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 Objections
Claims 2-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-14, the proper form a dependent claim starts with the article “the”. See MPEP 608.01(n).IV.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry et al. (US 2011/0285980), hereinafter Newberry in view of Chan (US 2021/0249552).
In re. claim 1, Newbury teaches an optical distance measurement apparatus, comprising: at least one optical pulse generator for generating a train of gating pulses (28) and a train of probe pulses (24) (fig. 1), the train of gating pulses having a different repetition rate than the train of probe pulses (para [0025]), 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 (fig. 1), wherein the apparatus comprises a photon effect detector (photodetector) (para [0056]) and is configured to direct both the train of gating pulses and the returned probe pulses to the photon effect detector (38) (para [0021]) (fig. 1).
Newburry fails to disclose the photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector.
Chan teaches a photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector (para [0091]).
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 Newburry to incorporate the teachings of Chan to have the photon effect detector as a multi-photon effect detector, so that the photodetector can resolve the near simultaneous arrival of multiple photons and not have a dead time after it detects a photon (Chan, para [0091]).
In re. claim 2, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Chan) teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein 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 (gain from impact ionization can only be initiated by the other carrier with kinetic energy greater than the bandgap energy) (para [0083]) (i.e. energy of either single photon source is below the bandgap).
In re. claim 3, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Chan) teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the multi-photon effect detector comprises a two-photon effect detector, the combined energy of a gating pulse photon and a probe pulse photon being greater than the bandgap of the two-photon effect detector (gain from impact ionization can only be initiated by the other carrier with kinetic energy greater than the bandgap energy) (para [0083]).
In re. claim 5, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Chan) teach the apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the multi-photon effect detector comprises a plurality of detector elements (plurality of photodiodes) (para [0081]).
In re. claim 6, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 1,comprising an analyser (38) for analysing the output of the multi-photon effect detector as a function of time (para [0013]).
In re. claim 7, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 1,comprising a time-of-flight monitor that includes at least one peak detector (finding three largest peaks) (para [0050]) and at least one timer (time gated) (para [0030]), 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 (time of flight measurement) (para [0033]).
In re. claim 8, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 1,wherein 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 (para [0019]).
In re. claim 9, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) 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 (when not phase locked) (para [0019]).
In re. claim 10, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical configuration of the apparatus substantially prevents optical interference of the gating pulses and probe pulses at the multi-photon effect detector (no interference at the detector disclosed).
In re. claim 12, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the gating pulses have a different optical wavelength to the probe pulses (different frequencies inherently indicate different wavelengths by λ=c/f).
In re. claim 13, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 1,wherein 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 (para [0028]) (fig. 3).
In re. claim 14, Newbury as modified by Chan (see Newbury) teach the apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the optical probing arrangement comprises a beam splitter (fig. 2A) 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 (beam to ref and beam to target), the optical probing arrangement also collecting returned probe pulses from each of the plurality of targets (indicated by LO+REF+TARGET in fig. 2A).
In re. claim 15, Newbury teaches a method for optical distance measurement, comprising the steps of;(i) generating a train of probe pulses (24), (ii) generating a train of gating pulses (28), the train of gating pulses being generated at a different repetition rate than the train of probe pulses (para [0025]), (iii) directing the train of probe pulses towards one or more objects (fig. 2A) and collecting returned probe pulses returned from the one or more objects (fig. 2A), (iv) directing the train of gating pulses and the returned probe pulses to a detector (38) (para [0021]), wherein the detector is configured to implement photon effect detection (photodetector) (para [0056]).
Newburry fails to disclose the photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector.
Chan teaches a photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector (para [0091]).
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 Newburry to incorporate the teachings of Chan to have the photon effect detector as a multi-photon effect detector, so that the photodetector can resolve the near simultaneous arrival of multiple photons and not have a dead time after it detects a photon (Chan, para [0091]).
In re. claim 16, Newbury teaches a photon effect detection device comprising a photon effect detector (photodetectors) (para [0056]) and a timestamping analyser (viewed in the time domain) (para [0010]), the timestamping analyser comprising at least one peak detector (finding three largest peaks) (para [0050]) and at least one timer (time gated) (para [0030]), the at least one peak detector being configured to detect peaks in the output of the photon effect detector (para [0050]) and the at least one timer being configured to measure a time of the occurrence of the detected peaks (para [0030]).
Newburry fails to disclose the photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector.
Chan teaches a photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector (para [0091]).
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 Newburry to incorporate the teachings of Chan to have the photon effect detector as a multi-photon effect detector, so that the photodetector can resolve the near simultaneous arrival of multiple photons and not have a dead time after it detects a photon (Chan, para [0091]).
In re. claim 17, Newbury teaches a method of analysing the output of a photon effect detector (photodetectors) (para [0056]), comprising the steps of detecting intensity peaks in the output of the photon effect detector (finding three largest peaks) (para [0050]) that arise from multi-photon absorption events and measuring a time at which such detected intensity peaks occur (time gated) (para [0030]).
Newburry fails to disclose the photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector.
Chan teaches a photon effect detector is a multi-photon effect detector (para [0091]).
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 Newburry to incorporate the teachings of Chan to have the photon effect detector as a multi-photon effect detector, so that the photodetector can resolve the near simultaneous arrival of multiple photons and not have a dead time after it detects a photon (Chan, para [0091]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newbury as modified by Chan as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 10,802,120), hereinafter LaChapelle.
In re. claim 4, Newbury as modified by Chan fail to disclose the multi-photon effect detector comprises Silicon.
LaChapelle teaches the multi-photon effect detector comprises Silicon (avalanche photodiode includes silicon) (col. 10, ln. 6-13).
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 Newbury as modified by Chan to incorporate the teachings of LaChapelle to have the multi-photon effect detector comprise Silicon, for the purpose of utilizing known material for producing avalanche-multiplication.
In re. claim 11, Newbury as modified by Chan fail to disclose the gating pulses have a different polarisation state to the returned probe pulses on arrival at the multi-photon effect detector.
LaChapelle teaches the gating pulses have a different polarisation state to the returned probe pulses on arrival at the multi-photon effect detector (polarization of input beam may not be controllable, while the polarization of the local oscillator light is set) (col. 58, ln. 19-29).
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 Newbury as modified by Chan to incorporate the teachings of LaChapelle to have the recited different polarisation states for the purpose of
preventing little to no output of the signal when signals are orthogonally polarized (LaChapelle; col. 58, ln. 50-63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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