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 .
Claims status: amended claims: 1, 3-4, 9, 14, 16, 18-19; new claims: 21-22; canceled claims:11 ,17; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new secondary reference is currently being used in the present rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2, 4-8, 14-15, 18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke et al. (US 2020/0370955 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2020) in view of Pacal et al. (US 2017/0289524 A1; pub. Oct. 5, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Hennecke et al. disclose: A method of manufacturing a LIDAR system, the method comprising: providing at least one light-emitter device (para. [0027]); providing a receiver subsystem, wherein the receiver subsystem comprises:
a substrate (abstract teaches SPAD, SPAD are formed on a substrate);
a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) coupled to the substrate (para. [0008]-[0009]);
a plurality of outputs coupled to the substrate (para. [0074]); and
a plurality of electrical components coupled to the substrate (para. [0064], transistors); and
coupling the receiver subsystem to the at least one light-emitter device (para. [0052], [0074]).
Hennecke et al. are silent about: an aperture array comprising a plurality of apertures; the plurality of electrical components are configured to selectively connect the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs so as to optically align at least a portion of the SPADs to the at least one light-emitter device.
In a similar field of endeavor Pacala et al. disclose: an aperture array comprising a plurality of apertures (para. [0039], [0060]); the plurality of electrical components are configured to selectively connect the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs so as to optically align at least a portion of the SPADs to the at least one light-emitter device (para. [0039], [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved SNR (Pacala et al. para. [0028]).
In light of the benefits for improved improved SNR t as taught by Pacala et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hennecke et al. with the teachings of Pacala et al.
Regarding claim 2, Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. disclose: selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs so as to define a plurality of silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) in the device such that each SiPM of the plurality of SiPMs comprises a respective set of one or more SPADs connected to a respective output of the plurality of outputs (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. disclose: selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs is performed so as to achieve a desired mapping of respective SPADs to respective optical channels (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Pacala et al. disclose: selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs occurs only a single time (para. [0039], [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved SNR (Pacala et al. para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Pacala et al. disclose: selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs occurs in a dynamic fashion (para. [0039], [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved SNR (Pacala et al. para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Hennecke et al. disclose: the electrical components comprise transistors (para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Hennecke et al. disclose: the electrical components comprise severable connections (para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. disclose: A method of manufacturing a LIDAR system, the method comprising: providing a first LIDAR element, wherein providing the first LIDAR element comprises selecting the first LIDAR element from among a plurality of different LIDAR elements that correspond to a plurality of different LIDAR types providing a SPAD detector array, wherein the SPAD detector array comprises: a plurality of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) coupled to the substrate; a plurality of outputs coupled to the substrate; and a plurality of electrical components coupled to the substrate; and coupling the SPAD detector array to the first LIDAR element, wherein the plurality of electrical components are configured to selectively connect the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs so as to optically align at least a portion of the SPADs to the at least one first LIDAR element (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 15, Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. disclose: selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs so as to define a plurality of silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) in the device such that each SiPM of the plurality of SiPMs comprises a respective set of one or more SPADs connected to a respective output of the plurality of outputs (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Hennecke et al. disclose: the pluratity of different LIDAR types have different spatial resolutions (para. [0105]).
Regarding claim 20, Hennecke et al. disclose: method reduces cost and complexity of the LIDAR system while improving serviceability and product life (para. [0105], [0124]).
Regarding claim 21, Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. disclose: the SPAD detector array is usable with any of the plurality of different LIDAR elements (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 3, 16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke et al. (US 2020/0370955 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2020) in view of Pacal et al. (US 2017/0289524 A1; pub. Oct. 5, 2017) and further in view of Moore (US 2020/0173846 A1; pub. Jun. 4, 2020).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: receiving, via a reference detector, information indicative of a light intensity, wherein selectively coupling the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs is based on the received information.
In a similar field of endeavor Moore discloses: receiving, via a reference detector, information indicative of a light intensity, wherein selectively coupling the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs is based on the received information (para. [0090]) motivated by the benefits for optimal detection (Moore para. [0035]-[0036]).
In light of the benefits for optimal detection as taught by Moore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. with the teachings of Moore.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. and Moore disclose: receiving, via a reference detector, information indicative of a light intensity, wherein selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs is based on the received information (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3).
Regarding claim 22, Pacala et al. disclose: selectively connecting the plurality of SPADs to the plurality of outputs is performed so as to achieve a desired mapping of respective SPADs to respective optical channels (para. [0018], [0039], [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved SNR (Pacala et al. para. [0028]).
.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke et al. (US 2020/0370955 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2020) in view of Pacal et al. (US 2017/0289524 A1; pub. Oct. 5, 2017) and further in view of Iguchi et al. (US 2019/0170866 A1; pub. Ju. 6, 2019).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the severable connections comprise at least one of: a switch, a fuse, or a laser-trimmable trace.
In a similar field of endeavor Iguchi et al. disclose: the severable connections comprise at least one of: a switch, a fuse, or a laser-trimmable trace (para. [0087]) motivated by the benefits for a low cost apparatus (Iguchi et al. para. [0019]).
In light of the benefits for a low cost apparatus as taught by Iguchi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. with the teachings of Iguchi et al.
Claims 12 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke et al. (US 2020/0370955 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2020) in view of Pacal et al. (US 2017/0289524 A1; pub. Oct. 5, 2017) and further in view of Droz et al. (US 2018/0175230 A1; pub. Jun. 21, 2018).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: the substrate comprises at least one of: silicon, gallium arsenide, silicon-on-insulator, or a printed circuit board.
In a similar field of endeavor Droz et al. disclose: the substrate comprises at least one of: silicon, gallium arsenide, silicon-on-insulator, or a printed circuit board (para. [0027]) motivated by the benefits for enhanced performance.
In light of the benefits for enhanced performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. with the teachings of Droz et al.
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: the light-detecting elements comprise at least one of: silicon, germanium, GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, InP, or InGaAsP.
In a similar field of endeavor Droz et al. disclose: the light-detecting elements comprise at least one of: silicon, germanium, GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaAs, InP, or InGaAsP (para. [0030]) motivated by the benefits for a high-speed, high sensitivity photodetector.
In light of the benefits for a high-speed, high sensitivity photodetector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. with the teachings of Droz et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennecke et al. (US 2020/0370955 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2020) in view of Pacal et al. (US 2017/0289524 A1; pub. Oct. 5, 2017) and further in view of Satat et al. (US 2019/0361099 A1; pub. Nov. 28, 2019).
Regarding claim 19, the combined references are silent about: the plurality of different LIDAR types have different low-light capabilities.
In a similar field of endeavor Satat et al. disclose: the plurality of different LIDAR types have different low-light capabilities (para. [0137], [0156]) motivated by the benefits for a LIDAR system that operate in harsh weather condition.
In light of the benefits for a LIDAR system that operate in harsh weather condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hennecke et al. and Pacala et al. with the teachings of Satat et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights