DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed Nov. 14, 2025
The objections to amended claim 5 are withdrawn in view of amendment of the claim.
Drawings
The drawings (replacement Figs. 3 and 4) were received on Nov. 14, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks p. 6, filed Nov. 14, 2025, regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8, now claims 1-5 and 7-8 have been considered but are only persuasive in part. The amendments to claims overcome the indefinite rejection due to narrative and method elements of the claims. Further claim 6 has been amended to overcome the insufficient antecedent bases. These rejections are withdrawn.
However, the 112(b) rejection based on the limitations relating to the optimizer, now in claim 1, is maintained. The clause “an optimizer (OPT) configured to receive measurement data from the doppler lidar and to control at least one of the amplitude modulator (AM), the timing modulator(TM ), or the individual frequency modulators (FV) so as to self-optimize a waveform for the wavelength channels” in claim 1 is indefinite, because it is not clearly defined what “self-optimize” means. In particular, the clause does not specify the variables to be optimized, nor whether they would be brought to a minimum or maximum. The Specification discusses the invention in paragraph [0049] “An object of the invention is therefore to create a Doppler lidar that makes atmospheric effects visible in clear weather, while at the same time enabling optimization of range, spatial resolution and velocity resolution.. Furthermore, the transmission pulse power should be selectable to optimize for different application areas.” However, this paragraph and similar descriptions in the Specification do not specifically determine what is optimized; hence the metes and bounds claim 1 and claims dependent on it would not be known to one skilled in the art. The term “self-optimization” is interpreted as automatic optimization, as described in paragraph [0091], “Fig. 14 shows a fourth embodiment of the invention with an automatic (self-)optimization of the waveform.”
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, p. 7, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly discovered reference.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, p. 7, claims 5 and 7-8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In view of the arguments and amendments to the claims the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kotake (US 2017/0307648) in view of Warke et al. (US 2019/0018107).
With regard to claim 1, Kotake discloses a laser radar device for detecting wind speeds, comprising: a device (multiwavelength light oscillator 1) for generating pulsed coherent laser light on N wavelength channels, an amplitude modulator (modulation units 3 including both an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) and an AO frequency shifter, [0038]) configured to shape the pulse individually for each channel, a device for transmitting frequency-shifted and amplified pulses of the laser light in predetermined spatial directions (transmitting/receiving optical system 8, para. [0049]), a detector (optical receiver 11) for receiving the generated and the backscattered laser light on N wavelength channels, an electronic evaluation device (signal analyzing unit 12) for determining a Doppler shift amount between the transmitted light and the received light on N wavelength channels (para. [0053]), and a timing modulator for individual control of a pulse repetition frequency (PRF) (para. [0078]). Kotake does not disclose an optimizer configured to receive measurement data from the doppler lidar and to control at least the amplitude modulator, the timing modulator, or the individual frequency modulators so as to self-optimize a waveform for the wavelength channels. However, in the same field of endeavor Warke et al. teach a LIDAR comprising a device (transmitter 102) for generating pulsed coherent laser light, an amplitude modulator (inherent to produce amplitude modulated waveform, para. [0019]), a frequency shifter (for multiple tones with fixed frequencies), a device for transmitting frequency-shifted pulses of the laser light in predetermined spatial directions (rotating optical system, para. [0016]), and a detector (receiver (110), [0019]). The type of signal, including the amplitude and signal repetition frequency is adjusted based on the range, thereby optimizing performance (para. [0018]). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 6 and paras. [0046-0047] the device functions as an optimizer to receive measurement data from the LIDAR (step 606), determine a distance to an object (step 608), and generate plurality of transmitted waveforms having a specified signal duration, signal amplitude, or signal repetition frequency (step 210) that are directed to a plurality of scan points (612). The teaching of the optimizer of Warke et al. , applied to the LIDAR system of Kotake, would have resulted in the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the application. The combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical or electrical engineer, in order to avoid a transmit signal that is too low power (leading to poor signal to noise) or too high power (resulting in saturating the receiver), para. [0017].
With regard to claim 2, the timing circuitry controls different pulse repetition frequencies for each of the N wavelength channels (Kotake ,para. [0078]).
With regard to claim 3, individual frequency modulators (AO frequency shifters) are provided to separately frequency shift the generated pulses for each of the N wavelength channels (Kotake, para. [0038]).
With regard to claim 4, the wind speed is detected base on the (Doppler shift) difference between frequency of transmitted light and received light scattered from aerosol in the atmosphere (Kotake, Abstract).
Note that the citations made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant; they are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious, a Doppler LIDAR for detecting wind speeds, comprising: a device for generating pulsed coherent laser light on N wavelength channels, an amplitude modulator configured to perform amplitude modulation separately for each individual wavelength channel, a device from transmitting generated frequency-shifted and amplified pulses of laser light in predetermined spatial directions, a detector for receiving the generated and backscattered laser light on N wavelength channels, a timing modulator assigned to the N wavelength channels for individual control of a pulse repetition frequency, and an optimizer configured to receive measurement data from the doppler LIDAR and to control at least one of the amplitude modulator, the timing modulator, or the individual frequency modulators, and wherein the optimizer is further configured to receive input from at least one external sensor that detects meteorological phenomena including winds, wind shear, and turbulence, and to adapt the waveform for each wavelength channel to a respective measurement situation based on the input from the external sensor. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on Nov. 14, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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 on 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645