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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 24 February 2026, overcomes the prior rejection(s) and objection(s). However, the amendment gives rise to a new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “the telescope mounting includes, arranged thereon, (i) a transmitter telescope coupled to a laser, and (ii) a receiving telescope.” The limitation unclear as to the required structural relationship between the telescope mounting and the recited telescopes. The phrase “the telescope mounting includes” requires that the transmitter telescope and the receiving telescope are constituent elements of the telescope mounting. The phrase “arranged thereon” requires the transmitter and receiving telescopes to be arranged on the telescope mounting constituting said transmitter and receiving telescopes. Therefore, it is unclear whether the telescope mounting includes the transmitter telescope and receiving telescope, or whether the transmitter telescope and receiving telescope are separate structures arranged on the telescope mounting. For the purposes of examination, the limitation --includes, arranged thereon,-- is understood to read --supports -- in accordance with p. 15 of the specification (“telescope mounting 510 supports the optical receiver 250, the laser 100, the receiving telescope 200, the optical transmitter 150, and the transmitter telescope 120”).
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humbert (“Design and commissioning of a transportable laser ranging station STAR-C,” published 2017)1 in view of Hamph (“Satellite Laser Ranging with a fibre-based transmitter,” published 2016)2.
Regarding claim 1, Humbert discloses a device for satellite laser distance measurement comprising: a base segment; and an optical segment supported by the base segment, said optical segment including a telescope mounting with an azimuth axis and an elevation axis, wherein the telescope mounting includes, arranged thereon, (i) a transmitter telescope [1: …], and (ii) a receiving telescope (see Annotated Fig. 4 of Humbert, introduced below), and [2: …].
Although Humbert discloses a laser source in Fig. 5, Humbert does not disclose:
[a transmitter telescope] “coupled to a laser”; and,
“wherein the laser has a pulse repetition frequency greater than 10 kHz.”
Hamph, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (1) in p. 2, § The fibre-based transmitter technology, motivating the “placement of the whole laser system onto the telescope.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter telescope of Humbert such that the laser was coupled to the transmitter telescope, as taught by Hamph, with a reasonable expectation for success in order to eliminate the coudé relay from a stationary laser (see §2.1 of Humbert), thereby allowing use of a standard telescope mount and reducing the cost and design complexity of the satellite laser ranging system (Hamph, p. 2, § The fibre-based transmitter technology).
Hamph further teaches (2) in p. 5, § Towards 100 kHz laser ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the laser of Humbert in view of Hamph, with a pulse repetition frequency greater than 10 kHz, as additionally taught by Hamph, reasonable expectation for success in order to increase average transmitted power and thereby improving ranging performance and data measurement yield (Hamph, p. 5, § Towards 100 kHz laser ranging).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Humbert in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the telescope mounting has an optical transmitter coupled to the transmitter telescope (Humbret, Fig. 5, transmitter unit; Second Annotated Fig. 4 of Humbret, left part of the telescope mount feeding into transmitter telescope) and an optical receiver coupled to the receiving telescope (Humbret, Fig. 3, back side CDK17; Second Annotated Fig. 4 of Humbret, right part of telescope mount feeding into receiver telescope), wherein the optical transmitter is attached to a carrier plate and the optical receiver is attached to a further carrier plate (see Second Annotated Fig. 4 of Humbret, introduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Humbert in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 5, and further teaches: wherein the optical transmitter comprises one or more of the following components: a laser energy regulation unit, with a beam attenuation unit; a laser energy control unit, with a beam splitter and/or a measuring head for energy and/or power; an aperture; a variable beam expansion unit; a beam direction regulation unit, including a movable mirror (Humbret, Fig. 5, M3); a beam splitter (Humbret, Fig. 5, BS); a transmitter camera, including a transmitter camera with image-generating optics; a starter diode; at least one mirror (Humbret, Fig. 5, M4); at least one retroreflector.
Regarding claim 7, Humbert in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 5, and further teaches: wherein the optical receiver comprises one or more of the following components: a beam splitter for splitting the radiation received by the receiving telescope into visible light and infrared light (Humbret, Fig. 3, beam splitter splitting the radiation into visible light and infrared light); a tracking camera in the focus of the receiving telescope; an optical relay unit, which is provided as further imaging optics; a bandpass filter; and a detector and/or an optical fiber for supplying the received signals (Humbret, Fig. 3, SPAD supplied by optical fiber).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humbert in view of Hamph further in view of Kunimori (“Centimetre precision eye-safe satellite laser ranging using a Raman-shifted Nd:YAG laser and germanium photon counter,” published 2000)3.
Regarding claim 8, Humbert in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the laser has radiation in the near-infrared range (Humbret, § 4, laser at infrared wavelength), […].
Humbert in view of Hamph does not teach: [the laser has radiation] “with a wavelength between 1500 nm and 1750 nm.” However, Kunimori teaches the limitation in pp. 2-3 and §§ 2-3, employing 1543 nm wavelength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the laser of Humbert in view of Hamph with the wavelength of Kunimori with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide an eye-safe regime for open-air laser ranging while remaining capable of supporting precise long-range satellite laser ranging performance (Kunimori, §§ 1 and 5).
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenohr (“STAR-C: Towards a transportable Laser Ranging Station,” published 2017)4 in view of Hamph.
Regarding claim 1, Hasenohr discloses a device for satellite laser distance measurement comprising: a base segment; and an optical segment supported by the base segment, said optical segment including a telescope mounting with an azimuth axis and an elevation axis, wherein the telescope mounting includes, arranged thereon, (i) a transmitter telescope [1: …], and (ii) a receiving telescope (see Annotated Fig. 3 of Hasenohr, introduced below), and [2: …].
Although Hasenohr discloses a laser source in §2.3, Humbert does not disclose:
[a transmitter telescope] “coupled to a laser”; and,
“wherein the laser has a pulse repetition frequency greater than 10 kHz.”
Hamph, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (1) in p. 2, § The fibre-based transmitter technology, motivating the “placement of the whole laser system onto the telescope.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmitter telescope of Hasenohr such that the laser was coupled to the transmitter telescope, as taught by Hamph, with a reasonable expectation for success in order to eliminate the coudé relay from a stationary laser (see p. 3, §2.3 of Hasenohr), thereby allowing use of a standard telescope mount and reducing the cost and design complexity of the satellite laser ranging system (Hamph, p. 2, § The fibre-based transmitter technology).
Hamph further teaches (2) in p. 5, § Towards 100 kHz laser ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the laser of Hasenohr in view of Hamph, with a pulse repetition frequency greater than 10 kHz, as additionally taught by Hamph, reasonable expectation for success in order to increase average transmitted power and thereby improving ranging performance and data measurement yield (Hamph, p. 5, § Towards 100 kHz laser ranging).
PNG
media_image3.png
709
1222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hasenohr in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the telescope mounting has a swivel base with the azimuth axis (Hasenohr, p. 3, § 2.3, “rotation range is 0° to > 360° for the azimuth axis”; Fig. 3, cylindrical swivel base supported on the base segment) and a rotary shaft with the elevation axis (Hasenohr, p. 3, § 2.3, “rotation range [for] the elevation axis is limited from 0° to 85°; Fig. 2, rotary shaft shown in unshielded telescope mounting), about which the telescopes can be swiveled synchronously with one another (Hasenohr, p. 3, § 2.3, “altazimuth mount… equipped with a transmitter- and a receiver-telescope” naturally swivel is synchronous as both telescopes are co-mounted), and the laser can be swiveled synchronously with the transmitter telescope (Hasenohr, p. 3, § 2.3, transmitter telescope swivels around elevation axis, wherein the transmitter telescope comprises the laser as previously combined in view of Hamph).
Regarding claim 3, Hasenohr in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein a carrier plate of a support unit extends between the transmitter telescope and the receiving telescope spaced apart from the elevation axis (see Annotated Fig. 2 of Hasenohr, introduced below).
PNG
media_image4.png
666
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hasenohr in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the support unit comprises the carrier plate, which is arranged parallel to the elevation axis, as well as at least one further carrier plate, which is arranged parallel to the azimuth axis, wherein the carrier plate and the at least one further carrier plate are rigidly connected to each other, wherein the transmitter telescope and the at least one further carrier plate are connected to each other (see Annotated Fig. 2 of Hasenohr, introduced above).
Regarding claim 9, Hasenohr in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the laser has laser pulses with a pulse length in the range of 0.5 picoseconds to 100 nanoseconds (Hasenohr, Abstract, <5 ns), with a pulse energy of 1 J to 1 µJ (Hasenohr, Table 1, ~60 µJ).
Regarding claim 10, Hasenohr in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the base segment includes one or more of the following components: a control computer (Hasenohr, p. 3, § 2.2, timing equipment, naturally understood to perform timing control functions implemented using electronic computing hardware); and control electronics, with an event timer and a trigger generator
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasenohr in view of Hamph further in view of Zhang (CN108490452A).
Regarding claim 11, Hasenohr in view of Hamph teaches the device according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the optical segment has at least one cover (Hasenohr, Fig. 3, optical segment with cover, as compared to without cover shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the transmitter telescope (Hasenohr, Fig. 3, transmitter telescope shown with a white cover, while receiving telescope is uncovered), […], and a carrier plate have separate covers (Hasenohr, Annotated Fig. 2, carrier plate (without cover); Fig. 3, carrier plate with separate white cover).
Hasenohr in view of Hamph does not teach: “the receiving telescope” [has a separate cover]. However, Zhang teaches the limitation in Fig. 1, specifically, a receiving telescope (11) having a cover (10+70) with a climate-control unit (22) is arranged in the base segment (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiving telescope of Hasenohr in view of Hamph with the cover and corresponding climate control unit of Zhang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to maintain a stable operating temperature, thereby yielding a system with less thermal drift, reduced condensation/fogging, and improved measurement stability and accuracy (see Zhang, ¶¶ 15 & 17-19).
Regarding claim 12, Hasenohr in view of Hamph further in view of Zhang teaches the device according to claim 11, and further teaches: wherein an interior of the at least one cover of the optical segment is climate-controlled (Zhang, ¶ 17), wherein a climate-control unit is arranged in the base segment (Zhang, Fig. 1, climate-control unit 22 in base segment 22).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (CN108254915A) in view of McGarry (“NGSLR System Overview,” published 2014)5 further in view of Hamph.
Regarding claim 13, Wen teaches a method for satellite laser distance measurement having a device (Fig. 1), comprising:
[1: …] an optical segment (Fig. 1, transmitter subsystem 1, receiver subsystem 2, and telescope tracking turntable 4), having a telescope mounting (Fig. 1, 4), [2: …],
Arranging, on the telescope mounting, a transmitter telescope (Fig. 1, 1) and a receiving telescope (Fig. 1, 2); and
coupling a laser to the transmitter telescope (Fig. 1, laser 5 coupled to 1), wherein the laser moves synchronously with the transmitter telescope upon a movement of the transmitter telescope (Fig. 1, laser 5 coupled to transmitter 1; ¶ 24, elements 1, 2, 5 are synchronously directed in parallel by telescope mount 4) [3: …].
Wen does not teach:
(1) “supporting, by a base segment,” [an optical segment];
(2) [a telescope mounting] “with an azimuth axis and an elevation axis”; and,
(3) [the laser] has a pulse repetition frequency greater than 10 kHz.
However, McGarry teaches limitations (1) and (2) in Figs. 3-_6 and 3_7, as annotated below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wen with that of McGarry with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enable a broad range of motion across azimuth and elevation angles and providing for the tracking of objects up to multiple degrees per second, thereby yielding a method that reliably maintains line-of-sight to a target and improves overall tracking performance (see McGarry, p. 12, § 3.3).
Wen in view of McGarry does not teach (3). However, Hamph teaches the limitation in p. 5, § Towards 100 kHz laser ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the laser of Wen in view of McGarry, with a pulse repetition frequency greater than 10 kHz, as taught by Hamph, reasonable expectation for success in order to increase average transmitted power and thereby improving ranging performance and data measurement yield (Hamph, p. 5, § Towards 100 kHz laser ranging).
PNG
media_image5.png
601
1569
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of McGarry further in view of Hamph further in view of Cho (US20030035051A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: wherein a distance measurement of an object (Wen, ¶ 34, optical ranging of target) takes place with the following steps:
calibrating a tracking camera (Wen, Fig. 1, CCD camera 21; ¶ 34, coarse positioning of tracking camera to target as initial calibration) of an optical receiver (Wen, Fig. 1, imaging subsystem 3);
measuring an image of the object to be measured on the camera image of the tracking camera (Wen, ¶ 27, optical imaging of target using camera 21, the image is processed by processing unit 18; ¶ 28, searching and coarse tracking of target);
aligning the telescope mounting by means of coordinates converted from measurement of the image (Wen, ¶ 27, image information used to drive the telescope mounting for object tracking; ¶ 34, proper tracking functionality based on updated telescope coordinate positioning relative to measured coarse position of the target); and […].
Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph does not teach: “repeating the measuring and aligning steps as long as the converted coordinates have a predetermined deviation from a target position.” However, Cho teaches the limitation in ¶ 55. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph with that of Cho with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enable proper adaption to the movement of the tracked object and improve the reliability of tracking (Cho, ¶¶ 22 & 95).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of McGarry further in view of Hamph further in view of Bridges (US20110001958A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph teaches the method of claim 13, however does not teach: wherein an alignment of a laser beam on an object takes place with the following steps: checking the focus of a transmitter camera onto the laser beam and determining the focus position, in the transmitter camera, of the laser beam reflected back by a retroreflector; determining a motor position in relation to the focus position; observing a position of the object and determining the object position of the object in the transmitter camera after removing the retroreflector and temporary blocking of the laser beam; and converting the object position into the motor position.
Bridges teaches an alignment of a laser beam on an object (Fig. 7) takes place with the following steps: checking the focus of a transmitter camera (Fig. 7, 210; ¶ 68, checks whether a sharp image is formed) onto the laser beam (Fig. 7, 251) and determining the focus position, in the transmitter camera (¶ 68, determines appropriate distance to form sharp image), of the laser beam reflected back by a retroreflector (¶ 68, retroreflector 107); determining a motor position in relation to the focus position (¶ 68, “an appropriate distance” to be adjusted by motorized stage 728); observing a position of the object (Fig. 7, object 721) and determining the object position of the object in the transmitter camera after removing the retroreflector and temporary blocking of the laser beam (¶ 69, prior measurement of 107 provides “knowledge of the focal lengths and positions” of object 721); and converting the object position into the motor position (¶¶ 68-69, object 721 moved to the “appropriate distance” by motorized stage 728). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph with the alignment method of Bridges with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide greater measurement stability and accuracy (see Bridges, ¶¶ 6, 43 & 68-69).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of McGarry further in view of Hamph further in view of Choi (“Performance Analysis of the First Korean Satellite Laser Ranging System,” published 2014)6.
Regarding claim 16, Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: wherein an object distance is determined with the following steps: determining [1: …] an emission of a laser pulse onto an object by means of an event timer (Wen, ¶¶ 33-34, event timer 15 employed for ranging based on emitted and received signals); [2: …] an assigned detector, upon detection of a photon, of a laser pulse reflected back from the object to be measured (Wen, ¶ 27, laser signal detected by detector 13 and return time processed by event timer 15); and [3: ..].
Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph does not teach:
[determining] “a point in time of” [an emission by an event timer]; and,
“determining a point in time, by means of” [an assigned detector a reflected laser pulse]; and,
“transferring the points in time to an evaluation unit, including a control computer; correlating the measured values of emission and detection.”
However, Choi teaches the limitations in p. 228, § 2.2, where an event timer determines pulse emit and receive timing from a detector, and p. 230, § 2.5, where the points in time associated with the measured values of emission and detection are evaluated by a compute station. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph with the teachings of Choi in order to more precisely handle high repetition pulsing, thereby providing for greater reliability in the time-of-flight reconstruction from timing events (see Choi, p. 228, § 2.2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen in view of McGarry further in view of Hamph further in view of Berger (US20190339368A1).
Regarding claim 17, Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph teaches the method of claim 13, however does not teach: wherein data evaluation takes place with the following steps: calibrating the device by means of measuring the distance from an object with a known distance; correlating points in time of the emission of laser pulses and of the receipt of signals; comparing an expected delay time to an object to be examined to a delay time measured thereon; extracting correlated data; and averaging the distance measurements on the object to be examined.
Berger teaches data evaluation (¶ 17, calibrating a laser ranging system) takes place with the following steps: calibrating the device by means of measuring the distance from an object with a known distance (¶ 33, object 122 serves as reference with known distance measured using time of flight); correlating points in time of the emission of laser pulses and of the receipt of signals (¶ 33, time-of-flight measured multiple times); comparing an expected delay time to an object to be examined to a delay time measured thereon (¶ 37, 70 & 95, compares measured time-of-flight to expected time-of-flight); extracting correlated data (¶ 33, “may be stored and used for multiple subsequent measurements”); and averaging the distance measurements on the object to be examined (¶ 33, “multiple readings may be performed and averaged to create the reference signal”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wen in view of McGarry and Hamph with the calibration method of Berger with a reasonable expectation for success in order to compensate for environmental temperature/humidity changes and performance drift over time, thereby yielding a system with greater measurement accuracy and stability (see Berger, ¶¶ 3, 16 & 18).
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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Humbert et al., “Design and commissioning of a transportable laser ranging station STAR-C” In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS), December 2017.
2 Hamph et al., “Satellite Laser Ranging with a fibre-based transmitter” In: Proceedings of 20th ILRS Workshop, Potsdam, Germany, October 2016.
3 H Kunimori et al., “Centimetre precision eye-safe satellite laser ranging using a Raman-shifted Nd:YAG laser and germanium photon counter,” J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 2 (2000).
4 Hasenohr et al., “STAR-C: Towards a transportable Laser Ranging Station” In: Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, IAC. September 2017.
5 Jan McGarry, “NGSLR System Overview,” Goddard Space Flight Center Report Number: GSFC-E-DAA-TN35527, published January 2014.
6 Choi et al., “Performance Analysis of the First Korean Satellite Laser Ranging System,”
Journal of Astronomy and Space Science, Vol. 31, p. 225-233, September 2014.