DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-17 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “peak value” in claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17 is used by the claim to mean “pulse intensity,” while the accepted meaning is “maximum value.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, one cannot vary a peak value over the course of a signal because the peak value is a single value.
Claims 8-9 and 16 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “of the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal as a function of which the master laser beam is amplified and modulated.” The pump signal cannot be related as a function of the master laser amplification or modulation because the pump signal does not depend on the master laser amplification or modulation.
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, 6-7, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pureur et al., EP 3026455 A1 (“Pureur”).
Regarding claim 1, Pureur discloses A pulsed LiDAR comprising:
a master laser capable of emitting a master laser beam (Fig. 1, master laser 11, Paragraph [0030]);
a pulse generator arranged to generate a pump signal comprising at least one pulse (Fig. 1, optical pulse generator 14, Paragraph [0033]), a peak value of which varies over the course of said at least one pulse of said pump signal (Fig. 1, optical pulse generator 14, pulse rises and falls); and
a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) arranged to amplify and modulate the master laser beam as a function of the pump signal (Fig. 1, optical amplifier 13, Paragraph [0032]), the amplified and modulated master laser beam forming a measurement laser beam (Fig. 1, amplified laser beam Famp, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1, in which the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal comprises an average peak value over a time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal which is equal to an average peak value over another time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal (Fig. 1, optical pulse generator 14, Paragraph [0033]: first half and second half of pulse have same average value).
Regarding claim 7, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1, in which the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal comprises an average peak value over a time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal which is smaller than or greater than an average peak value over another time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal (Fig. 1, optical pulse generator 14, Paragraph [0033]: average peak value of time interval not containing rise or fall of pulse is greater than average peak value of time interval containing rise or fall of pulse).
Claims 10, 14, and 15 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1, 6, and 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur in view of Ortiz, US 20140269799 A1 (“Ortiz”).
Regarding claim 2, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1, in which the pulse generator comprises:
Pureur does not teach: an electrical generator arranged to produce a pulse signal; and
a control unit arranged to vary the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal by modulating at least one pulse of the pulse signal produced by the electrical generator.
However, Ortiz teaches a laser diode driver system for a MOPA. The driver system includes an electrical generator (Fig. 3, power supply Vsupply, Paragraph [0099]) and a control unit that varies value of the pump signal by modulating the signal produced from the electrical generator (Fig. 3, controller 230, second control terminal 223, Paragraph [0103]-[0104]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s optical pulse generator to include an electric generator and controller to vary the peak value of the pump signal, which is disclosed by Ortiz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve efficiency over traditional MOPA laser diode drivers, as suggested by Ortiz (Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 8, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1.
Pureur does not teach: in which the control unit comprises at least one switch arranged to control and/or modulate the pulse signal.
However, Ortiz teaches a laser diode driver system for a MOPA. The driver system includes current sink that contains a switch (Fig. 4, current sink 220, switch U8, Paragraph [0112]). The controller is in communication with the current sink to control the pulse of the laser diode (Fig. 3, controller 230, current sink 220, Paragraph [0103]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s optical pulse generator to include switch to control the pulse signal, which is disclosed by Ortiz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve efficiency over traditional MOPA laser diode drivers, as suggested by Ortiz (Paragraph [0108]).
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3-5, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur in view of Islam et al., US 20040042061 A1 (“Islam”).
Regarding claim 3, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1.
Pureur does not teach: in which the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal varies monotonically over at least one time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal.
However, Islam teaches an optical amplifier that includes one or more pump sources that generate pump signals that are delivered to a gain medium. The pump signals may be modulated such that they vary monotonically over at least one time interval of one pulse of the pump signal (Fig. 7b, modulated pump signal 805, Paragraph [0118]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s optical pulse generator by modulating the pump signal such that the signal varies monotonically over the time interval of one pulse of the pump signal, which is disclosed by Islam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve noise figures of the amplifier, as suggested by Islam (Paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 4, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1.
Pureur does not teach: of which the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal varies monotonically over the whole duration of the at least one pulse of the pump signal.
However, Islam teaches an optical amplifier that includes one or more pump sources that generate pump signals that are delivered to a gain medium. The pump signals may be modulated such that they vary monotonically over the whole duration of one pulse of the pump signal (Fig. 7b, modulated pump signal 805, Paragraph [0118]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s optical pulse generator by modulating the pump signal such that the signal varies monotonically over the time interval of one pulse of the pump signal, which is disclosed by Islam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve noise figures of the amplifier, as suggested by Islam (Paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 5, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1.
Pureur does not teach: in which the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal varies in an increasing manner over at least one time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal and/or varies in a decreasing manner over at least one time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal.
However, Islam teaches an optical amplifier that includes one or more pump sources that generate pump signals that are delivered to a gain medium. The pump signals may be modulated such that they decrease monotonically over the whole duration of one pulse of the pump signal (Fig. 7b, modulated pump signal 805, Paragraph [0118]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s optical pulse generator by modulating the pump signal such that the signal varies monotonically over the time interval of one pulse of the pump signal, which is disclosed by Islam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve noise figures of the amplifier, as suggested by Islam (Paragraph [0154]).
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claims 3 and 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Pureur, as modified in view of Islam, discloses The method according to claim 12, in which a frequency of at least one pulse of the signal amplified and modulated by the SOA is shifted (Pureur, Paragraph [0042]: frequency shift generated in SOA as a function of the pumping signal) as a function of a gradient of the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal over the at least one time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal over which the peak value is increasing, and/or as a function of a gradient of the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal over the at least one time interval of the at least one pulse of the pump signal over which the peak value is decreasing (Islam, Fig. 7b, modulated pump signal 805, Paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 16, Pureur discloses The method according to claim 10.
Pureur does not teach: comprising a measurement of data relating to a phase of the signal amplified and modulated by the [amplifier].
However, Islam teaches an optical amplifier that includes one or more pump sources that generate pump signals that are delivered to a gain medium. Measurement data is taken relating the gain of the signal output from the amplifier to the initial phase different of the modulated pump signal (Fig. 13a-b, Paragraph [0152]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s optical pulse generator by measuring the relation between the phase of the pump signals to the output of the SOA, which is disclosed by Islam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve noise figures of the amplifier, as suggested by Islam (Paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 17, Pureur, as modified in view of Islam, discloses The method according to claim 16, comprising a determination of the modulation of the at least one pulse of the pulse signal and/or the variation of the peak signal of the at least one pulse of the pump signal on the basis of data (Islam, Fig. 13a-b, Paragraph [0152]):
relating to the phase of the signal amplified and modulated by the SOA (Islam, Fig. 13a-b, Paragraph [0152]), and
of the peak value of the at least one pulse of the pump signal as a function of which the master laser beam is amplified and modulated (Islam, Fig. 13a-b, Paragraph [0152]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pureur in view of LaChapelle et al., US 20220043115 A1 (“LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 9, Pureur discloses The LiDAR according to claim 1.
Pureur does not teach: comprising a fibre optic amplifier arranged to amplify the amplified and modulated master laser beam.
However, LaChapelle teaches a fiber-optic amplifier placed after a semiconductor optical amplifier to amplify the beam from the SOA. (Fig. 13, SOA 460, fiber optic amplifier 500, Paragraph [0165]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pureur’s LIDAR system by adding a fiber optic amplifier after the SOA, which is disclosed by LaChapelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further increase the gain of the output laser beam, as suggested by LaChapelle (Paragraph [0166]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights