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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
This acknowledges that as of the date of this office action, no Information Disclosure Statement has been submitted by the applicant.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 17-14, 16-20 are currently pending.
Independent claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 and dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12, 17 and 20 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 30 March 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Claims 6 and 15 have been canceled, and therefore the prior rejections is/are moot.
Prior objections of the drawings have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Prior objections of the specification have been either been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn, or withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments as discussed below.
Prior objections of claims 3, 8, 12, 17 and 20 have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Prior rejections of claims 8, 17 and 20 under USC § 112(b) have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 12-13, filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references found in response to submitted amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments which cite that the cited prior art (Maiellaro, US 20180188317 A1) is directed to a RADAR built in self-test system, and the amended claims introduce limitations specifically directed to a LIDAR system and LIDAR components, such as an optical emitter (laser diode), where a phase-locked loop (PLL) forms a feedback signal to control the laser diode. The rejections have been updated to reference newly cited prior art, where a PLL of a LIDAR system uses a feedback signal to control a laser emitter within the system.
Examiner also thanks the applicant for the explanation of the white spaces within the specification. As noted above, the objections have been withdrawn.
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) 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiellaro et al. (hereinafter Maiellaro, US 20180188317 A1) in view of Hu et al. (hereinafter Hu, US 20210328402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maiellaro teaches a control system, comprising:
circuitry to produce a phase locked loop ([00019]), the phase locked loop comprising:
one or more integrated electronics components ([0036], [0050], [0069]; Figs. 1, 3, 4 include electronic components such as frequency synthesizer (12), VGA(30), and loop filter (322d));
and an electronic circuit coupled to the one or more integrated electronics components, the electronic circuit to ([0050], [0069], [0095]; Figs. 3, 4 show embodiments of RF test signal generator (32) which include circuit components such as a VCO (222, 320a) or delay (322));
receive an input signal from the one or more integrated electronics components ([0095], [0107]; Figs. 3, 4 RF test signal generator (32) components receive signals from frequency generator (120) or other components for testing);
and produce a feedback signal to simulate operation of one or more photonics components to test operation of the integrated electronic components of the phase locked loop ([0045] - [0048]; test signals generated by BIST architectures simulate an echo signal from the radar sensor by generation of a test signal).
Hu teaches systems related to phase locked loops (PLLs), where a PLL may be utilized in a LIDAR system which operates on the concepts of frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW), wherein
where the PLL is configured to control a laser diode in a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0048], [0049], [0064], [0067]; Fig. 5, where the PLL is used to control a laser source (12) within a LIDAR FMCW system, where the PLL may provide a feedback signal such as phase or current modulation signals.),
and where integrated electronic components are configured to generate a drive signal for the laser diode, wherein the at least one of the one or more integrated electronic components comprises a digital time-to-digital converter (TDC) or a digital integrator ([0078] - [0080]; where the feedback signal to the laser control is digitized and based on a converted analog signal representative of the phase error, and where a TDC is a standard component in LIDAR for generating the precise phase and frequency error between two signals).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Maiellaro to incorporate the teachings of Hu to incorporate the BIST/self-test system of Maiellaro into a LIDAR system, where a phase-locked loop’s feedback signal is utilized to test components and drive an optical source with a reasonable expectation of success. As would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, the RADAR system of Maiellaro and the LIDAR system of Hu, and while the two systems differ by wavelength and some required components, both utilize photonics components and on many of the same principles to determine object ranges and velocities. This would mean two systems operating on FMCW with phase-locked loops (PLLs) will behave predictably, with respect to one another, for ranging and object tracking/detection. The concepts of LIDAR are based on RADAR principles, and therefore a RADAR system which utilizes frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) principles will teach many functions of a LIDAR FMCW system, and the LIDAR systems would integrate systems such as a built in self-test (BIST) system as taught by Maiellaro where PLL feedback signals may be used to test integrated circuitry as well as drive a laser source via a myriad of uses and types of feedback signals as taught by Hu ([0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein
the electronic circuit comprises at least a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) and a differentiator ([0050], [0077], [0096]; Figs. 3, 4 show embodiments of RF test signal generator (32) which include circuit components such as a VCO (222, 320a), and delay (322)).
Regarding claim 4, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein
the electronic circuit comprises at least a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO), a time delay, and quadrature processing ([0050], [0077], [0096]; Figs. 3, 4 show embodiments of RF test signal generator (32) which include circuit components such as a VCO (222, 320a), delay (322) and comparator (320b)).
Regarding claim 7, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 1, wherein
the electronic circuit operates to validate functionality of the one or more integrated electronic components ([0001], [0044], [0107] - [0117]; the BIST generates an RF test signal to simulate a transmitted signal, where the amplitude, frequency and phase of the IF output signal may be rendered accurate for use in monitoring integrated circuits, calibration or auto-diagnostics).
Regarding claim 8, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 1, further comprising:
Validating functionality of the one or more integrated electronic components based on the feedback signal from the electronic circuit ([0100], [0121] - [0123]; where the BIST may be disabled during normal operation and operation returned to physical emission components instead of outputting RF test signal if the integrated circuits are deemed functional.).
Regarding claim 9, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 1, further comprising:
a source that generates a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) beams for determining range and velocity of a target ([0004], [0012]; where a frequency modulated/chirp signal is created and utilized to determine target distances or speeds).
Maiellaro does not teach that the system has an optical emitter (interpreted to mean an emitter with a wavelength in or near the visible spectrum).
Hu teaches systems related to phase locked loops (PLLs), where a PLL may be utilized in a LIDAR system which operates on the concepts of frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW), wherein the system further comprises an optical source ([0005], [0046] - [0049]; Fig. 5, where laser source (12) may emit a frequency modulated signal such as seen in Fig. 2 (prior art)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Maiellaro to incorporate the teachings of Hu to incorporate the BIST/self-test system of Maiellaro into a LIDAR system which may operate on FMCW principles with a reasonable expectation of success. As is known in the art, LIDAR/LADAR and RADAR use the same principles, and both types of systems utilize FMCW principles to determine object ranges and velocities, meaning two systems operating on FMCW with phase-locked loops (PLLs) will behave predictably, with respect to one another, for ranging and object tracking/detection.
Regarding claim 10, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of Claim 1 which similarly teaches the light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system of claim 10; therefore claim 10 is similarly rejected to claim 1.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected to claim 2.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected to claim 4.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected to claim 7.
Claim 17 is similarly rejected to claim 8.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected to claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, Maiellaro as modified above teaches, or renders obvious, a method of operating the control system of Claim 1 and the light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system of claim 10, and therefore is similarly rejected to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising:
validating functionality of the one or more integrated electronic components based on the feedback signal from the electronic circuit ([0001], [0044], [0107] - [0117]; the BIST generates an RF test signal to simulate a transmitted signal, where the amplitude, frequency and phase of the IF output signal may be rendered accurate for use in monitoring integrated circuits, calibration or auto-diagnostics);
and in response to validating the functionality of the one or more integrated electronic components, replacing the electronic circuit with one or more photonics devices ([0100], [0121] - [0123]; where the BIST may be disabled during normal operation and operation returned to physical emission components instead of outputting RF test signal.).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maiellaro et al. (hereinafter Maiellaro, US 20180188317 A1) in view of Hu et al. (hereinafter Hu, US 20210328402 A1) and further in view of Zediker et al. (hereinafter Zediker, US 5847817 A).
Regarding claim 3, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 2, wherein the VCO generates a signal with frequency that is dependent on a voltage produced by the one or more integrated electronic components, the differentiator produces a phase delayed signal from the VCO signal, and an envelope detector produces an output beat frequency from the phase delayed signal and the VCO signal ([0012], [0020], [0095]-[0096], [0101]; where delay (322) creates a delayed version of the signal,
f
R
E
F
from VCO (320a) and comparator (320b) receives
f
R
E
F
and signal from VCO (320a) and compares the frequencies, as shown in Fig. 2, and where amplitude, frequency and phase of the IF signals may be used for calibration).
Maiellaro does not explicitly teach that the delayed signal and signal from the VCO are combined to produce a beat frequency, only that frequency differences are obtained.
Zediker teaches comparing frequencies/ IF (intermediate frequency) signals which may be beat frequencies obtained from combining local oscillator (LO) and returned (or in this case, simulated returned) signals, and that phase drift compensation (for example, one way to check components within a system where phases of two signals are different, such as to create a beat frequency) is used to correct or verify system accuracy (Col. 10 line 62 - Col. 11, line 15).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Maiellaro to incorporate the teachings of Zediker to specifically measure a beat frequency between a delayed test signal and a VCO signal with a reasonable expectation of success. As Zediker notes, these are common features of FMCW systems (Col. 9, line 59 - Col. 10 line 3) and as such integration into the system of Maiellaro would have a predictable result of further allowing for another avenue for self-testing within a ranging system, such as LIDAR or RADAR.
Regarding claim 5, Maiellaro as modified above teaches the control system of claim 4, wherein
the VCO generates a signal with frequency that is dependent on a voltage produced by the one or more integrated electronic components, the time delay produces a phase delayed signal from the VCO signal, and the quadrature processing produces a beat frequency from the phase delayed signal and the VCO signal ([0012], [0020], [0095]-[0096]; where delay (322) creates a delayed version of the signal,
f
R
E
F
from VCO (320a) and comparator (320b) receives
f
R
E
F
and signal from VCO (320a) and compares the frequencies, as shown in Fig. 2, and where amplitude, frequency and phase of the IF signals may be used for calibration).
Maiellaro does not explicitly teach that the delayed signal and signal from the VCO are combined to produce a beat frequency, only that frequency differences are obtained.
Zediker teaches comparing frequencies/ IF (intermediate frequency) signals which may be beat frequencies obtained from combining local oscillator (LO) and returned (or in this case, simulated returned) signals, and that phase drift compensation (for example, one way to check components within a system where phases of two signals are different, such as to create a beat frequency) is used to correct or verify system accuracy (Col. 10 line 62 - Col. 11, line 15).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Maiellaro to incorporate the teachings of Zediker to specifically measure a beat frequency between a delayed test signal and a VCO signal with a reasonable expectation of success. As Zediker notes, these are common features of FMCW systems (Col. 9, line 59 - Col. 10 line 3) and as such integration into the system of Maiellaro would have a predictable result of further allowing for another avenue for self-testing within a ranging system, such as LIDAR or RADAR.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected to claim 3.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights