DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4-6 do not show the labelings for x- and y-axis. In other words, what do the x- and y-axis represent? Do they represent time, pressure, etc.? Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment and argument.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0247502 (hereinafter Kim) in view of Niigaki et al., US-PGPUB 2025/0068002 (hereinafter Niigaki)
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 18. Kim discloses delaying transmission of a pulse of light (Fig. 7, Paragraph [0142]-[0143]) based on a fine resolution of a device (Paragraph [0023], delay at higher resolution);
detecting a signal based on a reflected portion of the pulse of light (Paragraphs [0049], pulsed; [0051]-[0052]; Fig. 7);
determining a coarse time (Paragraph [0136], coarse time) and a fine time of the signal (Paragraph [0152], fine time); and
determining a readout based on the coarse time (Paragraph [0107]-[0108], output based on coarse mode), and the fine time (Paragraphs [0116]-[0117], output based on fine mode; Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs [0005]-[0006], readout; Paragraph [0018], [0026], output)
Kim does not disclose dividing a cycle of light pulses into a number of parts, delaying transmission of a pulse of light of the cycle of light pulses based on a multiple of a fine resolution of a device that corresponds to a part of the number of parts associated with the pulse of light.
Niigaki discloses dividing a cycle of light pulses into a number of parts, delaying transmission of a pulse of light of the cycle of light pulses based on a multiple of a fine resolution of a device that corresponds to a part of the number of parts associated with the pulse of light (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10 and 14; Paragraphs [0003]-[0008], lidar; Paragraphs [0038]-[0043]; [0058], [0076], finer resolution corresponding to the number of optical fibers, which is same as number of wavelength components, as compared to single fiber case)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Niigaki in Kim and divide a cycle of light pulses into a number of parts, delay transmission of a pulse of light of the cycle of light pulses based on a multiple of a fine resolution of a device that corresponds to a part of the number of parts associated with the pulse of light, so as to improve resolution with effective dispersion compensation.
Regarding Claims 2, 12 and 19. Niigaki discloses the number of parts is inversely proportional to the fine resolution, and the cycle of light pulses includes the pulse of light (Paragraphs [0038]-[0043]; [0058], [0076], better or finer resolution corresponding to the number of optical fibers, which is same as number of wavelength components, as compared to single fiber)
Regarding Claims 3, 13 and 20. Niigaki discloses the number of parts is based on a quotient of a coarse resolution of the device divided by the fine resolution (Paragraphs [0038]-[0043]; [0058], [0076], based on difference in resolution from single fiber to multiple fibers)
Regarding Claims 4 and 14. Niigaki discloses the multiple of the fine resolution comprises one of a set of progressive fine-resolution delay offsets respectively associated with the number of parts that corresponds to a part of the number of parts that is associated with the pulse of light (Fig. 1, Dispersion Compensation Unit, 6; Paragraph [0042]-[0043])
Regarding Claims 5 and 15. Kim discloses assigning a bin value to the signal based on the readout and the fine resolution (Paragraphs [0065]-[0073], histogram bin and unique number; Paragraphs [0082]-[0083], in the fine mode)
Regarding Claims 6. Kim discloses recording the bin value in a histogram (Paragraphs [0065]-[0073], histogram bin and unique number)
Regarding Claims 7. Kim discloses the bin value indicates a time of flight of the pulse of light (Paragraph [0062], TOF; Abstract)
Regarding Claims 8 and 16. Kim discloses the bin value is based on subtracting a multiple of the fine resolution from the readout (Fig. 8; Paragraph [0065]; Paragraphs [0149]-[0151], identifying bin 12, while eliminating or subtracting other bins that are below VRef)
Regarding Claims 9 and 17. Kim discloses the multiple of the fine resolution corresponds to one part of the number of parts (Fig. 8)
Regarding Claims 10. Kim discloses the coarse time is based on a coarse resolution (Paragraphs [0136], [0023]) and the fine time is based on the fine resolution (Paragraphs [0152], [0023]), the fine resolution being based on a delay-locked loop of the device (Paragraphs [0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights