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 .
Claim 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, 4-6, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al., Distance measurement using serrodyne modulation and two-photon absorption process in Si-APD, June 2014, hereinafter Tanaka.
In re. claim 1, Tanaka teaches an optical distance measurement apparatus, comprising: at least one optical pulse generator (LD) (fig. 1) for generating a train (using intensity modulator scan) (sect. 2, 1st para.) of gating pulses (reference light) and a train (using phase modulator to shift frequency by 25 kHz) of probe pulses (probe light), the train of gating pulses having a different repetition rate than the train of probe pulses (reference light shifted by 25kHz from the probe light) (sect. 2, 1st para.), and an optical probing arrangement for directing the train of probe pulses to one or more objects and for collecting returned probe pulses returned from the one or more objects (sample object) (fig. 1), wherein the apparatus comprises a multi-photon effect detector (two- photon Si-APD) (fig. 1) and is configured to direct both the train of gating pulses and the returned probe pulses to the multi-photon effect detector (probe light combined with reference light) (fig. 1).
In re. claim 4, Tanaka teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the multi-photon effect detector comprises Silicon (Si-APD) (Section 2, 2nd para.).
In re. claim 5, Tanaka teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the multi-photon effect detector comprises a plurality of detector elements (elements in signal monitoring system, outlined in dashed box) (fig. 1).
In re. claim 6, Tanaka teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,comprising an analyser for analysing the output of the multi-photon effect detector as a function of time (PC producing time vs. voltage graph of figure 2).
In re. claim 10, Tanaka teaches the apparatus according to claim1,wherein the optical configuration of the apparatus substantially prevents optical interference of the gating pulses and probe pulses at the multi-photon effect detector (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
In re. claim 15, Tanaka teaches a method for optical distance measurement, comprising the steps of generating a train of probe pulses (intensity modulation of probe pulse) (section 2, 1st para.), generating a train of gating pulses (intensity modulation of reference pulse) (section 2, 1st para.), the train of gating pulses being generated at a different repetition rate than the train of probe pulses (frequency shifted by 25 kHz) (section 2, 1st para.), directing the train of probe pulses towards one or more objects and collecting returned probe pulses returned from the one or more objects (probe light reflected by sample object) (section 2, 1st para.), directing the train of gating pulses and the returned probe pulses to a detector, wherein the detector is configured to implement multi-photon effect detection (Si-APD two-photon absorber) (fig. 1).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morohashi et al., Peak power evaluation of picosecond optical pulse using two-photon absorption, November 2011, hereinafter Morohashi.
In re. claim 16, Morohashi teaches a multi-photon effect detection device comprising a multi-photon effect detector (TPA detector) (abstract) and a timestamping analyser (TPA-type autocorrelator) (section 5), the timestamping analyser comprising at least one peak detector (peak power monitor) and at least one timer (timer of figure 4), the at least one peak detector being configured to detect peaks in the output of the multi-photon effect detector (fig. 3b) and the at least one timer being configured to measure a time of the occurrence of the detected peaks (fig. 4).
In re. claim 17, Morohashi teaches a method of analysing the output of a multi-photon effect detector (TPA detector) (abstract), comprising the steps of detecting intensity peaks in the output of the multi-photon effect detector that arise from multi-photon absorption events and measuring a time at which such detected intensity peaks occur (section 5) (fig. 4).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roche et al., Two-photon absorption pulsed-laser single-event effect technique for GaN materials and the impact of deep level traps on the carrier generation process, September 2016, hereinafter Roche.
In re. claim 2, Tanaka fails to disclose the multi-photon effect detector has a bandgap that is greater than the photon energy of the single photons of the gating and probe pulses.
Roche teaches the multi-photon effect detector has a bandgap that is greater than the photon energy of the single photons of the gating and probe pulses (combined energies exceed the bandgap) (section IV, 1st para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Roche to have a multi-photon effect detector with a bandgap that is greater than the photon energy of the single photons of the gating and probe pulses, for the predictable result of reducing noise associated with single photon detection.
In re. claim 3, Tanaka teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the multi-photon effect detector comprises a two-photon effect detector (fig. 1).
Tanaka fails to disclose the combined energy of a gating pulse photon and a probe pulse photon being greater than the bandgap of the two-photon effect detector.
Roche teaches the combined energy of a gating pulse photon and a probe pulse photon being greater than the bandgap of the two-photon effect detector (combined energies exceed the bandgap) (section IV, 1st para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Roche to have the combined energy of a gating pulse photon and a probe pulse photon being greater than the bandgap of the two-photon effect detector, for the predictable result of reducing noise associated with single photon detection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beller (US 2006/0227315).
In re. claim 7, Tanaka fails to disclose a time-of-flight monitor that includes at least one peak detector and at least one timer, the at least one peak detector being configured to detect peaks in the output of the multi-photon effect detector and the at least one timer being configured to measure the time between the detected peaks.
Beller teaches a time-of-flight monitor that includes at least one peak (MP) detector (para [0041]) (fig. 4) and at least one timer (para [0040]) (fig. 3), the at least one peak detector being configured to detect peaks in the output of the multi-photon effect detector and the at least one timer being configured to measure the time between the detected peaks (differential times for time-of-flight measurements) (para [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Beller to have the recited time-of-flight monitor, for the purpose of utilizing the invention for distance measurements.
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sako et al., Profilometry using optical microwaves with different carrier frequencies and two-photon absorption process of photodetector, December 2005, hereinafter Sako.
In re. claim 8, Tanaka fails to disclose the at least one optical pulse generator comprises a probe mode-locked laser for generating the train of probe pulses and a local oscillator mode-locked laser for generating the train of gating pulses.
Sako teaches the at least one optical pulse generator comprises a probe mode-locked laser (LD#1) for generating the train of probe pulses and a local oscillator mode-locked laser (LD#2) for generating the train of gating pulses (fig. 1) (2nd para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Sako to have the at least one optical pulse generator comprises a probe mode-locked laser for generating the train of probe pulses and a local oscillator mode-locked laser for generating the train of gating pulses, for the purpose of providing increased control of the frequencies of the pulses.
In re. claim 9, Tanaka as modified by Sako (see Sako) teach the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the probe mode-locked laser and the local oscillator mode-locked laser are both free-running mode-locked lasers (free running in figure 1).
In re. claim 11, Tanaka fails to disclose the gating pulses have a different polarisation state to the returned probe pulses on arrival at the multi-photon effect detector.
Sako teaches the gating pulses have a different polarisation state to the returned probe pulses on arrival at the multi-photon effect detector (signal and reference beams orthogonally polarized) (2nd para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Sako to have the gating pulses use a different polarisation state to the returned probe pulses on arrival at the multi-photon effect detector, in order to avoid the noise caused by the interference of the carrier waves between signal and reference beams.
In re. claim 12, Tanaka as modified by Sako (see Sako) teach the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the gating pulses have a different optical wavelength to the probe pulses (3rd para.).
In re. claim 13, Tanaka fails to disclose the one or more objects comprise a reference object and one or more remotely located target objects, the returned probe pulses comprising reference pulses returned from the reference object and target pulses returned from the one or more remotely located target objects.
Sako teaches the one or more objects comprise a reference object and one or more remotely located target objects (fig. 1), the returned probe pulses comprising reference pulses returned from the reference object and target pulses returned from the one or more remotely located target objects (2nd para.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Sako to have the one or more objects comprise a reference object and one or more remotely located target objects, for the purpose of utilizing known methods of combining the probe and reference lights.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 10,802,120), hereinafter LaChapelle.
In re. claim 14, Tanaka fails to disclose the optical probing arrangement comprises a beam splitter that splits an input probe beam comprising the train of probe pulses into a plurality of output probe beams that are directed to a plurality of targets, the optical probing arrangement also collecting returned probe pulses from each of the plurality of targets.
LaChapelle teaches the optical probing arrangement comprises a beam splitter (120) (fig. 1) that splits an input probe beam comprising the train of probe pulses into a plurality of output probe beams that are directed to a plurality of targets (fig 2), the optical probing arrangement also collecting returned probe pulses from each of the plurality of targets (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of LaChapelle to have the recited beam splitter, for the purpose of utilizing the system to map the distance to a number of points within the field of regard.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
