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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the single ADC embodiment of Claims 5 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thorpe (US 2020/0278432 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Thorpe discloses a method comprising:
selecting at least two predetermined sampling frequencies different from each other ([0050]: “At least in part because the two frequencies measured by the first and second ADCs (f.sub.ADC1 and f.sub.ADC2) are different it may be possible to determine the “correct” f.sub.beat, and therefore the correct object range, even though f.sub.beat does not fall below the Nyquist frequency of the ADCs.”);
receiving a mixed optical signal comprising a combination of an outgoing LiDAR chirped optical signal and a returning LiDAR chirped optical signal ([0026]: “The transceiver 108 may provide the reflected laser beam to the circulator 106. The circulator 106 may provide the reflected laser beam to the combiner 112. The combiner 112 may combine the local beam and the reflected laser beam to provide a combined beam, which may be directed onto a detector 114. The combined beam detected by the detector 114 may produce an interference signal corresponding to one or more range returns”);
generating from the mixed optical signal an electrical beat signal having a true beat frequency ([0039]: “ When combined at combiner 112, the LO and Rx optical fields may interfere to produce an interference signal, which may also be referred to as a beat note. The beat note may be detected by detector 114 and the detector 114 may provide an electrical signal indicative of the beat note (e.g., a voltage, current, or other electrical signal).”);
sampling the electrical beat signal according to the at least two predetermined sampling frequencies ([0025]: “Examples are provided that use multiple analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) to disambiguate FMCW ladar range returns from one or more targets that may or may not be greater than the Nyquist frequencies of one or more of the ADCs.”), generating respective at least two measured beat frequencies corresponding to the true beat frequency ([0046]); and
receiving said at least two measured beat frequencies and disambiguating the at least two measured beat frequencies, generating a candidate true beat frequency value ([0050]: “At least in part because the two frequencies measured by the first and second ADCs (f.sub.ADC1 and f.sub.ADC2) are different it may be possible to determine the “correct” f.sub.beat, and therefore the correct object range, even though f.sub.beat does not fall below the Nyquist frequency of the ADCs.”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 11, Thorpe further discloses wherein sampling the electrical beat signal comprises sampling in parallel the electrical beat signal from a single chirp segment (Figure 3, 304, The ADCs sample the detector in parallel here; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Thorpe further discloses wherein sampling in parallel ([0044]: “While two digitizers are shown in FIG. 3, any number may be used in other examples, including 3, 4, 5, or 6 digitizers.”) the electrical beat signal comprises, for each predetermined frequency sampling a duplicate of the electrical beat signal from the single chirp segment with a respective ADC (Figure 3, 304, The ADCs sample the detector in parallel here; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 11, Thorpe further discloses wherein disambiguating the at least two measured beat frequencies includes:
shifting each measured beat frequency of the at least two measured beat frequencies by integer multiples of their respective predetermined sampling frequencies generating shifted measured beat frequency values ([0053]: “For a given beat frequency measured by analog to digital converter 302, the possible beat frequencies may be given by f.sub.beat=2*m*N.sub.1+f.sub.ADC1, and f.sub.beat=2 n*N.sub.1−f.sub.ADC1, where m are positive integers starting at zero and n are positive integers starting at one.”); and
determining when the shifted measured beat frequency values coincide with each other within a selected tolerance, generating said candidate true beat frequency value ([0053]: “In some examples, it may be possible for the processor 118 to determine the “correct” beat frequency by determining the common f.sub.beat, from the sets of possible values of f.sub.beat computed from the frequencies measured by analog to digital converter 302 and analog to digital converter 304.“).
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.
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Kee (US 2023/0124956 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 11, Thorpe suggests but does not explicitly teach and Kee teaches wherein sampling the electrical beat signal comprises serially sampling the electrical beat signal from separate similar chirp segments ([0026]: “This integrated circuit may include a ranging receiver (such as a time-of-flight or an amplitude-sensitive ranging receiver) that includes an ADC having a time-variant sampling rate.”; [0026]: “the integrated circuit may include hysteresis in the sampling-rate adjustment, which may maintain an increased sampling rate for a time interval corresponding to the transmit signal (such as a pulse or symbol width, an inter-symbol waveform or, more generally, a coded waveform).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kee to serially sample similar segments into the method of Thorpe. Kee notes in [0027] that “By sampling the return signal using a time-variant sampling rate, these circuit techniques may improve the performance of the ranging receiver. Notably, the time-variant sampling rate may reduce the noise that is sampled by the ranging receiver when the signal return time is long compared to the duration of the transmit signal (such as a long ranges). This may reduce the power consumption of the ranging receiver.” Improved performance and lower power consumption are highly desirable in any LiDAR system.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Thorpe suggests but does not explicitly teach and Kee does teach wherein serially sampling comprises serially sampling ([0026]: “Alternatively or additionally, the sampling rate may be increased based at least in part on a predefined function (such as a closed-form expression or a stepwise function, e.g., a stairstep function) after the transmit signal is output.”) with a single ADC ([0026]: “This integrated circuit may include a ranging receiver (such as a time-of-flight or an amplitude-sensitive ranging receiver) that includes an ADC having a time-variant sampling rate.”; Figure 1, element 124) multiple similar electrical beat signals from said similar chirp segments one after another, at least one similar chirp segment for each predetermined sampling frequency ([0029]: “Notably, the sampling rate of the ADC may be a function of the received signal amplitude and/or a time after a transmit signal or waveform (such as a frequency-modulated continuous-wave or FMCW signal) was output.”; [0039]; The device is intended to sample beat signals in FMCW systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kee to serially sample similar segments into the method of Thorpe. Kee notes in [0027] that “By sampling the return signal using a time-variant sampling rate, these circuit techniques may improve the performance of the ranging receiver. Notably, the time-variant sampling rate may reduce the noise that is sampled by the ranging receiver when the signal return time is long compared to the duration of the transmit signal (such as a long ranges). This may reduce the power consumption of the ranging receiver.” Improved performance and lower power consumption are highly desirable in any LiDAR system.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Druck (US 6,477,553 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from reject Claim 11, Thorpe does not teach and Druck does teach wherein the predetermined sampling frequencies have been selected such that a number of sampling points per sampling time period for each predetermined sampling frequency is a prime number unequal to the number sampling points per sampling time period for every other predetermined sampling frequency (Column 5, Lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Druck to sample at frequencies corresponding to distinct prime numbers into the method of Thorpe. Druck notes in Column 5, Line 52 that “An efficient method is presented for sampling and thereby enabling the recording of, or measurements of objects, which is successful regardless of the irregularity or periodicity of the object.” LiDAR returns are often irregular given the frequent diversity of distances of target objects, so improved measurements of such signals in a desirable characteristic in such a device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Cornic (US 12,436,269 B1).
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 11, Thorpe does not teach and Cornic does teach wherein the predetermined sampling frequencies are selected such that a number of sampling points per sampling time period for each predetermined sampling frequency is coprime with and unequal to the number sampling points per sampling time period for every other predetermined sampling frequency (Column 6, Lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thorpe with the teaching of Cornic to use coprime sampling frequencies. Cornic notes in Column 6, Line 40 that “The measurement of F2 and F3 makes it possible, by known methods, to determine the unambiguous value of Fd corresponding to the relative radial speed between the carrier and the target.” Unambiguous determination of relative speed between a LiDAR device and a target is highly desirable to end users, and promotes safer behavior of vehicles and users.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe.
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 11, Thorpe further discloses wherein the predetermined sampling frequencies are selected such that a number of sampling points per sampling time period for each predetermined sampling frequency has a least common multiple with the number of sampling points per sampling time period for every other predetermined sampling frequency (every group of numbers has a least common multiple by definition), such that the effective measurable beat frequency range spans distance ranges and Doppler velocities of interest ([0040]: “These benefits may be achieved without compromising, or without compromising as significantly (relative to systems not utilizing systems and techniques described herein) the range window, resolution, or update rate of the FMCW ladar system in some examples.”; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the method such that the effective measurable beat frequency range spans distance ranges and Doppler velocities of interest, since it has been held that if the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discover the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of Roos (US 2020/0241139 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Thorpe does not teach and Roos does teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured for generating a first true beat frequency value corresponding to a true beat frequency of an up-chirp segment, and for generating a second true beat frequency value corresponding to a true beat frequency of a down-chirp segment, and for determining a distance range and a Doppler velocity of an object of interest from the first and second true beat frequency values ([0063]: “ Processing temporal segments together from multiple interference signals corresponding to multiple laser beams may wholly and/or partially compensate for Doppler errors and/or speckle noise, or may be used to determine object speed in the direction of the incident laser beam.” Roos goes on to say that this method can be used to improve range estimates by averaging the respective beat signals, or determining velocity by differencing them.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thorpe with the teaching of Roos to calculate range and Doppler velocity from the up and down chirp beat frequencies. Roos notes in [0063] that this method allows for the compensation of Doppler error and/or speckle noise, resulting in higher quality retrievals of range and velocity. These are desirable characteristics in LiDAR devices, and can improve the safety of users and vehicles in which they are integrated.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of LaChapelle (US 11,119,219 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Thorpe discloses a LiDAR system comprising:
a LiDAR including a photodetector (Figure 1, element 114; [0026]) for receiving a mixed optical signal comprising a combination of an outgoing LiDAR chirped optical signal and a returning LiDAR chirped optical signal ([0026]: “The transceiver 108 may provide the reflected laser beam to the circulator 106. The circulator 106 may provide the reflected laser beam to the combiner 112. The combiner 112 may combine the local beam and the reflected laser beam to provide a combined beam, which may be directed onto a detector 114. The combined beam detected by the detector 114 may produce an interference signal corresponding to one or more range returns”), and generating from the mixed optical signal an electrical beat signal having a true beat frequency ([0039]: “ When combined at combiner 112, the LO and Rx optical fields may interfere to produce an interference signal, which may also be referred to as a beat note. The beat note may be detected by detector 114 and the detector 114 may provide an electrical signal indicative of the beat note (e.g., a voltage, current, or other electrical signal).”);
at least one analog to digital converter (ADC) for sampling the electrical beat signal ([0025]: “Examples are provided that use multiple analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) to disambiguate FMCW ladar range returns from one or more targets that may or may not be greater than the Nyquist frequencies of one or more of the ADCs.”) according to at least two predetermined sampling frequencies different from each other, and for generating respective at least two measured beat frequencies corresponding to the true beat frequency ([0046]); and
processing circuitry for receiving said at least two measured beat frequencies and configured to disambiguate the at least two measured beat frequencies, generating a candidate true beat frequency value ([0050]: “At least in part because the two frequencies measured by the first and second ADCs (f.sub.ADC1 and f.sub.ADC2) are different it may be possible to determine the “correct” f.sub.beat, and therefore the correct object range, even though f.sub.beat does not fall below the Nyquist frequency of the ADCs.”).
Thorpe does not teach and LaChapelle does teach wherein the photodetector is a photodiode (Column 10, Lines 30-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of LaChapelle to use a photodiode into the method of Thorpe. Photodiodes are a well-known class of photodetectors in the LiDAR arts, and a skilled worker would have found the substitution of a photodiode for a photodetector to yield predictable results.
Thorpe is silent on the structure of the LiDAR, but LaChapelle teaches a LiDAR comprising a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (Column 40, Lines 27-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the teaching of LaChapelle and stage the LiDAR components on a photonic integrated circuit. These circuits offer a means to make LiDAR devices more compact, thereby saving space aboard vehicles and other platforms in which they are installed.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from Claim 1, Thorpe further discloses wherein the at least one ADC samples in parallel the electrical beat signal from a single chirp segment (Figure 3, 304, The ADCs sample the detector in parallel here; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from Claim 2, Thorpe further discloses wherein the at least one ADC comprises multiple ADCs ([0044]: “While two digitizers are shown in FIG. 3, any number may be used in other examples, including 3, 4, 5, or 6 digitizers.”), at least one for each predetermined sampling frequency, each sampling in parallel a duplicate of the electrical beat signal from the single chirp segment (Figure 3, 304, The ADCs sample the detector in parallel here; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Thorpe further discloses wherein the configuration of the processing circuitry to disambiguate the at least two measured beat frequencies includes configuration of the processing circuitry for:
shifting each measured beat frequency of the at least two measured beat frequencies by integer multiples of their respective predetermined sampling frequencies generating shifted measured beat frequency values ([0053]: “For a given beat frequency measured by analog to digital converter 302, the possible beat frequencies may be given by f.sub.beat=2*m*N.sub.1+f.sub.ADC1, and f.sub.beat=2 n*N.sub.1−f.sub.ADC1, where m are positive integers starting at zero and n are positive integers starting at one.”); and
determining when the shifted measured beat frequency values coincide with each other within a selected tolerance, generating said candidate true beat frequency value ([0053]: “In some examples, it may be possible for the processor 118 to determine the “correct” beat frequency by determining the common f.sub.beat, from the sets of possible values of f.sub.beat computed from the frequencies measured by analog to digital converter 302 and analog to digital converter 304.“).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of LaChapelle as applied to Claim 1, and in view of Kee.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Thorpe suggests but does not explicitly teach and LaChapelle does not teach and Kee teaches wherein the at least one ADC serially samples the electrical beat signal from separate similar chirp segments ([0026]: “This integrated circuit may include a ranging receiver (such as a time-of-flight or an amplitude-sensitive ranging receiver) that includes an ADC having a time-variant sampling rate.”; [0026]: “the integrated circuit may include hysteresis in the sampling-rate adjustment, which may maintain an increased sampling rate for a time interval corresponding to the transmit signal (such as a pulse or symbol width, an inter-symbol waveform or, more generally, a coded waveform).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kee to serially sample similar segments into the system of Thorpe in view of LaChapelle. Kee notes in [0027] that “By sampling the return signal using a time-variant sampling rate, these circuit techniques may improve the performance of the ranging receiver. Notably, the time-variant sampling rate may reduce the noise that is sampled by the ranging receiver when the signal return time is long compared to the duration of the transmit signal (such as a long ranges). This may reduce the power consumption of the ranging receiver.” Improved performance and lower power consumption are highly desirable in any LiDAR system.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 4, Thorpe suggests but does not explicitly teach and LaChapelle does not teach and Kee does teach wherein the at least one ADC comprises a single ADC ([0026]: “This integrated circuit may include a ranging receiver (such as a time-of-flight or an amplitude-sensitive ranging receiver) that includes an ADC having a time-variant sampling rate.”; Figure 1, element 124) serially sampling ([0026]: “Alternatively or additionally, the sampling rate may be increased based at least in part on a predefined function (such as a closed-form expression or a stepwise function, e.g., a stairstep function) after the transmit signal is output.”) multiple similar electrical beat signals from said similar chirp segments one after another, at least one similar chirp segment for each predetermined sampling frequency ([0029]: “Notably, the sampling rate of the ADC may be a function of the received signal amplitude and/or a time after a transmit signal or waveform (such as a frequency-modulated continuous-wave or FMCW signal) was output.”; [0039]; The device is intended to sample beat signals in FMCW systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kee to serially sample similar segments into the system of Thorpe in view of LaChapelle. Kee notes in [0027] that “By sampling the return signal using a time-variant sampling rate, these circuit techniques may improve the performance of the ranging receiver. Notably, the time-variant sampling rate may reduce the noise that is sampled by the ranging receiver when the signal return time is long compared to the duration of the transmit signal (such as a long ranges). This may reduce the power consumption of the ranging receiver.” Improved performance and lower power consumption are highly desirable in any LiDAR system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of LaChapelle and in view of Druck (US 6,477,553 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from reject Claim 1, Thorpe in view of LaChapelle does not teach and Druck does teach wherein the predetermined sampling frequencies have been selected such that a number of sampling points per sampling time period for each predetermined sampling frequency is a prime number unequal to the number sampling points per sampling time period for every other predetermined sampling frequency (Column 5, Lines 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Druck to sample at frequencies corresponding to distinct prime numbers into the system of Thorpe in view LaChapelle. Druck notes in Column 5, Line 52 that “An efficient method is presented for sampling and thereby enabling the recording of, or measurements of objects, which is successful regardless of the irregularity or periodicity of the object.” LiDAR returns are often irregular given the frequent diversity of distances of target objects, so improved measurements of such signals in a desirable characteristic in such a device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of LaChapelle and in view of Cornic.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Thorpe in view of LaChapelle does not teach and Cornic does teach wherein the predetermined sampling frequencies are selected such that a number of sampling points per sampling time period for each predetermined sampling frequency is coprime with and unequal to the number sampling points per sampling time period for every other predetermined sampling frequency (Column 6, Lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thorpe in view of LaChapelle with the teaching of Cornic to use coprime sampling frequencies. Cornic notes in Column 6, Line 40 that “The measurement of F2 and F3 makes it possible, by known methods, to determine the unambiguous value of Fd corresponding to the relative radial speed between the carrier and the target.” Unambiguous determination of relative speed between a LiDAR device and a target is highly desirable to end users, and promotes safer behavior of vehicles and users.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of LaChapelle.
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Thorpe further discloses wherein the predetermined sampling frequencies are selected such that a number of sampling points per sampling time period for each predetermined sampling frequency has a least common multiple with the number of sampling points per sampling time period for every other predetermined sampling frequency (every group of numbers has a least common multiple by definition), such that the effective measurable beat frequency range spans distance ranges and Doppler velocities of interest ([0040]: “These benefits may be achieved without compromising, or without compromising as significantly (relative to systems not utilizing systems and techniques described herein) the range window, resolution, or update rate of the FMCW ladar system in some examples.”; [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system such that the effective measurable beat frequency range spans distance ranges and Doppler velocities of interest, since it has been held that if the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discover the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe in view of LaChapelle as applied to Claim 9, and in view of Roos.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 9, Thorpe in view of LaChapelle does not teach and Roos does teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured for generating a first true beat frequency value corresponding to a true beat frequency of an up-chirp segment, and for generating a second true beat frequency value corresponding to a true beat frequency of a down-chirp segment, and for determining a distance range and a Doppler velocity of an object of interest from the first and second true beat frequency values ([0063]: “ Processing temporal segments together from multiple interference signals corresponding to multiple laser beams may wholly and/or partially compensate for Doppler errors and/or speckle noise, or may be used to determine object speed in the direction of the incident laser beam.” Roos goes on to say that this method can be used to improve range estimates by averaging the respective beat signals, or determining velocity by differencing them.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thorpe in view of LaChapelle with the teaching of Roos to calculate range and Doppler velocity from the up and down chirp beat frequencies. Roos notes in [0063] that this method allows for the compensation of Doppler error and/or speckle noise, resulting in higher quality retrievals of range and velocity. These are desirable characteristics in LiDAR devices, and can improve the safety of users and vehicles in which they are integrated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights