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 .
References:
D1: US 2021/0316756 (Vladimir)
D2: US 2018/0267250 (Hosseini et al.)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by D2.
Claim 1:An imaging LiDAR system comprising a light source (D2, [0031]); a focal plane switch array (FPSA) beam scanner comprising an array of optical antennas, optically coupled to the light source and configured to transmit light towards a target (D2, [0030], [0031], [0034], Claims 1, 11, 16, 21); a time of flight (ToF) detector array configured to receive reflected light from the target (D2, [0066], [0067], Claims 3, 17).
Claim 3:The system of claim 1, wherein the ToF detector array comprises an array of avalanche photodiodes (APDs) (D2, [0066], Claims 3, 17).
Claim 4:The system of claim 1, wherein the FPSA beam scanner and ToF detector array have an identical pixel count (D2, [0068], Claims 17, 22).
Claim 6:The system of claim 1, wherein the FPSA beam scanner is configured to transmit light through a first lens and the ToF detector is configured to receive reflected light through a second lens (D2, [0069], FIG. 9, Claims 17, 21).
Claim 7:The system of claim 1, wherein the FPSA beam scanner and the ToF detector array transmit and receive light through a shared lens (D2, [0048], [0055], FIG. 7, Claims 21, 22).
Claim 12:The system of claim 1, wherein a plurality of the optical antennas are configured to transmit light in multiple directions simultaneously (D2, [0063], [0064], Claims 12, 13).
Claim 13:The system of claim 12, wherein the reflected light is focused on different pixels of the ToF detector array to detect multiple targets simultaneously (D2, [0067], FIG. 8B, Claims 13, 24).
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 in view of D1.
Claim 8:The system of claim 7, further comprising a beam splitter configured to reflect the received light towards the ToF detector array; D2 does not explicitly disclose a beam splitter for this purpose. D1 teaches a beamsplitter (beamsplitter 120) that directs light from the light source to the scanner and directs reflected light from the scanner to the detector (D1, [0024], FIG. 9). It would have been obvious to use a beam splitter to direct received light towards the detector array, as this is standard in optical systems (KSR: combining known elements for predictable results).
Claim 9:The system of claim 8, wherein the beam splitter comprises a polarization beam splitter; D2 does not disclose a polarization beam splitter. D1 teaches a polarization-selective beam splitter as part of the optical circulator (D1, [0024], [0091], FIG. 9). It would have been obvious to use a polarization beam splitter for improved signal separation, as polarization beam splitters are commonly used for this purpose (KSR: combining known elements to achieve predictable results).
Claim 10:The system of claim 9, further comprising a polarization rotator configured to rotate a polarization direction of the received light; D2 does not disclose a polarization rotator. D1 teaches a Faraday rotator and a half-wave plate as polarization rotators in the optical circulator (D1, [0024], [0084], FIG. 7). It would have been obvious to include a polarization rotator for improved polarization management and signal routing (KSR: adding known optical control elements to achieve desired functionality).
Claim 11:The system of claim 10, wherein the polarization rotator comprises a quarter wave plate; D2 and D1 do not disclose a quarter wave plate. However, quarter wave plates are well-known optical elements for polarization rotation. It would have been obvious to use a quarter wave plate as a polarization rotator, as this is a standard device for polarization manipulation.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2.
Claim 5:The system of claim 1, wherein a pixel count of the FPSA beam scanner and ToF detector array is different; D2 teaches corresponding emitter/receiver pairs implying identical pixel count (D2, [0068], Claims 17, 22), but does not explicitly disclose different pixel counts. It would have been obvious to modify the system to have different pixel counts, as varying the number of transmit and receive elements is a routine design choice in LiDAR systems to optimize field of view or resolution (Rational: varying quantities for known elements is a predictable design option).
Claim 14:An imaging LiDAR system comprising a light source; a focal plane switch array (FPSA) beam scanner comprising an array of optical antennas and an array of monolithically integrated time of flight (ToF) detectors; D2 teaches integration of optical antennas and detectors on a common substrate (D2, [0012], Claims 12–14), but does not explicitly disclose monolithic integration. It would have been obvious to integrate these elements monolithically for improved compactness and robustness, as monolithic integration is a well-known goal in LiDAR and photonic systems (Rational: combining elements for improved performance is routine).
Claim 15:The system of claim 14, wherein the ToF detectors comprise single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs); D2 does not explicitly disclose SPADs, but SPADs are a well-known variant of APDs used in monolithic detector arrays. It would have been obvious to use SPADs for enhanced sensitivity in integrated LiDAR systems (Rational: substituting known equivalents).
Claim 16:The system of claim 14, wherein the ToF detectors comprise avalanche photodiodes (APDs); D2 teaches APDs (D2, [0066], Claims 3, 17), but does not explicitly disclose monolithic integration with the FPSA. It would have been obvious to integrate APDs monolithically for improved performance (Rational: combining known elements for predictable results).
Claim 17:The system of claim 14, wherein the optical antennas and ToF detectors are arranged in adjacent pairs; D2 teaches corresponding emitter/receiver pairs (D2, [0068], Claims 17, 22), but does not explicitly disclose adjacency. It would have been obvious to arrange the pairs adjacently to facilitate compact design and efficient signal routing (Rational: optimizing layout for known elements).
Claim 18:The system of claim 14, wherein the optical antennas and the ToF detectors transmit and receive light through a shared lens; D2 teaches shared lens arrangements for transmit and receive (D2, [0048], [0055], FIG. 7, Claims 21, 22), but does not explicitly disclose monolithic integration. It would have been obvious to combine monolithic integration with shared lens arrangements to achieve a compact and efficient LiDAR system (Ratinal: combining known features for improved integration).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAM ALSOMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-6970. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
