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 Status
Applicant's preliminary amendments filed on 08/28/26 have been entered.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, it is suggested to insert the article --a—for the word “normal” in the phrase “relative to normal” to improve clarity and to be consistent with similarly worded language/phrasing at line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12, 14, 21, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaChapelle US20220043202.
Regarding independent claim 1, LaChapelle discloses, in Figures 1, 6, 8-9, 19, 34, 43-44, and 46,
A coherent light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (LaChapelle; Fig. 1, 6, 8-9, 19, 34, 43-44, and 46; [0341] coherent pulsed lidar system 100 represented in Fig. 1 and 46), comprising:
a seed laser (LaChapelle; seed laser diode 450 of light source 110) configured to generate an optical signal (LaChapelle; Fig. 46; [0348] seed laser output light 472 that splits into seed light 440 and LO light 430);
a transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier (LaChapelle; SOA 460 that corresponds to seed laser diode 450) optically coupled to the seed laser and configured to amplify the optical signal for transmission toward a target (LaChapelle; Fig. 1; target 130); and
a coherent receiver (LaChapelle; Fig. 1; receiver 140) configured to receive a return optical signal (LaChapelle; Fig. 19; input beam 135 / received light 410) from the target and mix the return optical signal with a local-oscillator optical signal (LaChapelle; Fig. 19; LO light 430) derived from the seed laser to generate a beat signal (LaChapelle; [0253] voltage signal 360 produced from coherent mixing of received light 410 and LO light 430) indicative of a range to the target (LaChapelle; [0113] pulse-detection circuit 365 analyzes/processes the voltage signal 360 to determine the time-of-arrival for determining target distance/range measurement; [0056] controller 150 determines target distance/range “D” to target 130).
Regarding claim 2, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the seed laser is tunable (LaChapelle; [0053] adjustable wavelength for the light source 110).
Regarding claim 10, LaChapelle discloses The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the seed laser comprises a master oscillator (LaChapelle; seed laser diode 450 of light source 110) disposed (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; seed laser diode 450 is disposed on photonic integrated circuit PIC 455) on a photonic integrated circuit (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; photonic integrated circuit PIC 455), the photonic integrated circuit further comprising a power splitting waveguide (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; splitter 470) optically coupled to the master oscillator and configured to split the optical signal between a transmitter branch (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; seed light 440) optically coupled to the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; SOA 460) and a local-oscillator branch (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; LO light 430), the local-oscillator branch extending at an angle of at least 1 degree relative to the transmitter branch (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; LO light 430 necessarily physically deviates from the seed light 440) and terminating at a local-oscillator output port located at a front facet, a back facet, or a side facet of the photonic integrated circuit (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; LO light 430 travels on the LO branch side of waveguide 479 that exits a portion of PIC 455 to enter another portion of PIC 455 that corresponds to the receiver 140), and the local-oscillator output port being configured to provide the local-oscillator optical signal to the coherent receiver (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; receiver 140) and having an antireflective coating with a reflectivity of no greater than 1% (LaChapelle; Fig. 8-9; [0149] anti-reflection AR coating with reflectivity less than 0.1% at both input end 461 and output end 462 for the purpose of reducing the amount of seed light reflection and for preventing the SOA from acting as a laser when no seed light is present).
Regarding claim 11, LaChapelle discloses The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the seed laser is a master oscillator (LaChapelle; seed laser diode 450 of light source 110), the master oscillator, a power-splitting waveguide (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; splitter 470), and the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; SOA 460) are integrated on a common photonic integrated circuit (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; photonic integrated circuit PIC 455), the power-splitting waveguide is optically coupled to the master oscillator and configured to split the optical signal between a transmitter branch (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; seed light 440) optically coupled to the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier and a local-oscillator branch (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; LO light 430) configured to provide the local-oscillator optical signal to the coherent receiver, and the photonic integrated circuit comprises a first electrical connection configured to supply a first drive current to the master oscillator and a second electrical connection configured to supply a second drive current to the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier independently of the first drive current (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; photonic integrated circuit PIC 455; [0260] “For example, the seed laser diode 450, SOA 460, lenses 490a and 490b, or detectors 340a and 340b may be fabricated separately and then integrated into the PIC 455.”; Fig. 9 shows separate drive currents I1 and I2 for each component such as for components seed laser diode 450 and SOA 460).
Regarding claim 12, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the optical signal generated by the seed laser is modulated according to a sawtooth waveform having an increasing-frequency sweep and a decreasing-frequency sweep, and wherein the LiDAR system is configured to determine the range to the target based on the beat signal (LaChapelle; [0092] “sawtooth”).
Regarding claim 14, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the optical signal generated by the seed laser is modulated according to a sinusoidal waveform (LaChapelle; [0092] “sinusoidal”), and wherein the LiDAR system is configured to determine the range to the target based on the beat signal (LaChapelle; [0078] “determine a distance D”).
Regarding claim 21, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the optical signal has a wavelength in a band of 1225nm - 1700nm (LaChapelle; [0059] 1150-nm wavelength).
Regarding claim 23, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the seed laser and the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier are integrated on a GaAs photonic integrated chip (LaChapelle; [0150] InGaAs semiconductor structure for SOA 460; Fig. 34; SOA 460 is disposed on photonic integrated circuit PIC 455).
Regarding claim 24, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the seed laser and the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier are integrated with or on a Silicon photonic integrated chip (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; SOA 460 is disposed on photonic integrated circuit PIC 455; [0260] silicon or InP substrate for PIC 455).
Regarding claim 25, LaChapelle discloses The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the seed laser and the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier are integrated on an InP photonic integrated chip (LaChapelle; Fig. 34; SOA 460 is disposed on photonic integrated circuit PIC 455; [0260] silicon or InP substrate for PIC 455).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 3-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Wang US6603599 and Petersen US20050163186.
Regarding claim 3, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier comprises:
LaChapelle is silent regarding a single-step-index rib waveguide having a rib with a width selected from 3µm, 4µm, and 5µm, the rib defining a real refractive-index step; amplify the seed laser optical signal to an optical output power of at least 100mW.
Wang teaches a single-step-index rib waveguide having a rib with a width selected from 3µm, 4µm, and 5µm, the rib defining a real refractive-index step (Wang; Fig. 1 and 6; ridge waveguide 606; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the amplifier as taught by LaChapelle to comprise a tilted rib waveguide with a 3-micron width and a 7-degree tilt as taught by Wang for the purpose of providing a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics” (Wang; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
Modified LaChapelle is silent regarding amplify the seed laser optical signal to an optical output power of at least 100mW.
Petersen teaches amplify the seed laser optical signal to an optical output power of at least 100mW (Petersen; [0003] “By increasing the stripe width of the output facet the output power has increased significantly… Broad-area lasers with 200-micron width are now commercially available with an output power of up to 4 W.”; [0029] “Hence, according to the invention, a high power laser system with high spatial and temporal coherence is provided, even for stripe widths larger than 200-micron”; [0067] “Preferably, the broad-area diode 100 has a stripe width of 200-micro or larger, e.g. 500-micron”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the amplification power as taught by Modified LaChapelle to be at least 100-mW as taught by Petersen for the purpose of increasing the detection range.
Regarding claim 4, Modified LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 3, wherein the rib extends between the input facet (LaChapelle; input end 461) and the output facet (LaChapelle; output end 462), an input portion of the rib adjacent to the input facet is oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to a normal to the input facet, and an output portion of the rib adjacent to the output facet is oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to a normal to the output facet (Wang; Fig. 1 and 6; ridge waveguide 606; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
Regarding claim 8, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier comprises: an input facet (LaChapelle; input end 461); an output facet (LaChapelle; output end 462); a single mode rib input section (LaChapelle; the input section for waveguide 463) configured to receive the optical signal from the seed laser, the single mode rib input section having a width (LaChapelle; Fig. 8-9; [0149] anti-reflection AR coating with reflectivity less than 0.1% at both input end 461 and output end 462 for the purpose of reducing the amount of seed light reflection and for preventing the SOA from acting as a laser when no seed light is present), wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier is configured to amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of
LaChapelle is silent regarding the single mode rib input section having a width selected from 3µm, 4µm, and 5µm; an output width of at least 50µm adjacent to the output facet; amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of at least 1 W.
Wang teaches the single mode rib input section having a width selected from 3µm, 4µm, and 5µm (Wang; Fig. 1 and 6; ridge waveguide 606; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the waveguide input/entrance width as taught by LaChapelle to comprise a tilted rib waveguide with a 3-micron width at the input/entrance and a 7-degree tilt as taught by Wang for the purpose of providing a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics” (Wang; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
Modified LaChapelle is silent regarding an output width of at least 50µm adjacent to the output facet; amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of at least 1 W.
Petersen teaches an output width of at least 50µm adjacent to the output facet; amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of at least 1 W (Petersen; [0003] “By increasing the stripe width of the output facet the output power has increased significantly… Broad-area lasers with 200-micron width are now commercially available with an output power of up to 4 W.”; [0029] “Hence, according to the invention, a high power laser system with high spatial and temporal coherence is provided, even for stripe widths larger than 200-micron”; [0067] “Preferably, the broad-area diode 100 has a stripe width of 200-micro or larger, e.g. 500-micron”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the waveguide output/exit width and the amplification power as taught by Modified LaChapelle to be at least 50-microns at the output/exit and to be at least 1-W output power as taught by Petersen for the purpose of increasing the detection range.
Regarding claim 9, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier comprises: an input facet (LaChapelle; input end 461); an output facet (LaChapelle; output end 462); a single mode rib input section (LaChapelle; the input section for waveguide 463) configured to receive the optical signal from the seed laser, the single mode rib input section having a width output portion of the tapered gain guided section being oriented at an angle of
LaChapelle is silent regarding the single mode rib input section having a width selected from 3µm, 4µm, and 5µm; an output width of at least 50µm adjacent to the output facet; amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of at least 1 W; an output portion of the tapered gain guided section being oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to a normal to the output facet.
Wang teaches the single mode rib input section having a width selected from 3µm, 4µm, and 5µm; an output portion of the tapered gain guided section being oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to a normal to the output facet (Wang; Fig. 1 and 6; ridge waveguide 606; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the waveguide input/entrance width and the angle of the output portion as taught by LaChapelle to comprise a tilted rib waveguide with a 3-micron width at the input/entrance and a 7-degree tilt as taught by Wang for the purpose of providing a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics” (Wang; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge with a 3 micrometer width; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
Modified LaChapelle is silent regarding an output width of at least 50µm adjacent to the output facet; amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of at least 1 W.
Petersen teaches an output width of at least 50µm adjacent to the output facet; amplify the optical signal to an optical output power of at least 1 W (Petersen; [0003] “By increasing the stripe width of the output facet the output power has increased significantly… Broad-area lasers with 200-micron width are now commercially available with an output power of up to 4 W.”; [0029] “Hence, according to the invention, a high power laser system with high spatial and temporal coherence is provided, even for stripe widths larger than 200-micron”; [0067] “Preferably, the broad-area diode 100 has a stripe width of 200-micro or larger, e.g. 500-micron”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the waveguide output/exit width and the amplification power as taught by Modified LaChapelle to be at least 50-microns at the output/exit and to be at least 1-W output power as taught by Petersen for the purpose of increasing the detection range.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Wang and Petersen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sochava US20080304826.
Regarding claim 5, Modified LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 4, wherein the rib defines a waveguide path comprising at least two
Modified LaChapelle does not teach at least two curved portions.
Sochava teaches a waveguide path comprising at least two curved portions (Sochava; Fig. 3; [0026] multiple bent/radiused portions of waveguide 350).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the portions of the waveguide path as taught by Modified LaChapelle to comprise at least two curved portions as taught by Sochava for the purpose of providing reduced back reflection.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Petersen US20050163186.
Regarding claim 6, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier comprises: a gain guided stripe (LaChapelle; waveguide 463) configured to provide lateral confinement, the gain guided stripe having a width of
LaChapelle is silent regarding the gain guided stripe having a width of 10µm, or 20µm, or at least 30µm; an optical output power of at least 0.5 W.
Petersen teaches the gain guided stripe having a width of 10µm, or 20µm, or at least 30µm; an optical output power of at least 0.5 W (Petersen; [0003] “By increasing the stripe width of the output facet the output power has increased significantly… Broad-area lasers with 200-micron width are now commercially available with an output power of up to 4 W.”; [0029] “Hence, according to the invention, a high power laser system with high spatial and temporal coherence is provided, even for stripe widths larger than 200-micron”; [0067] “Preferably, the broad-area diode 100 has a stripe width of 200-micro or larger, e.g. 500-micron”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the width of the stripe and the amplification power as taught by LaChapelle so that the stripe width is at least 30-microns and the output power is at least 0.5-W as taught by Petersen for the purpose of increasing the detection range.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Petersen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang US6603599.
Regarding claim 7, Modified LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein the gain guided stripe (LaChapelle; waveguide 463) extends between the input facet (LaChapelle; input end 461) and the output facet (LaChapelle; output end 462), an input portion of the gain guided stripe adjacent to the input facet is oriented at an angle of
Modified LaChapelle is silent regarding an input portion of the gain guided stripe adjacent to the input facet is oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to normal to the input facet, and an output portion of the gain guided stripe adjacent to the output facet is oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to a normal to the output facet.
Wang teaches an input portion of the gain guided stripe adjacent to the input facet is oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to normal to the input facet, and an output portion of the gain guided stripe adjacent to the output facet is oriented at an angle of at least 4 degrees relative to a normal to the output facet (Wang; Fig. 1 and 6; ridge waveguide 606; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stripe input angle and stripe output angle as taught by Modified LaChapelle to each be at least 4 degrees as taught by Wang for the purpose of providing a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics” (Wang; col. 8:1-7 broad area laser with a 7-10-degree tilted ridge; col. 3:5-14 the tilted ridge provides a guide for optical signals that provides amplification “instead of acquiring laser characteristics”).
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Stann US5608514.
Regarding claim 13, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the optical signal generated by the seed laser is modulated according to a sawtooth waveform (LaChapelle; [0092] “sawtooth”) having an increasing-frequency sweep and a decreasing frequency sweep, and wherein the LiDAR system is configured to determine a
LaChapelle is silent regarding configured to determine a velocity of the target.
Stann teaches configured to determine a velocity of the target (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar target detection as taught by LaChapelle to comprise determining a velocity of the target and using pseudo-random codes as taught by Stann for the purpose of providing information about target movement including approaching/receding movements and to inhibit the detection/cross-interference of other sensors (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
Regarding claim 15, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the optical signal generated by the seed laser is modulated according to a sinusoidal waveform, and wherein the LiDAR system is configured to determine a
LaChapelle is silent regarding configured to determine a velocity of the target.
Stann teaches configured to determine a velocity of the target (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar target detection as taught by LaChapelle to comprise determining a velocity of the target and using pseudo-random codes as taught by Stann for the purpose of providing information about target movement including approaching/receding movements and to inhibit the detection/cross-interference of other sensors (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
Regarding claim 16, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LiDAR system is configured to determine a
LaChapelle is silent regarding configured to determine a velocity of the target based on a doppler shift of the return optical signal.
Stann teaches configured to determine a velocity of the target based on a doppler shift of the return optical signal (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar target detection as taught by LaChapelle to comprise determining a velocity of the target and using pseudo-random codes as taught by Stann for the purpose of providing information about target movement including approaching/receding movements and to inhibit the detection/cross-interference of other sensors (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
Regarding claim 18, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is configured to determine the range of the target based on
LaChapelle is silent regarding based on a pseudo-random code.
Stann teaches determine the range of the target based on a pseudo-random code (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar target detection as taught by LaChapelle to comprise determining a velocity of the target and using pseudo-random codes as taught by Stann for the purpose of providing information about target movement including approaching/receding movements and to inhibit the detection/cross-interference of other sensors (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
Regarding claim 19, Modified LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 18, wherein the LIDAR system is further configured to determine a velocity of the target based on the pseudo-random code (Stann; col. 7:34-46 use “Doppler detection to determine target velocity, and methods to determine whether a target is approaching or receding” and use pseudo-random codes “to simplify the formation of range cells or inhibit the detection of jamming signals or other operating sensors”).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Hintz US20110037965.
Regarding claim 17, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LiDAR system (LaChapelle; [0341] coherent pulsed lidar system 100).
LaChapelle does not teach configured to characterize a vibration spectrum of the target based on a micro-Doppler spectrum of the target.
Hintz teaches configured to characterize a vibration spectrum of the target based on a micro-Doppler spectrum of the target (Hintz; [0046-0046] use micro-Doppler vibration spectrum with 3D target shape to generate a composite image for object/target identification by comparing the image to a searchable database).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar system as taught by LaChapelle to comprise micro-Doppler vibration spectrum detection as taught by Hintz for the purpose of object/target identification (Hintz; [0046-0046] use micro-Doppler vibration spectrum with 3D target shape to generate a composite image for object/target identification by comparing the image to a searchable database).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Li US20220206127.
Regarding claim 20, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system is configured to determine the range to the target and
LaChapelle is silent regarding a velocity of the target based on phase modulation.
Li teaches determine the range to the target and a velocity of the target based on phase modulation (Li; [0043] determine both target distance and velocity based on phase modulation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detection as taught by LaChapelle to include velocity detection as taught by Li for the purpose of providing additional target movement information/characterization to the user/operator.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Dai US20230396040.
Regarding claim 22, LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier (LaChapelle; SOA 460 that corresponds to seed laser diode 450).
LaChapelle is silent regarding wherein the transmitter semiconductor optical amplifier comprises a multi-junction epitaxial structure having at least two junctions.
Dai teaches wherein the semiconductor optical amplifier comprises a multi-junction epitaxial structure having at least two junctions (Dai; Fig. 9; [0047] epitaxial SOA structure 107 with multiple junctions TJ1 and TJ2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the SOA as taught by LaChapelle to comprise a multi-junction epitaxial structure having at least two junctions as taught by Dai for the purpose of providing higher power amplification while minimizing the current requirement.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Dai as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Cornely US3546495 and Scheps US5285467.
Regarding claim 26, Modified LaChapelle teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 22, wherein the seed laser comprises a to optically couple an output of the
Modified LaChapelle does not teach single junction master oscillator, a lens pair.
Cornely teaches a single junction master oscillator (Cornely; Fig. 1; oscillator 10 comprises a single planar junction 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to select the count/tally/number of the junction(s) of the master oscillator as taught by Modified LaChapelle to be a single junction as taught by Cornely for the purpose of providing simplicity and minimizing manufacturing/assembly parts.
Modified LaChapelle does not teach a lens pair.
Scheps teaches a lens pair (Scheps; Fig. 1A; lens pair 140 and 141 to optimize/control the laser path emitted from laser diode 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar system as taught by Modified LaChapelle to comprise a lens pair as taught by Scheps for the purpose of optimizing/controlling the laser path emitted from the oscillator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the attached Form PTO-892 for the list of additional references.
Mazed US-11892746 teaches a SOA that “is angled/bent/curved for reduced back reflection” (Mazed; col. 38:42-48). This teaches the rationale known in the art to a PHOSITA for the 103 rejection of claim 5 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 9/4/26
Prosecution Insights