DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 5 overcome the 35 USC 112(a) grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the substantive rejections of claims 1, 5 and 7 filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Applicant argues that the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner’s statement on its own that the claimed equation was functionally equivalent to the direct measurement taught by the Lindelöw reference was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The instant application and the Lindelöw reference both describe the measurement of doppler shift using a frequency stepped pulse trains (FSPT) LIDAR to identify atmospheric wind velocity. Lindelöw on lines 3 and 4 of column 2 of p 2788 describes peak frequency as the difference between the reflected signal and the reference signal, which Lindelöw shows on line 4 works out to the frequency step + the doppler frequency shift. Equation (5) of Lindelöw teaches how the doppler frequency can be determined by subtracting the step frequency from the peak frequency. The first paragraph of the first column of p2788 of Lindelöw also describes how the step frequency should be larger than plausible variations in doppler frequency.
Claim 1, just like Lindelöw, claims calculating doppler frequency by taking the frequency difference between the reflected signal and the reference signal, but instead of subtracting the frequency step as taught be Lindelöw, this difference is divided by the frequency step and the instant application tells us that the remainder of this operation is the doppler frequency. Since Lindelöw teaches that the frequency step is larger than the doppler frequency, taking the remainder of the division results in the same result as the teachings of Lindelöw. This is shown below to provide additional clarity.
Lindelöw teaches:
Doppler Frequency = Frequency Step + Doppler Frequency – Frequency Step
Where Frequency Step > Doppler Frequency
Instant Application teaches:
D
o
p
p
l
e
r
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
=
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
S
t
e
p
+
D
o
p
p
l
e
r
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
S
t
e
p
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
S
t
e
p
1
R
e
m
.
D
o
p
p
l
e
r
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
|
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
S
t
e
p
+
D
o
p
p
l
e
r
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
As shown by the long division above, as long as Doppler frequency is larger than doppler frequency, as taught by Lindelöw, then the answer will be 1 plus the remainder, which is the doppler frequency, which is simply a mathematical rearrangement of operators to accomplish the subtraction of the frequency step that is taught by Lindelöw.
Regarding Claim 5, it was amended to incorporate the limitations of Claim 6 and then amended to describe that the measured concentration corresponds to the continuous or quasi-continuous wave. Since the measurement is already based on the information extrapolated from the received continuous or quasi-continuous wave this claim limitation is not deemed to further limits the scope of the claim 6 as rejected in the previous office action.
Furthermore, while Applicant cited [0055] of Bryce does describe an alternative embodiment in which pulsed-laser/gated-return schemes are employed to define a particular scan volume, Bryce describes a coherent type DIAL system, which would involve using at minimum quasi-continuous wave light as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindelöw (“Coherent Lidar modulated…”, IEEE, 2007).
Regarding Claim 1, Lindelöw teaches a laser radar device comprising:
a Light source (Coherent Laser, see FIG. 3) to oscillate laser light in a continuous-wave manner or a quasi-continuous-wave manner (p2787 column 2 last 4 lines);
a frequency modulator (AOM, see FIG. 3 and p2789 Column 1 Section IV, lines 16-17 ) to apply frequency modulation to the laser light oscillated by the Light source;
a beam splitter (Coupler from FIG. 3, also see FIG. 4 showing alternative LO Path splitting off from the transmission path) to split the laser light modulated by the frequency modulator into transmission light and local oscillator light;
a transmitting and receiving optics system (telescope, see FIG. 4) to transmit the transmission light and to receive light reflected from a target;
a receiver (photodetector, see FIG. 4) to receive the received light and the local oscillator light received by the transmitting and receiving optics system and to convert each of the received light and the local oscillator light into an electrical signal; and
a receiving circuit to process the electrical signal converted by the receiver and to calculate distance information and speed information of the target (represented by FFT block in FIG. 4. This is described in column 2, page 2789, lines 11-13 describing wind velocity and range being extracted following a Fourier transform),
wherein the frequency modulation applied by the frequency modulator is modulation in which a stepwise change in which a frequency increases or decreases by a frequency difference F (see FIG. 1 showing stepwise changes in frequency increases and decreases) for each time width T is performed for at least one step, and
the receiving circuit
Lindelöw teaches a direct measurement of the doppler frequency (see eq(5) on p2788) by subtracting the local oscillator signal, (i-1)Δf , from the received light fpeak. While Lindelöw does not specifically teach division of the difference in frequency by the frequency difference F, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized obtaining the remainder after dividing the difference in frequencies by the frequency difference F, where the frequency difference F is larger than the Doppler shift, to be a functionally equivalent way of directly measuring the doppler frequency shift as taught by Lindelöw, amounting to a simple substitution of functionally equivalent equations, see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 2, Lindelöw teaches the laser radar device according to claim 1, wherein the frequency difference F is larger than twice a Doppler frequency corresponding to a wind speed of 30 [m/s] (p2788 describes keeping the frequency step {i.e. difference} larger than plausible variations in doppler shift. Given the paper focuses on wind speed measurements, a frequency step size larger than twice a Doppler frequency corresponding to a wind speed of 30m/s would be plausible given that wind speeds of up to 142m/s are known to occur for F-5 scale tornados).
Examiner notes that the instant specification provides no explanation as to why the step frequency needs to be twice that of the Doppler frequency shift. [0079] of the instant application states, like Lindelöw, that the step size should be larger than a doppler shift frequency but then provides no explanation what special relationship twice a doppler frequency corresponding to wind of 30m/s has and therefore while the claimed range begins slightly higher than the one proposed in Lindelöw, the range stated by Lindelöw contains the claimed range and is therefore prima facie obvious. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I), Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts and Proportions)
Regarding Claim 3, Lindelöw teaches the laser radar device according to claim 1, wherein modulation in which time is shifted between the transmission light and the local oscillator light can be applied (p2789, col 2, lines 5-6, describes use of a delay or tie shift of the local oscillator line).
Regarding Claim 4, Lindelöw teaches the laser radar device according to claim 1, wherein an offset can be applied to a frequency added to the local oscillator light or the received light (p2789, col 2, lines 5-6, describes use of an AOM to shift the frequency of the local oscillator line).
Regarding Claim 7, Lindelöw teaches a wind measurement method comprising:
oscillating laser light in a continuous-wave manner or a quasi-continuous-wave manner (Coherent Laser, see FIG. 3 & p2787 column 2 last 4 lines);
applying frequency modulation to the laser light (AOM, see FIG. 3 and p2789 Column 1 Section IV, lines 16-17 );
splitting modulated laser light into transmission light and local oscillator light (Coupler from FIG. 3, also see FIG. 4 showing alternative LO Path splitting off from the transmission path);
amplifying the transmission light (EDFA as shown in FIG. 4);
transmitting the amplified transmission light and receiving light reflected from a target as received light (telescope, see FIG. 4);
further receiving the received light and the local oscillator light and converting each of the received light and the local oscillator light into an electrical signal (photodetector, see FIG. 4); and
processing the converted electrical signal and calculating distance information and speed information of the target (represented by FFT block in FIG. 4. This is described at p2789 column 2 lines 11-13, describing wind velocity and range being extracted following a Fourier transform),
wherein the frequency modulation is modulation in which a stepwise change in which a frequency increases or decreases by a frequency difference F for each time width T is performed for at least one step (see FIG. 1 showing stepwise changes in frequency increases and decreases), and
a frequency difference between the local oscillator light and the received light
Lindelöw teaches a direct measurement of the doppler frequency (see eq(5) on p2788) by subtracting the local oscillator signal, (i-1)Δf , from the received light fpeak. While Lindelöw does not specifically teach division of the difference in frequency by the frequency difference F, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized obtaining the remainder after dividing the difference in frequencies by the frequency difference F, where the frequency difference F is larger than the Doppler shift, to be a functionally equivalent way of directly measuring the doppler frequency shift as taught by Lindelöw, amounting to a simple substitution of functionally equivalent equations, see MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian (US 2006/0203224) in view of Puglia (US 2019/0086517), Kadlec (“Coherent Lidar for Autonomous Vehicle Applications”), Haraguchi (US 2020/0049804) and Bryce (US 2006/0011840).
Regarding Claim 5, Sebastian teaches a laser radar device comprising:
a first Light source (laser source 218, see FIG. 2) to oscillate laser light in a continuous-wave manner or a quasi-continuous-wave manner;
a second Light source (laser source 220) to oscillate laser light in a continuous-wave manner or a quasi-continuous-wave manner;
a first frequency modulator (frequency shifting device 318, see [0049] describing how it can be incorporated into laser source 218 and 220) to apply frequency modulation to the laser light oscillated by the first Light source;
a second frequency modulator (frequency shifting device 318, see [0049] describing how it can be incorporated into laser source 218 and 220) to apply frequency modulation to the laser light oscillated by the second Light source;
a first beam splitter (222) to split the laser light modulated by the first frequency modulator into first transmission light (212) and first local oscillator light (242, [0041] describes 222 dividing first laser beam 240 into first target beam 212 and first local oscillator beam 242);
a second beam splitter (224) to split the laser light modulated by the second frequency modulator into second transmission light (214) and second local oscillator light (248, [0043] describes 224 dividing second laser beam 246 into second target beam 214 and second local oscillator beam 248);
an amplifier to amplify the first transmission light ([0059] describes the inclusion of optical elements including those for amplification to the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, but does not specifically teach a single amplifier that amplifies both signals);
a transmitting and receiving optics system (scanning element 257) to transmit the amplified first transmission light and the amplified second transmission light (target beam 252, [0053] describes it including first and second target beam 212/214) and to receive light reflected from a target as received light (reflected light is received at optical member 228);
a first (first detector 410, see FIG. 4) to receive the received light and the first local oscillator light and to convert each of the received light and the first local oscillator light into a first electrical signal;
a second (second detector 412, see FIG. 4) to receive the received light and the second local oscillator light (262) and to convert each of the received light and the second local oscillator light into a second electrical signal (Sebastian is silent as to the type of detector used); and
a receiving circuit (234) to process the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal converted by the first balanced detector (410) and the second balanced detector (412) and to calculate distance information and speed information of the target ([0066] describing combining the frequencies of the first and second frequency sets to determine a range signal and a range rate signal (i.e. doppler frequency) at frequency data combination module 426 of receiving circuit 234),
wherein the frequency modulation applied by the first frequency modulator is modulation in which a
the frequency modulation applied by the second frequency modulator is modulation in which a frequency decreases or increases by the frequency difference F for each time width T, the modulation being reverse to that performed by the first frequency modulator ([0039] describes the first and second target beams 212 and 214 being chirped to create a dual chirp system, which is defined as one in which the chirps are oriented in opposing directions), and
a Doppler frequency fd is obtained by mixing the frequency of the received light for the first transmission light and the frequency of the received light for the second transmission light ([0066] describing combining the frequencies of the first and second frequency sets to determine a range rate signal (i.e. doppler frequency) at frequency data combination module 426).
As indicated by the strike out text above, Sebastian fails to teach (1) using a stepwise frequency modulation; (2) using balanced detectors; and (3) using an amplifier to amplify transmission signals having different frequencies. However, Puglia teaches (1) stepwise frequency modulation of signals using both up and down chirps in the context of FMCW LIDAR (see FIG. 20 of Puglia).
Sebastian and Puglia are both directed to Lidar configurations utilizing frequency modulation. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Sebastian with the stepwise frequency modulation techniques taught by Puglia, since, as Puglia points out in [0145], stepwise modulation can be used to achieve high range-resolution.
As mentioned above, Sebastian is silent as to the type of detector used and so fails to specifically teach the use of balanced detectors. However, page 2 of Kadlec teaches the use of balanced photodetectors in Coherent Lidar.
Kadlec and the combination of Sebastian and Puglia all teach applications for frequency modulated LIDAR applications. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Sebastian and Puglia to include a balanced photodetector. Doing so would have been obvious given that at least as of 2019, prior to submission of the instant application, balanced photodetectors were in active use with coherent lidar systems due to their resilience to interference (taught on page 2 of Kadlec, where it describes how Coherent detection with balanced receivers is especially resilient to interference).
Sebastian also fails to specifically teach the use of a single amplifier to apply amplification to multiple transmission light sources. However, Haraguchi teaches the use of an amplifier 11 as shown in FIG. 1 to amplify multiple modulated signals (2A – 2N) of different wavelength.
Haraguchi and the combination of Sebastian, Puglia and Kadlec both teach frequency modulated lidar configurations configured to output two or more transmissions having different wavelengths. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have modified the combination of Sebastian, Puglia and Kadlec to include an optical amplifier within optical amplifier 228 in accordance with the suggestions of Sebastian at [0059] that additional elements configured to amplify signals can be added. Doing so would allow the signals to be amplified to a desired level just prior to being emitted allowing for lower signal loss for the boosted signal prior to emission. This configuration is also beneficial since it locates this amplifier within a portion of the waveguide that includes both signals, thereby allowing for a reduction in components as only the single amplifier is needed.
The combination of Sebastian, Puglia, Kadlec and Haraguchi fails to teach the limitations added from claim 6 below.
However, Bryce teaches wherein the first Light source emits first laser light having a wavelength controlled to match an absorption line of a gas component to be measured (see Bryce [0052], describing one wavelength sitting at an absorption maximum),
the second Light source emits second laser light having a wavelength different from that of the first Light source (see Bryce [0052], whilst the other wavelength sits at an absorption minima), and
the laser radar device further comprises:
a first gas concentration measurement receiver (detector 54) to receive a component corresponding to the first laser light in the received light; and
a second gas concentration measurement receiver (detector 56) to receive a component corresponding to the second laser light in the received light, and
measures a concentration of the gas component by decomposing the concentration for each distance ([0066] describing a concentration calculation for the gas, sed also eq(1)) corresponding to the continuous-wave or the quasi-continuous-wave.
Bryce and the combination of Sebastian, Puglia, Kadlec and Haraguchi both teach coherent LIDAR configurations in which two emitters are frequency modulated in opposing directions (see Bryce [0052] and Sebastian [0039]). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the combination of Sebastian, Puglia, Kadlec and Haraguchi so that the emitters of the combination output light frequencies corresponding to the absorption maximum and an absorption minima of a desired gas. This would modify the combination to measure the detection of gas concentration in addition to the wind location and velocities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights