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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s arguments/remarks dated 02/16/2026 have been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1,8,12, 13, 16, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994).
Regarding Claim 1, broadly interpreted, Thorpe discloses a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 2), comprising:
an optical source to generate an optical beam at a chirp rate based on a control signal (chirped laser 202/204 (with actuator 104/108 and source 106/110) generates a frequency chirped optical beam. The actuator receives an actuator/control signal(from the feedback loop/combiner) to produce the desired chirp rate, Fig. 2);
a receiver to capture at least a portion of the optical beam and generates a beat frequency based on the chirp rate (photodetector224/234 captures light from the reference interferometer 210 producing an interference signal whose frequency (beat frequency) is proportional to the chirp rate x delay) (this beat encodes the chirp characteristics for feedback (Note the main target receiver path is separate but analogues);
mixer circuitry to produce a frequency difference value between the beat frequency and a reference frequency (phase detector 226/236 (implemented as mixers/frequency detectors in examples)compares the beat/interference signals frequency/phase from the photodetector to a reference RF signal (from RF frequency source 246/248) This produces an error signal representing the frequency/phase difference), Explicitly in para. [0065], “phase detectors…may be implemented using one or more mixers”); and
combination circuitry to combine the frequency difference value with an offset voltage to generate an adjusted control signal, wherein the adjusted control signal is configured to minimize the frequency difference value to maintain the chirp rate (combiner 232/242 (e.g. summer) combines the filtered error signal (from servo filter 228/238 derived from frequency difference) with the ramp generator 230/240 output (nominal ramp/offset waveform providing the base chirp control voltage). This produces the adjusted actuator/control signal applied back to the laser actuator. The closed loop feedback phase detector [Wingdings font/0xE0] servo filter [Wingdings font/0xE0] combiner) minimizes the error/frequency difference to linearize and maintain the desired chirp rate, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, broadly interpreted, Thorpe discloses a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 2)wherein electro optical circuitry comprises the receiver, the mixer circuitry, and the combination circuitry to produce a phase locked loop (PLL) that maintains the chirp rate at the reference frequency (Fig. 2; para. [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, broadly interpreted, Thorpe discloses a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 2)wherein an optical driver (104, Fig. 1) comprises the electro optical circuitry (para. [0035], Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, broadly interpreted, Thorpe discloses a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 2) wherein the receiver comprises an interferometer and a photo detector (photodetector 224/234 captures light from the reference interferometer 210; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, broadly interpreted, Thorpe discloses a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 2) wherein an integrated circuit (Fig. 2) comprises the mixer circuitry (para. [0065], “phase detectors…may be implemented using one or more mixers”) and the combination circuitry(combiner 232/242 (e.g. summer) combines the filtered error signal (from servo filter 228/238 derived from frequency difference), Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, broadly interpreted, Thorpe discloses a method of operating a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 2)), comprising:
producing, by an optical source, an optical beam at a chirp rate based on a control signal(chirped laser 202/204 (with actuator 104/108 and source 106/110) generates a frequency chirped optical beam. The actuator receives an actuator/control signal(from the feedback loop/combiner) to produce the desired chirp rate, Fig. 2);
capturing, by a receiver, at least a portion of the optical beam generated by the optical source(photodetector 224/234 captures light from the reference interferometer 210 producing an interference signal whose frequency (beat frequency) is proportional to the chirp rate x delay) (this beat encodes the chirp characteristics for feedback (Note the main target receiver path is separate but analogues);
generating a beat frequency based on the chirp rate responsive to capturing the at least portion of the optical beam (Fig. 2);
calculating a frequency difference value between the beat frequency and a reference frequency(phase detector 226/236 (implemented as mixers/frequency detectors in examples)compares the beat/interference signals frequency/phase from the photodetector to a reference RF signal (from RF frequency source 246/248) This produces an error signal representing the frequency/phase difference), Explicitly in para. [0065], “phase detectors…may be implemented using one or more mixers”, Fig. 2); and
combining the difference value with an offset voltage to generate an adjusted control signal, wherein the adjusted control signal is configured to minimize the difference value to maintain the chirp rate (combiner 232/242 (e.g. summer) combines the filtered error signal (from servo filter 228/238 derived from frequency difference) with the ramp generator 230/240 output (nominal ramp/offset waveform providing the base chirp control voltage). This produces the adjusted actuator/control signal applied back to the laser actuator. The closed loop feedback phase detector [Wingdings font/0xE0] servo filter [Wingdings font/0xE0] combiner) minimizes the error/frequency difference to linearize and maintain the desired chirp rate, Fig. 2).
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) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Bradford et al. (US 2020/0271784).
Regarding Claim 4, broadly interpreted, Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Bradford teaches a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, para. [0039]) wherein the electro optical circuitry further comprises: a digital to analog (DAC) converter (106, Fig. 1; para. [0042], “…the digital control signals may be converted to analog signals through signal conversion unit 106. For example, the signal conversion unit 106 may include a digital-to-analog converter…’) to provide the offset voltage to the combination circuitry (functional, 110, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electro optical circuitry of the FMCW LIDAR in Thorpe with a digital to analog (DAC) converter as taught in Bradford with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows translating digital waveforms from a processor into precise analog signals to control lasers and optical modulators. It enables perfect chirp linearization, arbitrary waveform modulation, and active phase control, which are critical for high-resolution distance and velocity measurements.
Regarding Claim 8, broadly interpreted, Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Bradford teaches a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, para. [0039]) wherein the DAC provides an initial offset voltage to the combination circuitry at initialization of the FMCW LIDAR system (Fig. 2, para. [0042]), and wherein the mixer circuitry produces the frequency difference value in response to the provided initial offset voltage (para. [0029]-[0030], [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the digital to analog (DAC) converter in Thorpe with initial offset voltage and the mixer circuitry produces the frequency difference value in response to the provided initial offset voltage as taught in Bradford above with a reasonable expectation of success because it compensates for hardware non-linearities and zero-point errors. This ensures the mixer circuitry instantly produces an accurate, predictable frequency difference value (beat frequency), which eliminates startup latency, enhances ranging accuracy, and prevents receiver saturation.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Puglia et al. (US 2019/0086517).
Regarding Claim 3, broadly interpreted, Thorpe do not explicitly disclose but Puglia teaches a FMCW LIDAR system (para. [0096]) wherein the electro optical circuitry further comprises: a low pass filter (266, 268, Fig. 11, Para. [0098]) coupled to the mixer circuitry (262, 264, Fig. 11, para. [0098]) and the combination circuitry to filter harmonics from passing from the mixer circuitry to the DSPC circuitry (268, Fig. 11) and stabilize the PLL (283, Fig. 11, para. [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FMCW LIDAR of Thorpe with lowpass filter coupled the mixer as taught in Puglia with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows removing high-frequency noise and unwanted signals, allowing only the relevant, lower-frequency beat signals to pass, thus improving signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and enabling accurate detection with less processing power and bandwidth.
Regarding claim 13, broadly interpreted Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Puglia teaches a FMCW LIDAR system (para. [0096]) filtering (via 266, 268, Fig. 11, Para. [0098])a set of harmonics generated from the combining of the difference values.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of FMCW LIDAR of Thorpe with harmonics filtering as taught in Puglia to filter harmonics generated from combining of the difference value with the offset voltage with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows removing high-frequency noise and unwanted signals, allowing only the relevant, lower-frequency beat signals to pass, thus improving signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and enabling accurate detection with less processing power and bandwidth.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Creed et al. (US 6664826).
Regarding Claim 5, broadly interpreted, Thorpe do not explicitly disclose but Creed teaches a controller (col. 7, lines 5-15) controls the DAC (digital-to-analog (D/A) converter, col. 7, line 8) to produce a value of the offset voltage (VOFF, col. 7, line 6-8) based on a lookup table (col. 7, line 9, ‘offset-voltage look-up table (LUT)’). Greed also suggests that the lookup table The LUT would be generated based on the known characteristics of the VCO 302 (col. 7, line 10-11)i.e. can be a list of historical average values).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FMCW LIDAR controller of Thorpe with DAC controller as taught in Creed above with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows enhanced accuracy through dynamic compensation.
Regarding Claim 6, broadly interpreted, modified Thorpe discloses a FMCW LIDAR system wherein the controller controls the DAC to produce a level of the offset voltage based on the beat frequency (Creed, col. 7, lines 5-9, ‘…V.sub.OFF may be generated by a central processing unit (CPU) that controls a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. The CPU control could be based on a frequency, offset-voltage look-up table (LUT)….’). In the modified Thorpe the offset voltage would be based on beat frequency.
Regarding Claim 7, broadly interpreted, modified Thorpe discloses a FMCW LIDAR system wherein the controller dynamically adjusts the offset voltage in real-time during operation of the FMCW LIDAR system ((Thorpe, a combiner 232/242 (e.g. summer) combines and adjusts the filtered error signal (from servo filter 228/238 derived from frequency difference) via feedback circuit in real time, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Puglia et al. (US 2019/0086517).
Regarding Claim 14, broadly interpreted, modified Thorpe do not explicitly disclose but Creed teaches a controller (col. 7, lines 5-15) comprising: controlling, by a controller(col. 7, lines 5-15), a digital to analog converter (DAC) (digital-to-analog (D/A) converter, col. 7, line 8) to produce a level of the offset voltage(VOFF, col. 7, line 6-8) based on a lookup table(col. 7, line 9, ‘offset-voltage look-up table (LUT)’). Greed also suggests that the lookup table The LUT would be generated based on the known characteristics of the VCO 302 (col. 7, line 10-11)i.e. can be a list of historical average values).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FMCW LIDAR controller method of modified Thorpe with DAC controller method as taught in Creed above with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows enhanced accuracy through dynamic compensation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Creed et al. (US 6664826).
Regarding Claim 15, broadly interpreted, modified Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Creed teaches a controller (col. 7, lines 5-15) controlling the DAC (digital-to-analog (D/A) converter, col. 7, line 8) to produce a value of the offset voltage (VOFF, col. 7, line 6-8) and controlling a digital to analog converter (DAC) to produce a value of the offset voltage based on the beat frequency(Creed, col. 7, lines 5-9, ‘…V.sub.OFF may be generated by a central processing unit (CPU) that controls a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. The CPU control could be based on a frequency, offset-voltage look-up table (LUT)…’). In the modified Bradford the offset voltage would be based on beat frequency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of FMCW LIDAR of modified Thorpe with DAC controller as taught in Creed with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows real-time adjustments to counter laser drift, improve accuracy, reduce noise, and simplify complex hardware, leading to better target ranging and detection by precisely shifting the operating point of the laser's beat frequency.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Okano et al. (US 2022/0334260).
Regarding Claim 16, broadly interpreted Thorpe discloses frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system(Fig. 2), the FMCW LIDAR system comprising:
an optical source(202/204, Fig. 2) to transmit a plurality of optical beams towards a target;
a processor/system (128, Fig. 1) configured to:
produce, by the optical source, the optical beam at a chirp rate based on a control signal(chirped laser 202/204 (with actuator 104/108 and source 106/110) generates a frequency chirped optical beam. The actuator receives an actuator/control signal(from the feedback loop/combiner) to produce the desired chirp rate, Fig. 2);
generate a beat frequency based on the chirp rate in response to capturing at least a portion of the optical beam(via photodetector224/234 captures light from the reference interferometer 210 producing an interference signal whose frequency (beat frequency) is proportional to the chirp rate x delay) (this beat encodes the chirp characteristics for feedback (Note the main target receiver path is separate but analogues);
calculate a difference value between the beat frequency and a reference frequency(via phase detector 226/236 (implemented as mixers/frequency detectors in examples)compares the beat/interference signals frequency/phase from the photodetector to a reference RF signal (from RF frequency source 246/248) This produces an error signal representing the frequency/phase difference), Explicitly in para. [0065], “phase detectors…may be implemented using one or more mixers”); and
adjust the control signal by combining the difference value with an offset voltage, wherein the adjusted control signal is configured to minimize the difference value to maintain the chirp rate(via a combiner 232/242 (e.g. summer) combines the filtered error signal (from servo filter 228/238 derived from frequency difference) with the ramp generator 230/240 output (nominal ramp/offset waveform providing the base chirp control voltage). This produces the adjusted actuator/control signal applied back to the laser actuator. The closed loop feedback phase detector [Wingdings font/0xE0] servo filter [Wingdings font/0xE0] combiner) minimizes the error/frequency difference to linearize and maintain the desired chirp rate, Fig. 2).
Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Okano teaches a LIDAR system (Fig. 1) comprising a
a memory (182 Fig. 1) to store a set of instructions; and
a processor (181, Fig. 1) coupled to the memory that, when executing the set of instructions, is configured to perform LiDAR processes or functions (para. [0036, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FMCW LIDAR system of Thorpe with memory and a processor coupled to the memory as taught in Okano above with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows flexibility, efficiency, faster processing (FFT acceleration), and advanced compensation (learning corrections), reduced hardware, and real-time performance for complex tasks like autonomous driving avoiding use of external memory.
Regarding Claim 20, broadly interpreted Thorpe discloses frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system(Fig. 2) wherein the processor is configured to dynamically adjusts the offset voltage in real-time during operation of the FMCW LIDAR system (a combiner 232/242 (e.g. summer) combines and adjusts the filtered error signal (from servo filter 228/238 derived from frequency difference) via feedback circuit in real time, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Puglia et al. (US 2019/0086517).
Regarding claim 17, broadly interpreted modified Thorpe do not explicitly disclose but Puglia teaches a FMCW LIDAR system (para. [0096]) wherein the processor (268, Fig. 11) is configured to filter (via 266, 268, Fig. 11, Para. [0098]) a set of harmonics generated from the combining of the difference values.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor in the FMCW LIDAR of modified Thorpe with processor with harmonics filtering as taught in Puglia to filter harmonics generated from combining of the difference value with the offset voltage with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows removing high-frequency noise and unwanted signals, allowing only the relevant, lower-frequency beat signals to pass, thus improving signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and enabling accurate detection with less processing power and bandwidth.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Thorpe al. (US2020/0011994) in view of Creed et al. (US 6664826).
Regarding Claim 18, broadly interpreted, modified Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Creed teaches a processor(col. 7, lines 5-15) controls the DAC (digital-to-analog (D/A) converter, col. 7, line 8) to produce a value of the offset voltage (VOFF, col. 7, line 6-8) based on a lookup table (col. 7, line 9, ‘offset-voltage look-up table (LUT)’). Creed also suggests that the lookup table The LUT would be generated based on the known characteristics of the VCO 302 (col. 7, line 10-11)i.e. can be a list of historical average values).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FMCW LIDAR controller of modified Thorpe with DAC processor/controller as taught in Creed above with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows enhanced accuracy through dynamic compensation.
Regarding Claim 19, broadly interpreted, modified Thorpe do not explicitly disclose, but Creed teaches a processor(col. 7, lines 5-15) controls the DAC (digital-to-analog (D/A) converter, col. 7, line 8) to produce a value of the offset voltage (VOFF, col. 7, line 6-8) wherein the processor controls the DAC to produce a level of the offset voltage based on the beat frequency (col. 7, lines 5-9, ‘…V.sub.OFF may be generated by a central processing unit (CPU) that controls a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. The CPU control could be based on a frequency, offset-voltage look-up table (LUT)….’). In the modified Bradford the offset voltage would be based on beat frequency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FMCW LIDAR controller of modified Thorpe with DAC processor/controller as taught in Creed above with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows enhanced accuracy through dynamic compensation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, and 16 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights