.
Claim 23 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 8. See claim 8 rejection.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2020205450 A1) and Webley (US 20160238695 A1) in further view of Luka (WO 2021098975 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. The combination does not disclose that the laser source comprises an optical frequency comb laser having a plurality of optical wavelengths that are each individually- selectable, and at least one wavelength demultiplexing element coupled to the optical frequency comb laser.
Luka discloses that the laser source comprises an optical frequency comb laser having a plurality of optical wavelengths that are each individually- selectable, “The pump laser light 120 is received in the NOE 120, which generates an optical frequency comb from the pump laser light.” and “The spacing of the comb teeth is at least 50 GHz, e.g. 100 GHz or even more. The comb teeth of the optical frequency comb be regarded as individual laser sources of different wavelengths, which are frequency modulated in a coordinated manner. (Page 11 Lines 11-27 PDF). Luka discloses at least one wavelength demultiplexing element coupled to the optical frequency comb laser, “The NOE 120 of the illustrated example generates the optical frequency comb by using the pump laser light provided by the pump laser source 110 to pump a DKS in the microresonator 122.” (Page 12 Lines 29-31 PDF). The microresonator in this reference is being used as a wavelength demultiplexing element. Luka discloses other demultiplexing elements as well.
The combination of Lin and Webley disclose the lidar sensor of claim 1. Luka discloses the optical frequency comb laser and demultiplexing element in a different lidar sensor that improves the sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement to what is discloses by Lin and Webley before the filing date as they are analogous arts and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 24 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 9. See claim 9 rejection.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lin, Webley, and Luka disclose the lidar sensor of claim 9. Neither Lin or Webley disclose that the at least one wavelength demultiplexing element comprises a tunable microresonator. Luka discloses that the at least one wavelength demultiplexing element comprises a tunable microresonator, see claim 9 rejection.
Claim 25 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 10. See claim 10 rejection.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lin, Webley, and Luka disclose the lidar sensor of claim 10. Luka discloses that the at least one wavelength demultiplexing element is configured to select an optical wavelength from the plurality of optical wavelengths, “The diffractive element 140 spatially separates the optical frequency comb according to the frequencies of the individual comb teeth. As a result, the optical frequency comb is separated into multiple beams each directed towards a different target position in the ranging region.” (Page 9 Lines 33-35). The demultiplexing element here being the diffractive element.
Claim 26 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 11. See claim 11 rejection.
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