DETAILED ACTION
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 1-23 are 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.
Claims 4-6 recite the limitation "the transmitted laser beam.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the range.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the field of view.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 and 13 recite the limitation "the high power laser transmitter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the wavelength of the laser source.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the primary collimating optic.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the field of regard.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the field of view.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the master oscillator beam.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the return beam.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the master oscillator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the power splitting waveguide.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the power semiconductor optical amplifier.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the same semiconductor material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the master oscillator/power splitter section.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-23 are also rejected due to claim dependency.
Claim 17 recites “an external cavity in Littrow.” It is unclear what “in Littrow” means. For purposes of examination, this interpreted as that the external cavity is a Littrow structure.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF).
Claim 1: Aboujja teaches a time-of-flight LiDAR system that uses a multi-junction laser diode as the laser source to provide higher peak power than a single junction laser diode and greater range where n>1 (pg 1)
Claim 2: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1 using a single transverse stripe with multi-junctions in the epi-layers to provide greater power and brightness than a single junction where n>1 (pg 2).
Claim 3: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1 where the multi-junction laser source can have a wavelength from 1225nm to 1700nm (title).
Claim 8: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1 that determines the range of single object in the field of view. (definition of LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging – rangefinding implied)
Claim 10: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1 that uses an Avalanche Photo diode as a receiver (pg 10 - APD)
Claim 14: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1 uses multiple multi-junction laser diodes on a single chip where I is the number of laser diodes and I>1 to increase the output power of the source (pg 4).
Claim 15: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1 uses multiple individually addressable multi-junction laser diodes on a single chip where I is the number of individually addressable laser diodes and I>1 to provide electronic beam steering (pg 4).
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 4, 6, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20240069169 A1).
Claim 4: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Wang does teach, a polygon scanner to scan the transmitted laser beam and receive the transmitted laser beam producing a 3-dimensional representation of the field of view ([0074]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polygon scanner, as taught by Wang, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because polygon scanners are well known in the art, and would allow the light beam to be scanned through the scene without the entire system needing to be moved.
Claim 6: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Wang does teach, a vibrating mirror to scan the transmitted laser beam and receive the transmitted laser beam producing a 3-dimensional representation of the field of view ([0074]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vibrating mirror, as taught by Wang, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because vibrating mirrors are well known in the art, and would allow the light beam to be directed through the scene without the entire system needing to be moved.
Claim 7: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Wang does teach, a rotating platform with either a Risley prism pair, a vibrating mirror or a polygon scanner to provide a 3-dimensional representation of the field of view ([0074] – [0075]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polygon scanner and rotating platform, as taught by Wang, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because both are well known in the art, and would allow the light beam to be scanned through the scene without the entire system needing to be moved.
Claim 18: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system using a multi-junction laser diode of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Wang does teach a MEMs device to steer the beam over the field of regard ([0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a MEMs device, as taught by Wang, in the LiDAR system as taught by Wang, because, as Wang teaches, MEMs mirrors are known in the art ([0004]).
Claim 19: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system using a multi-junction laser diode of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Wang does teach the system configured as an optical phase array and is electronically steered over the field of view ([0074] – phase array can be steering mechanism).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the phase array, as taught by Wang, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because phase arrays are well known in the art, and allow for a non-mechanical steering mechanism that have a lower chance of breakage than a mechanism which relies on movement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20180313941 A1).
Claim 5: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Wang1 does teach, a Risley prism pair to scan the transmitted laser beam and receive the transmitted laser beam producing a 3-dimensional representation of the field of view ([0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Risley prism pair, as taught by Wang1, in the system as taught by Aboujja because Risley prisms are well known in the art, and would allow the light beam to be directed through the scene without the entire system needing to be moved.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (US 20160054434 A1).
Claim 9: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Williams does teach, that the LiDAR can also double as a target designator ([0068]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the target designation, as taught by Williams, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because this would fall under “art recognized sutability for an intended purpose” (See 2144.07). As Williams teaches, this is one of the known applications of LiDAR (See [0068]).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazed (US 11892746 B1).
Claim 11: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system using a multi-junction laser diode of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Mazed does teach, a Bragg Grating etched on the top layer to control wavelength over a wide temperature range (Col 19, lines 41-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Bragg Grating, as taught by Mazed, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because Bragg gratings are well known in the art as a type of grating and amplifier, and, as Mazed teaches, they help wavelength stability (Col 36, lines 40-45).
Claim 20: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Mazed does teach, a micro-optic, a binary optic, a diffractive optic, a holographic optic, a micro-prism arrangement, or an Axicon to compensate for the displacement of the junctions from the axis of the primary collimating optic to create parallel, collimated output beams (Col 33, lines 18-24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical elements, as taught by Mazed, in the system as taught by Aboujja because this can be used for beam steering (Mazed Col 27, lines 36-39) and allows for the entire FOV to be captured (Mazed Col 33, lines 18-24).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Spuler (US 20170212218 A1).
Claim 12: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system using a multi-junction laser diode of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Spuler does teach, a tapered semiconductor optical amplifier as the high-power laser transmitter ([0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tapered amplifier, as taught by Spuler, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because, as Spuler teaches, this produces high enough power for daytime operation ([0042]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Spuler (US 20170212218 A1), Mazed (US 11892746 B1), and He (CN 103873157 A).
Claim 13: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system using a multi-junction laser diode of claim 1. ABoujja does not teach, but Spuler does teach, a tapered semiconductor optical amplifier as the high-power laser transmitter ([0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tapered amplifier, as taught by Spuler, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because, as Spuler teaches, this produces high enough power for daytime operation ([0042]).
Aboujja, as modified, does not teach, but Mazed does teach, a Bragg Grating stabilized master oscillator range (Col 19, lines 41-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Bragg Grating, as taught by Mazed, in the system as taught by Aboujja, as modified, because Bragg gratings are well known in the art as a type of grating and amplifier, and, as Mazed teaches, they help wavelength stability (Col 36, lines 40-45).
Aboujja, as modified, does not teach, but He does teach, the above integrated on the same chip with feedback isolation trenches ([0039]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the feedback isolation trenches, as taught by He, in the system as taught by Aboujja as modified, because this would allow for improved effectiveness of the circuit by preventing further oscillation (See He [0039]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20240168131 A1).
Claim 16: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system using a multi-junction laser diode of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Kim does teach, the system integrated into a Silicon Photonic Integrated circuit to provide a complete LIDAR solution on a single chip ([0003]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the single chip, as taught by Kim, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because this would simplify the final LiDAR system (as only one chip is needed), and aid in miniaturization.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20250327913 A1).
Claim 17: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Yang does teach, where the multi-junction laser diode uses a grating in an external cavity in Littrow to narrow and stabilize the wavelength of the laser source over a temperature range ([0067] – Littrow structure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Littrow structure, as taught by Yang, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because, as Yang teaches, this allows for frequency-modulated continuous light emitting, which is a well known LiDAR method.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of LaChapelle (US 20220043127A1).
Claim 21: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but LaChapelle does teach, a Bragg Grating stabilized multi-junction source and a method to sample the master oscillator beam and mix it with the return beam to enable coherent detection on a double balanced receiver for the time-of-flight pulse ([0417]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the source and method, as taught by LaChapelle, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because using a local oscillator is a well known method in the art – especially in FMCW LiDAR – and thus would yield predictable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao (US 20190072672 A1).
Claim 22: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Yao does teach, a master oscillator is used to injection lock the multi-junction source creating mutually coherent beams from each laser of the multi-junction source ([0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the injection-lock, as taught by Yao, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because this allows for low phase noise (Yao [0004]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aboujja (SPIE, see attached PDF), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Maigret (US 4071884 A).
Claim 23: Aboujja teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1. Aboujja does not teach, but Maigret does teach, the master oscillator, power splitting waveguide and power semiconductor optical amplifier are integrated on the same semiconductor material (Claim 1, Col 6 lines 20-27)
And the power semiconductor optical amplifier is independently biased from the master oscillator / power splitter section (Col 2, lines 11-22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the architecture, as taught by Maigret, in the system as taught by Aboujja, because, as Maigret teaches, this improves conversion efficiently and lowers battery drain (Col 2, lines 11-22). Further, using one chip would aid in miniaturization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights