DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed 10/24/2025 (“Remarks”), Applicant argues that the objection to the specification made in Office Action mailed 7/9/2025 (“OA”) should be withdrawn due to an amendment. However, no amendment to the specification can be found.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 112(a)-(b) rejections are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn. The corresponding objections to the drawings and specification are also withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections are unpersuasive. The newly introduced limitations do not incorporate the allowable subject matter stated in OA. The amended claims are addressed in the prior art rejections below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record alone or as combined, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitation when considered all the limitations the claims depend on:
determining the filtered target state based on the at least one target measurement includes using a target state estimator configured to provide the filtered target state based on a covariance between the target range and the target range rate.
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, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, Kondratko et al., (US 8188418 B1, “Kondratko”).
Regarding claim 10, Kondratko teaches a multifunction laser radar system (Figs.4-5), comprising:
a transmitter configured to generate laser pulses and to direct the laser pulses towards a target (Figs. 4-5 disclose a dual-mode detection system including direct and coherent detection, transmitter of laser pulses to a target is inherent for the disclosed system);
a receiver configured to collect light reflected from the target (photo detector 401); and
a controller (controller 406) coupled to the transmitter and the receiver and configured to:
receive a target state corresponding to parameters of the target (Operator input 411), the target state comprising information of a target type of the target from among multiple possible target types (Fig. 1, 5:1-43; 1:20-50, discusses various considerations for selecting between direct and coherent mode detection);
select a mode of operation from a plurality of modes of operation for the multifunction laser radar system based on the target state (7:40-59);
receive returns collected by the receiver while the multifunction laser radar system is operating in the selected mode of operation (7:40-59);
process the returns to calculate at least one target measurement (7:60-8:10); and
determine a filtered target state based on the at least one target measurement (1:18-50, various LADAR measurements from either direct or incoherent detection) using a target range and a target range rate in a target state estimator (1:18-50, various LADAR measurements from either direct or incoherent detection including range and velocity. The processing module that calculates the range and the velocity is considered as the target state estimator).
Regarding claim 11, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 10, wherein the receiver includes an optical system configured to collect the light reflected from the target and a photodetector configured to record arrival times of the reflected light (Figs. 4-5, 7:60-8:10, 8:38-47).
Regarding claim 12, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 10, wherein the modes of operation comprise an incoherent mode of operation or a coherent mode of operation (Figs. 4-5, direct and incoherent mode).
Regarding claim 13, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to select selecting the mode of operation based, at least in part, on an uncertainty factor associated with the target state (Fig. 1, 5:1-43; 1:20-50, discusses various considerations for selecting between direct and coherent mode detection, e.g., noise characteristics of a detector can be an uncertainty factor).
Regarding claim 15, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to select one or more waveform control parameters corresponding to the selected mode of operation (Fig. 4, control path 407 and 410).
Regarding claim 16, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to select a next mode of operation for the multifunction laser radar system based on the filtered target state and uncertainty factor associated with the filtered target state (3:56-4:23, switch between the dual mode, coherent is not always preferred, real-time switching when needed).
Regarding claim 17, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to process the returns to calculate the target range and the target range rate (1:18-50, various LADAR measurements from either direct or incoherent detection including range and velocity).
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are method claims corresponding to system claims 10, 12, 13, and 15-17. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 20 is a medium claim corresponding to system claim 10. It is rejected for the same reason.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratko.
Regarding claim 14, Kondratko fails to explicitly discloses the multifunction laser radar system of claim 13, wherein the controller is further configured to:
compare the uncertainty factor associated with the target state to an uncertainty threshold;
select, in response to a determination that the uncertainty factor is above the uncertainty threshold, the incoherent mode of operation; and
select, in response to a determination that the uncertainty factor is below the uncertainty threshold, the coherent mode of operation.
However, Kondratko discloses excess noise factor F is detrimental to coherent detection due to system efficiency or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and direct detection might be preferred. (7:7:1-23) One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have modified Kondratko’s multifunction laser radar system in view of the above teaching to switch to direct mode when noise factor is above a threshold in order to improve system efficiency or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and switch back to coherent mode in consideration of other factors such as saving power and provide speed detection etc. (Fig. 1, 5:1-43; 1:20-50, discusses various considerations for selecting between direct and coherent mode detection).
Claim 4 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 14. It is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratko, in view of ABmann et al. (US 20220130060 A1, “ABmann”).
Regarding claim 19, Kondratko teaches the multifunction laser radar system of claim 10, wherein:
the multifunction laser radar system is one of a LADAR system or a LIDAR system (Figs. 4-5).
Kondratko fails to teaches
to calculate the at least one target measurement, the controller is configured to process binary-valued, sparse, and bandwidth constrained data.
On the other hand, ABmann teaches process binary-valued, sparse and bandwidth constrained data for Lidar application. (Fig. 6, [0043], [0044], [0050], and [0051])
One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kondratko’s system, in view of ABmann’s teaching, to include processing binary-valued, sparse, and bandwidth constrained data.
The motivation for doing so is to improve efficiency of system concerning space, cost, data bandwidth, and power. (ABmann, [0058]).
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 19. It is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST 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 571-2730-4603.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645