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. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 5, it requires the received light to be received and converted into an electrical signal at two different detectors. This seems impossible and it appears that the claim is primarily supported by FIGS. 11 and 12 and the text at [0097] instead describes using a channel demultiplexer 92, which splits the received light based on frequency resulting in different components of the received light going to each of first balanced detector 81 and second balanced detector 82. Amending claim 5 to describe only first and second components of the received light or first and second portion of the received light going to respective balanced detectors would overcome this rejection. Regarding Claim 6, it is rejected for depending from a rejected base claim, claim 5. 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. Claim s 1- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Coherent lidar modulated with frequency stepped pulse trains for unambiguous high duty cycle range and velocity sensing in the atmosphere” (hereinafter Lindel ö w ) . Regarding Claim 1, Lindel ö w 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 show ing 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 divides a frequency difference between the local oscillator light and the received light by the frequency difference F , and determines a frequency difference corresponding to a remainder or a shortage as a Doppler frequency. Lindel ö w teaches a direct measurement of the doppler frequency ( see eq(5) on p2788) by subtracting the local oscillator signal, (i-1) Δ f , from the received light f peak . While Lindel ö w 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 Lindel ö w , amounting to a simple substitution of functionally equivalent equations, see MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding Claim 2, Lindel ö w 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 Lindelow , the range stated by Lindelow 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, Lindel ö w 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, Lindel ö w 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) . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20060203224 (hereinafter Sebastian) in view of US PG PUB 20190086517 (hereinafter Puglia) and further in view of Kadlec et al, “Coherent Lidar for Autonomous Vehicle Applications ” (hereinafter Kadlec) and further in view of US PG PUB 20200049804 (hereinafter Haraguchi ) . 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, [004 1 ] 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 and the second 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 balanced detector ( 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 balanced detector ( 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 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, 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 describ es 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 . Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian in view of Puglia and further in view of Kadlec and further in view of Haraguchi as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US PG PUB 20060011840 (hereinafter Bryce). Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Sebastian , Puglia, Kadlec and Haraguchi teach the laser radar device according to claim 5, however the combination fails to teach the remainder of claim 6. 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)) . 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Coherent lidar modulated with frequency stepped pulse trains for unambiguous high duty cycle range and velocity sensing in the atmosphere” (hereinafter Lindel ö w ) . Regarding Claim 7, Lindel ö w 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 is divided by the frequency difference F, and a frequency difference corresponding to a remainder or a shortage is determined as a Doppler frequency fd . Lindel ö w teaches a direct measurement of the doppler frequency ( see eq(5) on p2788) by subtracting the local oscillator signal, (i-1) Δ f , from the received light f peak . While Lindel ö w 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 Lindel ö w , amounting to a simple substitution of functionally equivalent equations, see MPEP 2143(I)(B) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4208 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 :30am to 7 :00pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Helal Algahaim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645