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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim ends with a double period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim includes “…readable medium of claim 18, er comprising…”. The claim is interpreted as “…readable medium of claim 18, further comprising…” 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.
Claim 16 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 16 recites the limitation "the beam splitter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meara (4906092) in view of Croteau (5303020).
Referring to claims 1, 12, and 18, O’Meara shows A system, comprising:
a signal generator operable to generate a control waveform (see figure 5 Ref 510 in conjunction with the acoustical generator Ref 520);
an optical splitter operable to split light among first and second optical paths (see figure 5 Ref 502);
a detector in optical communication with the first optical path (see column 8 line 42-43 note the generator may be triggered by an optical detector that is not shown) and operable to provide reference for the control waveform generation (see figure 5 Ref 520) of the signal generator via the light of the first optical path (see figure 5 also note figure 6 for the acoustic pulses that trigger the acoustic generator Ref 520 also see column 7 line 15-25 also see column 8 lines 45-55); and
an optical switch operable to attenuate a portion of the light of the second optical path (see the second Bragg cell modulator Ref 580 driven by the second acoustical generator that recombines the DP1-DP5 with RO based on the different delay lines due to the signal being separated and delayed differently through the delay lines shown in R1’-R5’ of figure 5 there is an inherent attenuation). However O’Meara fails to specifically show based on the generated control waveform to detect a dynamic range signal.
Croteau shows a similar device that includes an optical switch operable to attenuate a portion of the light of the second optical path based on the generated control waveform to detect a dynamic range signal (see figure 1 Ref 50 along with path 35A and 35 also see column 3 lines 65-column 4 line 4). It would have been obvious to include the optical switch as shown by Croteau because this allows the rangefinder to be less susceptible to atmospheric back scatter noise and improved dynamic range as shown by Croteau in column 6 line 40-54).
Referring to claims 2, 13, and 19, O’Meara in view of Croteau shows a processor operable to process the light of the second optical path by dividing a measurement of the attenuated portion of the light of the second optical path by an amount of attenuation that is applied (see column 3 line 50-60 note the dump element situated in path 35A also note column 4 lines 5-20 also see VPC as shown in figure 2 and the intensity of the reflected pulse over time as shown in figure 3A). It is well known to divide the attenuated part of the light by the attenuation control signal as shown by Croteau because this allows the system to avoid saturation of close objects while maintaining detection of distant objects.
Referring to claim 3, O’Meara shows the dynamic range signal comprises light detection and ranging (lidar) returns (see figure 1a).
Referring to claim 4, O’Meara in view of Croteau shows the attenuated portion of the light comprises near range lidar returns (see column 4 lines 5-20). It would have been obvious to include the attenuation of close range LIDAR returns as shown by Croteau because this allows the system to avoid saturation from highly reflective or close targets.
Referring to claim 5, O’Meara in view of Croteau shows the near range lidar returns are at least partially attributable to a volume of distributed scatterers (see column 2 lines 25-30). It would have been obvious to include the volume of distributed scatters as shown by Croteau because this allows for a higher signal to noise ratio.
Referring to claim 6, O’Meara shows the dynamic range signal comprises far range lidar returns (see figure 1a Ref 30).
Referring to claims 8 and 14, O’Meara renders obvious an optical fiber operable to introduce a delay in the light of the second optical path (see figure 7). It would have been obvious to include a fiber optic delay line because this is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Referring to claims 9, 15, and 20 O’Meara in view of Croteau renders obvious another optical switch operable to increase a dynamic range of the system. It would have been obvious to include another optical switch, this is merely duplicating a part to duplicate the effect (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Referring to claims 10 and 16, O’Meara in view of Croteau renders obvious a multi-mode fiber in optical communication with the optical splitter to propagate the light to the optical splitter (see figure 7 Ref 760 also see column 9 line 33-46). Note the use of a multimode fiber is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Referring to claim 11, O’Meara shows the use of an acoustic signal to control the waveform, it would have been obvious to include a control waveform that is a radio frequency waveform because this is an extremely well known alternative to the use of an acoustic waveform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645