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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: adjusting means, evaluation means, and control means in claims 4-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al.(US 20200200975 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches
An optical interferometer for a laser control device for at least one laser of at least one LiDAR system for a vehicle, the optical interferometer comprising: (a Mach-Zehnder interferometer ring resonator modulator MZIRRM 1 (paragraph 0065))
at least two optical branches for guiding optical waves, (A splitter 3 separates the input optical signal into two sub-beams, e.g. equal sub-beams, each one travelling in a respective MZ arm 4a and 4b of an MZI. (paragraph 0065))
wherein at least one of the at least two optical branches comprises at least one optical microresonator arranged in the optical branch to delay optical waves in the corresponding at least one optical branch. (One or both of the MZ arms 4a or 4b may include a static phase difference 7 ϕ.sub.static, e.g. π or π/2, which may be fixed or adjustable, as hereinafter discussed. (paragraph 0065))
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches
The optical interferometer as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one optical microresonator is a traveling wave resonator, an optical whispering gallery resonator or an integrated ring resonator, or wherein the optical interferometer is implemented as part of an integrated optical system. (plurality of MZIRRM 1, 101, 121 etc, may be fabricated in parallel on a same semiconductor, e.g. silicon, photonics integrated chip (PIC) (paragraph 0102))
Regarding claim 3, Ma teaches
The optical interferometer as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the optical branches comprises at least two optical microresonators arranged functionally in parallel in the optical branch, or wherein at least one of the optical branches comprises at least two optical microresonators arranged functionally in series in the optical branch. (RRM's 6a and 6b includes a plurality of cascaded parallel rings (paragraph 0096))
Regarding claim 4, Ma teaches
The optical interferometer as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one optical microresonator comprises at least one associated adjusting means. (to improve thermal tuning efficiency, each RRM 6a and 6b with an integrated metal heater phase tuner 15a and 15b (paragraph 0083))
Regarding claim 14, Ma teaches
A method for operating an optical interferometer, for a laser control device for at least one laser of at least one LiDAR system for a vehicle, the method comprising: (a Mach-Zehnder interferometer ring resonator modulator MZIRRM 1 (paragraph 0065))
splitting optical waves into at least two optical branches; (A splitter 3 separates the input optical signal into two sub-beams, e.g. equal sub-beams, each one travelling in a respective MZ arm 4a and 4b of an MZI. (paragraph 0065))
and guiding the optical waves in the optical branches, (A splitter 3 separates the input optical signal into two sub-beams, e.g. equal sub-beams, each one travelling in a respective MZ arm 4a and 4b of an MZI. (paragraph 0065))
wherein the optical waves being are delayed in at least one of the at least two branches, (One or both of the MZ arms 4a or 4b may include a static phase difference 7 ϕ.sub.static, e.g. π or π/2, which may be fixed or adjustable, as hereinafter discussed. (paragraph 0065))
wherein the optical waves in at least one optical branch are reflected to delay the optical waves. (The final bus waveguides 182a.sub.n and 182b.sub.n may be terminated by a reflector 183, e.g. a Sagnac loop or reflective surface, for reflecting the light back through the rings 6a.sub.i to 6a.sub.n and 6b.sub.i to 6b.sub.n. (paragraph 0098))
Regarding claim 15, Ma teaches
The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the delay time for the optical waves in the at least one optical branch is set. (The tunable roundtrip phase delays, θ.sub.ring1 and θ.sub.ring2, for each RRM 6a and 6b, respectively, may be tuned by a phase, e.g. thermal, tuner structure 15a and 15b provided in each RRM 6a and 6b (paragraph 0082))
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.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al.(US 20200200975 A1) in view of Minet et al. (US 20180073932 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Ma teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Ma fails to teach A laser control device for at least one laser for at least one LiDAR system for at least one vehicle, the laser control device comprising: at least one optical interferometer for interferometrically treating laser waves generated by the at least one laser, at least one evaluation means for determining control variables from laser waves interferometrically treated by the at least one interferometer, and at least one control means for controlling the at least one laser on the basis of control variables determined by at least one evaluation means,
In the same field of endeavor, Minet teaches A laser control device for at least one laser for at least one LiDAR system for at least one vehicle, the laser control device comprising: (a laser source 1, with a controller 11 of a modulation voltage corresponding to a frequency setpoint (paragraph 0088)) at least one optical interferometer for interferometrically treating laser waves generated by the at least one laser, (a two-arm Mach-Zehnder interferometer 2, with a delay line 21 in one of its arms, and two couplers (paragraph 0090)) at least one evaluation means for determining control variables from laser waves interferometrically treated by the at least one interferometer, (a device 4 for measuring the signals delivered by the diode 3, (paragraph 0092)) and at least one control means for controlling the at least one laser on the basis of control variables determined by at least one evaluation means, (a controller 11 of a modulation voltage corresponding to a frequency setpoint f.sub.0(t), said controller (paragraph 0003))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Minet into the invention of Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose interferometers. The combination of Ma and Minet would improve control and accuracy.
Regarding claim 6 Ma does not teach wherein at least one output of at least one interferometer comprises at least one electro-optical detector arranged downstream of the output, which is connected to at least one evaluation means of the laser control device for signal transfer purposes.
In the same field of endeavor, Minet teaches wherein at least one output of at least one interferometer comprises at least one electro-optical detector arranged downstream of the output, which is connected to at least one evaluation means of the laser control device for signal transfer purposes. (a photodiode 3 able to convert the light-intensity signal generated by the interferometer 2 into an analog electrical signal; (paragraph 0091))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Minet into the invention of Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose interferometers. The combination of Ma and Minet would improve control and accuracy.
Regarding claim 7 Ma does not teach at least one evaluation means of the laser control device or at least one control means of the laser control device is implemented at least in part by means of a control and evaluation device of at least one LiDAR system.
In the same field of endeavor, Minet teaches at least one evaluation means of the laser control device or at least one control means of the laser control device is implemented at least in part by means of a control and evaluation device of at least one LiDAR system. (This method may in particular be used to calibrate the frequency of the laser source of a lidar to a setpoint (paragraph 0137))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Minet into the invention of Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose interferometers. The combination of Ma and Minet would improve control and accuracy.
Regarding claim 8 Ma does not teach A transmitting device for a LiDAR system for a vehicle, the transmitting device comprising: at least one laser for generating laser waves; and at least one laser control device for controlling the at least one laser, wherein the transmitting device comprises at least one laser control device as claimed in claim 5.
In the same field of endeavor, Minet teaches A transmitting device for a LiDAR system for a vehicle, the transmitting device comprising: (The field of the invention is that of the measurement and possibly of the control of the frequency modulation of a laser source. (paragraph 0001)) at least one laser for generating laser waves; (a laser source 1, (paragraph 0003)) and at least one laser control device for controlling the at least one laser, wherein the transmitting device comprises at least one laser control device as claimed in claim 5. (a laser source 1, with a controller 11 of a modulation voltage corresponding to a frequency setpoint (paragraph 0088))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Minet into the invention of Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose interferometers. The combination of Ma and Minet would improve control and accuracy.
Regarding claim 9 Ma does not teach wherein at least one laser and at least one interferometer of the at least one laser control device comprise at least one beam splitter, arranged between the laser and the interferometer to split the laser waves generated by the at least one laser.
In the same field of endeavor, Minet teaches wherein at least one laser and at least one interferometer of the at least one laser control device comprise at least one beam splitter, arranged between the laser and the interferometer to split the laser waves generated by the at least one laser. (a two-arm Mach-Zehnder interferometer 2, with a delay line 21 in one of its arms, and two couplers, one 23 allowing splitting, preferably into two equal portions (paragraph 0090))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Minet into the invention of Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose interferometers. The combination of Ma and Minet would improve control and accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Ma further teaches
The transmitting device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the transmitting device is implemented at least in part as integrated optics. (plurality of MZIRRM 1, 101, 121 etc, may be fabricated in parallel on a same semiconductor, e.g. silicon, photonics integrated chip (PIC) (paragraph 0102))
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al.(US 20200200975 A1) in view of Minet et al. (US 20180073932 A1) in further view of Bradford et al.(US 20200271784 A1).
Regarding claim 10 modified Ma teaches all of the elements of claim 8 as previously stated, however modified Ma does not teach A LiDAR system for at least one vehicle, the LiDAR system comprising: at least one transmitting device for transmitting optical waves into at least one monitoring area; at least one receiving device for receiving optical waves from the at least one monitoring area; and at least one control and evaluation device for controlling the at least one transmitting device and the at least one receiving device and for evaluating received variables determined by the receiving device,
In the same field of endeavor, Bradford teaches A LiDAR system for at least one vehicle, the LiDAR system comprising: (The LIDAR system 100 (paragraph 0039)) at least one transmitting device for transmitting optical waves into at least one monitoring area; (An optical scanner 102 includes one or more scanning mirrors that are rotatable along respective orthogonal axes to steer optical signals to scan an environment according to a scanning pattern. (paragraph 0041)) at least one receiving device for receiving optical waves from the at least one monitoring area; (The optical scanner 102 also collects light incident upon any objects in the environment into a return laser beam that is returned to the passive optical circuit component of the optical circuits 101. (paragraph 0041)) and at least one control and evaluation device for controlling the at least one transmitting device and the at least one receiving device and for evaluating received variables determined by the receiving device, (To control and support the optical circuits 101 and optical scanner 102, the LIDAR system 100 includes a LIDAR control systems 110. (paragraph 0042))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Bradford into the invention of modified Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose laser light devices. The combination of modified Ma and Bradford would allow for integration into a lidar system.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ma further teaches wherein the at least one LiDAR system is implemented at least in part as integrated optics. (plurality of MZIRRM 1, 101, 121 etc, may be fabricated in parallel on a same semiconductor, e.g. silicon, photonics integrated chip (PIC) (paragraph 0102))
Regarding claim 13 modified Ma does not teach A vehicle comprising: at least one LiDAR system, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one LiDAR system as claimed in claim 11.
In the same field of endeavor, Bradford teaches A vehicle comprising: at least one LiDAR system, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one LiDAR system as claimed in claim 11. (the described beam delivery system becomes the front-end of frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) devices that can assist with spatial awareness for automated driver assist systems, or self-driving vehicles. (paragraph 0039))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features disclosed in Bradford into the invention of modified Ma. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose laser light devices. The combination of modified Ma and Bradford would allow for integration into vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN J SLAUGHTER whose telephone number is (571)388-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/ETHAN JAKOB SLAUGHTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights