CTNF 18/474,393 CTNF 80738 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “light” is missing after the word “laser”. (For the claim to make sense, it is the laser light that is scattered) . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Specifically, the clause “laser means” in claim 18 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Banerjee et al. (US 2022/0326357) . Banerjee discloses a LIDAR system comprising (see Fig. 2): A photonic integrated circuit (PIC 100) die comprising a laser (400) that produces frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light (paragraphs [0034] and [0038]; and Control circuitry to control the laser (controller, which may be an application specific integrated circuit, para. [0050].) Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-17 are allowed. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 1-6, the closest art, Gong et al. (US 2024/0421560), discloses a LIDAR system with a first laser and a second laser; and control circuitry to select the first laser for output, and output a frequency-modulated signal; select the second laser for output, and output a frequency-modulated signal. However, the prior art does not further disclose or make obvious, changing a frequency of the second laser while the first laser is selected for output, nor changing a frequency of the first laser while the second laser is selected for output. Regarding claims 7-17, the closest prior art, Banerjee et al. (US 2022/0326357), discloses a photonic integrated circuit comprising a first laser comprising a first Bragg grating reflector and a first phase shifter optically coupled to the first Bragg grating reflector. However, the prior art does not further disclose or make obvious, in addition to the above, a second laser comprising a second Bragg grating reflector; a third phase shifter optically coupled to the second Bragg grating reflector; and a fourth phase shifter optically coupled to the second Bragg grating reflector; and a switch to select between the first laser and the second laser. Regarding claims 19-20, Banerjee et al. do not further disclose a second laser on the photonic integrated circuit being an extended cavity laser, and comprising: a second Bragg grating reflector; a third phase shifter optically coupled to the second Bragg grating reflector; and a fourth phase shifter optically coupled to the second Bragg grating reflector. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14) . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed on Jan. 9, 2025 and Nov. 2, 2023 have been considered by the Examiner. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Canoglu et al. disclose a switchable array of lasers in an FMCW Lidar system . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm. 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 on 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. /ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/474,393 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/474,393 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/474,393 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/474,393 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/474,393 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/474,393 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights