CTNF 18/552,928 CTNF 68930 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed on 9/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 9/28/2023 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449). Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112 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. 07-30-04 AIA Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim limitation “an optical frequency discriminator” and “laser sources” are not considered to invoke 112(f) since one of ordinary skilled in the art understands that the “optical frequency discriminator” and the “laser source” are structural elements in the art. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications , 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). 07-30-03-h AIA Claim interpretation Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable medium that stores generated bitstream. The bitstream is being treated as a product that is the result of the process (method). The steps are not required elements of claim(s), so they only limit the invention in terms of how they define the contents of the information in the bitstream. MPEP §2113 The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. If a language such as “…the steps executed by a processor…” is added to the clam(s), a broad interpretation as indicated above may be avoided. Claim Mapping Notation In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference. In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference. [0005] (Paragraph number [0005]) C5 (Column 5) Pa5 (Page 5) S5 (Section 5) Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-fti The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slotwinski (US 7139446 B2) in view of Roberts et al. (US 7200339 B1) . Regarding the claim 1, Slotwinski discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Slotwinski discloses, A light detection and ranging system, comprising: an output to output coherent laser light; C8 “This disclosure presents a technique for using polarization maintaining (PM) optical fiber components in a polarization diplexing scheme to construct a version of the dual chirp coherent laser radar” an optical frequency discriminator configured to apply optical frequency discrimination to a portion of the coherent laser light to generate frequency discriminated laser light; and … in the frequency discriminated laser light; C10 “Typically, the Mach Zehnder interferometer formed by the two couplers (130, 132) and the fibers between them, 131a, 131b, are, optionally, kept in a temperature-controlled container, 141, to prevent the fiber lengths from changing.” One of ordinary skilled in the art that the Mach Zehnder interferometer inherently has frequency-dependent response and used as a frequency discriminator. … Slotwinski does not disclose, a processor configured to determine laser phase noise in the frequency discriminated laser light; determine a laser phase noise compensation using the determined laser phase noise; and apply the laser phase noise compensation to a received light signal corresponding to the output coherent laser light. Roberts discloses, a processor configured to determine laser phase noise… C5 “The detected noise may be amplitude noise and/or phase noise. The detected noise is used to calculate a compensation scalar. The compensation scalar is used by a compensation processor to modify an input signal containing data to be transmitted by the optical communications system.” determine a laser phase noise compensation using the determined laser phase noise; and C5 “The detected noise may be amplitude noise and/or phase noise. The detected noise is used to calculate a compensation scalar. The compensation scalar is used by a compensation processor to modify an input signal containing data to be transmitted by the optical communications system.” apply the laser phase noise compensation to a received light signal corresponding to the output coherent laser light. C5 “The compensation scalar is used by a compensation processor to modify an input signal containing data to be transmitted by the optical communications system.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Lee and apply them on the teachings of Wittman to incorporate the weighted prediction of Lee when performing motion compensation prediction in Wittman as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated as implementing weighted prediction is a well-known scheme that would improve image in the system of Wittman as taught by Lee. Unless stated otherwise, the same explanation for the rationale for the following dependent claims applies as given for the independent claim. 4. The light detection and ranging system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one laser source configured to generate the coherent laser light. Slotwinski C8 “This disclosure presents a technique for using polarization maintaining (PM) optical fiber components in a polarization diplexing scheme to construct a version of the dual chirp coherent laser radar” 5. The light detection and ranging system of claim 4, further comprising: wherein the at least one laser source comprises at least one frequency modulated continuous wave laser source. Slotwinski C8 “This disclosure presents a technique for using polarization maintaining (PM) optical fiber components in a polarization diplexing scheme to construct a version of the dual chirp coherent laser radar that is totally immune to environmental effects. FIG. 2 illustrates such a laser radar optical configuration, 10. The laser light is generated by two PM fiber pigtailed laser diodes (101, 102).” 6. The light detection and ranging system of claim 4, further comprising: wherein the at least one laser source comprises a plurality of laser sources; the light detection and ranging system further comprising an optical coupler to provide a plurality of coherent laser light beams to output as the coherent laser light and to provide the portion of the coherent laser light to the optical frequency discriminator. Slotwinski C8 “This disclosure presents a technique for using polarization maintaining (PM) optical fiber components in a polarization diplexing scheme to construct a version of the dual chirp coherent laser radar that is totally immune to environmental effects. FIG. 2 illustrates such a laser radar optical configuration, 10. The laser light is generated by two PM fiber pigtailed laser diodes (101, 102).” Slotwinski C8 “The light from each laser is received by two fiber optic couplers (108, 109) each with a nominal 50% coupling ratio.” 7. The light detection and ranging system of claim 1, wherein the optical frequency discriminator comprises a Mach-Zender interferometer based discriminator. Slotwinski C10 “Typically, the Mach Zehnder interferometer formed by the two couplers (130, 132) and the fibers between them, 131a, 131b, are, optionally, kept in a temperature-controlled container, 141, to prevent the fiber lengths from changing.” One of ordinary skilled in the art that the Mach Zehnder interferometer inherently has frequency-dependent response and used as a frequency discriminator. 8. The light detection and ranging system of claim 1, further comprising: a receiver configured to receive a light signal. Slotwinski C7 “In an FM laser radar device, a portion of the transmitted beam is split from the incident light wave and forms the local oscillator, which is then mixed with the returned energy. In a coherent laser radar the beat frequency produced will be equal to: Beat frequency=f(t)-f(t+.tau.)=(.DELTA.f/.DELTA.t).tau.” 9. The light detection and ranging system of claim 8, further comprising: wherein the receiver comprises a photo diode. C10 “FIG. 4 illustrates processing of the optical signal using DSP circuitry (18). The optical signal from the reflected signal path is converted into an electrical signal by means of a photodiode detector circuit (180, equivalent to detector D1 (116) and detector D2 (117) in FIG. 2).” Regarding the claims 12-20, they recite elements that are at least included in the claims 1-3, 11, 11, and 1-4 above but in a different claim form. Therefore, the same rationale for the rejection of the claims 1-3, 11, 11, and 1-4 applies. Regarding the storage medium in the claims, given that the references disclose processor and/or computer for the light detection systems, it is considered inherent that a non-transitory computer readable medium would have been utilized. Furthermore, the preamble of the “vehicle” in claims 17-20 are not given patentable weight since the body of the claim does not give meaning to the “vehicle” language . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2, 3, 10 and 11 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 the claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 applicants uniquely claimed distinct features, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in an obvious combination of all the limitation of the claim, the distinct features being… to determine the laser phase noise compensation by applying a first filter function implementing the inverse characteristic of the optical frequency discriminator to provide a pre-compensation signal . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rolland et al. (US 20200014167 A1) and Morton et al. (US 20180054040 A1) disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention . A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N. NOH whose telephone number is (571) 270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JAE N NOH/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 2 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 3 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 4 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 5 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 6 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 7 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 18/552,928 Page 8 Art Unit: 2481
Prosecution Insights