DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-21. are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 22, 2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “1000m” should be “1000 nm”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 9, 13, 17, 19, and 21 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 4 recites the limitation "the nonlinear delay function" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests replacing "the nonlinear delay function" with “the predefined delay function” or “the exponential function.”
Claim 9 is indefinite because the meaning of the limitation “unique detector” is not clear. Does this mean that the detector is the only detector in the LIDAR device or that the detector is the only existing detector of its kind?
Claims 13, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected due to claim dependency.
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.
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, 6-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meneely, US 20100045965 A1 (“Meneely”) in view of Eichenholz et al., US 20180120433 A1 (“Eichenholz”).
Regarding claim 1, Meneely discloses a laser detection and ranging device, comprising a transmitter assembly adapted to transmit an aperiodic pulse-train of successive pulses (Fig. 1, transmitter 12, light pulse timing sequence 30, Paragraph [0021]-[0022]), and an optical detector (Fig. 1, optical receiver 14, Paragraph [0021]) configured to:
- detect pulses from the aperiodic pulse-train of successive pulses (Fig. 1, reflected light pulse timing sequence 40, Paragraph [0023]; Fig. 5, reflected light pulse sequence 40, Paragraph [0030]), wherein each pulse has a rank in the pulse-train (Fig. 5, five peaks 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, Paragraph [0030]), and wherein a pulse having a defined rank is separated from the pulse of next rank above by a predefined time interval (Fig. 5, five peaks 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, at 62.2 ns, 62.8 ns, 85.6 ns, 109.4 ns, and 138.4 ns, Paragraph [0030]), wherein the predefined time interval is associated with the defined rank, such that the pulse-train form a series of predefined time intervals (Fig. 3, respective time intervals 801, 802, 803, 804, Paragraph [0028]), wherein the predefined time interval is a predefined delay function of said rank (Paragraph [0034]: “peaks of the transmitted light pulse sequence are separated according to a defined function”),
- detect a series of actual time intervals between detected pulses (Fig. 6, square wave 82 representation of the light pulse sequence 30, reflected light pulse sequence 40, Paragraph [0031]),
- compare the series of actual time intervals to the series of predefined time intervals (Fig. 6, square wave 82 representation of the light pulse sequence 30, reflected light pulse sequence 40, Paragraph [0031]), in order to:
- determine the rank of the detected pulses (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0033]: “lower correlation peaks represent alignment of individual pulses of the pulse sequence with peaks in the clipped pulse sequence”), and
- determine a delay of reception of a detected pulse, which is the addition of a time-of-flight and a function of the time-interval associated to the determined rank of the detected pulse (Fig. 7, correlation graph 86, peak 90 shows time delay between transmitted and received pulse sequence, Paragraph [0033]),
wherein the transmitter assembly comprises:
- an optical input for receiving a laser beam pulse (Fig. 2. splitter 56, Paragraph [0025]),
- an optical transmitter configured for outputting the successive pulses(Fig. 2, output, Paragraph [0027]; Fig. 1, mirror unit 16, Paragraph [0023]), and
- an optical receiver configured to receive a reflection of the laser beam pulse from said direction (Fig. 1, optical receiver 14, lens 46, Paragraph [0023]), and
- a delay unit configured for delaying the pulses of the broadband laser beam pulse, such that the laser beam pulse is transformed into said pulse-train of successive pulses, such that the predefined time interval associated to the defined rank is an introduced delay (Fig. 2, splitter 56, light transmission lines 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, combiner 66, Paragraph [0026]),
wherein the detected pulses are at least a part of the reflection of the laser beam pulse received by the optical receiver, and wherein the optical detector is further configured to detect an optical power of the detected pulses from said pulse-train, wherein the optical detector is optically connected to the optical receiver (Fig. 1, optical receiver 14, lens 46, Paragraph [0023]),
Meneely does not teach: an optical transmitter that outputs pulses forming part of a broadband laser beam pulse and a the delay unit comprises an optical fiber which is grated with a fiber Bragg grating.
However, Eichenholz teaches a wavelength-dependent delay line that contains a series of N fiber Bragg gratings (FGB) that receives input light that contains N operating wavelengths. The input light can come from a laser that may produce optical pulses at N different wavelengths. The FBGs act a wavelength-specific reflector that introduce a time delay in pulses given their wavelength. (Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, FBGs 520, fiber delay 530, Paragraph [0110]-[0113]; See also: Fig. 10, seed laser 400).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 6, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the laser detection and ranging device is a multispectral laser detection and ranging device (Eichenholz, Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, Paragraph [0113]: broadband laser pulses with N wavelengths; See also: Fig. 10, seed laser 400).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 7, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 6, wherein each pulse has a different wavelength within the pulse-train (Eichenholz, Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, FBGs 520, fiber delay 530, Paragraph [0110]-[0113]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 8, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 7, wherein the wavelength of a pulse is a function of the rank of the pulse in the pulse-train (Eichenholz, Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, FBGs 520, fiber delay 530, Paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 9, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the optical detector is a unique detector (Meneely, Fig. 1, optical receiver 14, Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 7, wherein the laser beam pulse is a broadband laser beam pulse having a spectral range, the different wavelengths forming a wavelength comb selected in the spectral range (Eichenholz, Fig. 10, seed laser 400, Paragraph [0113]: N=8 wavelengths of light).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 12, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the optical fiber Bragg grating is a superstructured Fiber Bragg Grating comprising a series of ranked successive fiber Bragg gratings, each spaced by a space interval, wherein a fiber Bragg grating is associated with a defined rank corresponding to the rank of a predefined time interval, and is configured to reflect the wavelength comb part of the broadband laser beam pulse corresponding to the pulse of defined rank (Eichenholz, Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, FBGs 520, fiber delay 530, Paragraph [0111]-[0113]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 13, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 9.
Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, does not teach: wherein the broadband laser beam pulse is a supercontinuum broadband laser beam pulse having a pulse duration comprised between 0.5 ns and 5 ns.
However, Eichenholz teaches a seed laser that may have a pulse duration of less than or equal to 2 ns. (Fig. 8, seed laser 400, Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed laser, disclosed by Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, by implementing a pulse duration of 2 ns, which is disclosed by Eichenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of firing a laser with a pulse duration of 2ns to the known seed laser, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 12.
Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, does not teach: wherein the broadband laser beam pulse has a spectral range comprised between 1000m and 1700nm.
However, Eichenholz teaches an emission spectrum having wavelengths between approximately 1470 nm and approximately 1630 nm (Fig. 18, emission, Paragraph [0142]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seed laser, disclosed by Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, by implementing an emission spectrum with wavelengths between 1470 nm and 1630 nm, which is disclosed by Eichenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of firing a laser with a specific emission spectrum to the known seed laser, and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 1.
Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, does not teach: wherein a pulse within the pulse-train has a filtered bandwidth which is the bandwidth of the spectral range of the broadband laser beam pulse divided by 4 or 5.
However, Eichenholz teaches an FBG as a spectral filter, which may be configured to have either a relatively narrow or broad pass-band (Paragraph [0118],[0120]). Eichenholz gives an example of a spectral range of 80 nm being passed through a 2 nm spectral filter (Fig. 14, Paragraph [0121]-[0122]). However, an obvious modification on Eichenholz’s example would be to use a broad pass-band of 20 nm, taught in Paragraph [0120].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the FBG, disclosed by Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, by implementing broad pass-band, which is disclosed by Eichenholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove background noise from the signal, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0121]).
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-5 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, in further view of Azana et al., US 20210096026 A1 (“Azana”).
Regarding claim 3, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 1.
Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, does not teach: wherein the predefined delay function is an exponential function of the rank.
However, Azana teaches a method for temporally delaying spectral copies of a temporally sampled signal. A frequency time delay unit delays a temporally sampled signal such that the temporal waveform of the delayed signal is an exponential function of the frequency - which is inversely proportional to the wavelength. The (Fig. 3, delayed temporally sampled signal 240, equation 6, Paragraph [0077] – [0080]; See also: Fig. 1, frequency time delay unit 140, Paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulse timing sequence, disclosed by Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, by delaying subsequent pulses according to an exponential function of the frequency, which is disclosed by Azana. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a method requiring only simple analog signal processing units, as suggested by Azana (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz and Azana, discloses the device according to claim 3, wherein the nonlinear delay function is an exponentially increasing function of the rank (Azana, Fig. 3, delayed temporally sampled signal 240, equation 6, Paragraph [0077] – [0080]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulse timing sequence, disclosed by Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, by delaying subsequent pulses according to an exponential function of the frequency, which is disclosed by Azana. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a method requiring only simple analog signal processing units, as suggested by Azana (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz and Azana, discloses the device according to claim 3, wherein the ratio between a time interval associated with a defined rank, and a time interval associated with the next rank above is equal to a constant (Meneely, Fig. 3, ratio between respective time intervals 801 and 802 is equal to a constant, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 18, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz and Azana, discloses the device of claim 5, wherein the ratio between a time interval associated with a defined rank, and a time interval associated with the next rank above is 2 (Meneely, Fig. 3, ratio between respective time intervals 802 and 803 is equal to a constant greater than 2, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz and Azana, discloses the device according to claim 4, wherein the ratio between a time interval associated with a defined rank, and a time interval associated with the next rank above is equal to a constant (Meneely, Fig. 3, ratio between respective time intervals 801 and 802 is equal to a constant, Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz and Azana, discloses the device according to claim 3, wherein the laser detection and ranging device is a multispectral laser detection and ranging device (Eichenholz, Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, Paragraph [0113]: broadband laser pulses with N wavelengths; See also: Fig. 10, seed laser 400).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 21, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz and Azana, discloses the device according to claim 4, wherein the laser detection and ranging device is a multispectral laser detection and ranging device (Eichenholz, Fig. 12, wavelength-dependent delay line 500, Paragraph [0113]: broadband laser pulses with N wavelengths; See also: Fig. 10, seed laser 400).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted in Eichenholz’s multi-wavelength laser and wavelength-dependent delay line for Meneely’s laser diode and delay unit (splitter, delay lines, and combiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or avoid undesirable nonlinear effects in optical fibers, as suggested by Eichenholz (Paragraph [0113]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, in further view of Baets et al., US 20180239089 A1 (“Baets”).
Regarding claim 17, Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, discloses the device according to claim 13.
Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz does not teach: wherein each of the laser beam pulse exhibits a bandwidth of 300nm and the broadband laser beam pulse has a spectral range comprised between 1400-1700 nm, which is an optimum configuration for eye-safety and low-cost detection.
However, Baets teaches a broadband source with a bandwidth up to 300 nm covering wavelengths between 1400 nm and 1700 nm (Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the laser, disclosed by Meneely, as modified in view of Eichenholz, with the broadband source disclosed by Baets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a laser that consumes low power , as suggested by Baets (Paragraph [0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jalali et al., WO 2019178136 A1 discloses a spectro-temporal encoded optical source that is used in a LIDAR system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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 at (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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645