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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 2/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1: The term “”at least partially coherent beams” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “partially coherent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what degree of coherence would constitute “partially coherent”, so for the purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted to recite: “…one or more encoded and coherent beams which…”.
Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites that “the delay module comprises a code delay module”, but it is unclear whether the recitation of “the delay module” was intended to refer to the “variable delay module” recited by claim 1, or if it was meant to introduce a new delay module. This is being interpreted to refer to the “variable delay module”.
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites that “the delay module comprises…” and it is unclear whether this recitation of “the delay module” was intended to refer to “the variable delay module” recited by claim 1, or if it was meant to introduce a new delay module. This is being interpreted to refer to the “variable delay module”.
All other claims are dependent on claim 1, and are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhi (CN 110794421 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Zhi discloses a coherence reconstruction apparatus in communication with a CBC system which illuminates a target with one or more encoded and at least partially coherent beams which propagate through a turbulent atmosphere (Figs. 1 and 2. [0008] – [0009]), the apparatus comprising:
a variable delay module which receives a seed laser reference signal from the CBC system and a target TOF measurement (Fig. 1, detectors 10, ADC 12, and computer 14, which receive the reference signal and the TOF measurement signal); and
a phase shift interferometer which receives a target reflected optical signal from the CBC system (Fig. 1, interferometer 8);
wherein the variable delay module generates a delayed reference optical signal which is coded (Fig. 1, computer 14 is connected to the encoder trigger 15, waveform generator 17, and waveform encoder 18, and ADC 12 and [0058] – [0059]. Figs 2 and 3);
the PSI combines the target reflected optical signal with the delayed reference optical signal to form an interference pattern (Fig. 1 and [0059]); and
the PSI determines at least one turbulence phase correction measurement from the interference pattern ([0048]).
Regarding Claim 2: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the delayed reference optical signal comprises at least a portion of a binary phase code and/or a poly phase code modulation (Fig. 2. [0047], [0073] – [0074]).
Regarding Claim 3: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the binary phase code modulation is a PRBS modulation (Fig. 2. [0073] – [0074]).
Regarding Claim 5: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein a clock frequency of the code modulation is at least one GHz ([0048] modulation reaches GHz level).
Regarding Claim 6: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interferometer comprises one or more photodetectors (Fig. 1, the mixed signal is detected by photodetectors 10).
Regarding Claim 7: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interferometer comprises a photodiode array (Fig. 1, the mixed signal is detected by two photodetectors 10, forming 2 x 1 array).
Regarding Claim 8: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target reflected optical signal is provided by a receiver in the CBC system (Fig. 1, optical telescope 7 receives light).
Regarding Claim 9: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller which transmits a turbulence correction feedback signal to the CBC system ([0059] and [0063] - [0073] Fig. 1, computer 14 which receives signal from photodetectors 10, with the signal from encoder 16 being sent back to detector 19 and is fed back to computer 14).
Regarding Claim 11: Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the seed laser reference signal is encoded (Fig. 1, the phase modulator 3 encodes the signal with the encoder 16 + 17 + 18 before it is sent to interferometer 8 as reference signal).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi (CN 110794421 A) in view of Sankar (US 9759810 B1). Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Zhi does not disclose that the reference optical signal is a poly phase code modulation and where the polyphase code modulation is a generalized Barker code or a Frank code.
However, Sankar teaches a high resolution imaging system that encodes its signals using a partially randomized polyphase code, where the polyphase code waveform can include a Barker code waveform (Col. 5, lines 61-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal encoding disclosed by Zhi, such that the signal is encoded with a polyphase code, such as a generalized Barker code, as taught by Sankar. This would be using the known technique of encoding signals with polyphase codes (rather than binary codes), to improve a similar imaging device in the same way (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale C).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi (CN 110794421 A) in view of Chen (US 20200249351 A1). Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller which transmits tuning signals to the variable delay module (Fig. 1, computer 14).
Zhi does not disclose that the signals are dynamically transmitted.
Chen teaches a high definition lidar device that mitigates the effect of unwanted signals (Figs. 1 and 2), where the phase of the reference laser signal is dynamically adjusted in response to the signals detected by the coherent receiver ([0022] and Fig. 2, with phase shifters 314 and 315).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal transmission for tuning the beam as disclosed by Zhi, such that it is dynamically adjusted, as taught by Chen. This would be applying the known technique of dynamically adjusting the reference signal in a lidar system, as taught by Chen, to the known apparatus disclosed by Zhi, to yield predictable results (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi (CN 110794421 A) in view of Crouch (US 20200142068 A1). Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but does not disclose that the seed laser reference signal is not encoded and the delay module comprises a code delay module.
Crouch teaches a coherent lidar system where the seed laser reference signal is not encoded and the delay module comprises a code delay module (Fig. 2A and [0073] the reference signal 207a is unmodulated and is separately modulated by modulator 282b).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Zhi, such that the reference laser signal is separately modulated, as taught by Crouch. This modification is a predictable variation of a lidar system that uses phase modulation to improve accuracy of distance measurements, where the reference signal is separately modulated. This modification would be motivated by design incentives or other market forces (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi (CN 110794421 A) in view of Yao (US 20200247401 A1). Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose that the TOF measurement is provided by a target range tracker and/or a target in the loop tracking system.
Yao teaches a lidar system that performs distance measurements with a target range tracker ([0035] target tracking system can estimate/predict the position, velocity, and acceleration of a target based on the measured position).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Zhi, such that the time of flight measurement is performed by an apparatus that also tracks the target, as taught by Yao. This would be beneficial because it would allow the vehicle to be operated autonomously. By tracking the target and predicting its position/trajectory, collisions with tracked objects can be avoided (Yao, [0011]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi (CN 110794421 A) in view of Newbury (US 20110285980 A1). Zhi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not expressly teach that the delay module comprises an EIT medium and/or a pump laser.
Newbury teaches a coherent lidar system where the delay module comprises a pump laser ([0024] and Fig. 1, pump laser 26).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delay module disclosed by Zhi, such that there is also a pump laser that tunes the signal, as taught by Newbury. This would be applying the known technique of using a pump laser to tune a reference optical signal, as taught by Newbury, to the known device disclosed by Zhi, to yield predictable results (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barchers (US 8575528 B1): a coherent imaging system that uses phase correction for measuring and correcting aberrations in a detected beam
Zuraski (US 20210239880 A1): a lidar system that measures and mitigates the undesired effects of atmospheric turbulence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights